I had already made a preliminary post about the Grand Soleil 44, a very nice design from which good things were to be expected, you can access it here:
But expectations do not always come true, and now, after some tests in different wind conditions, by different sail testers from sail magazines, it is time to see if those expectations came true, and if this beautiful yacht sails as well as it looks.
Looking at the design data and hull shape, I would have expected a boat with an excellent performance in light wind, a very good to excellent performance upwind, especially in light and medium winds and a good performance downwind (excellent in lighter winds). A yacht that in its racing configuration could do very well in a regatta, even at top level.
It is soon to see how well it performs in regatta, but in what the other predictions are concerned the different test sails confirmed the boat potential in light and medium winds. No test was yet made with winds over 20k, but I don't see any reason for the boat not to perform in those conditions according to expectations.
The sail test from "TuttoBarche" magazine has taken place under light wind conditions and it is probably for that reason that it is the most flattering of all test sails to date, in fact they seem to have been astonished by the superb light wind performance. The tested yacht was a mix between the cruising and racing versions, with carbon spars, six winches and lighter furniture (no cabinets in the saloon) but with teak decks and cruising sails.
They said that with only 4/5 kt of wind and code 0, they sailed at 7.0 kt at 35/40º of apparent wind. They considered the GS44 ability to make apparent wind incredible. With 7/8 kt wind, the boat sailed at near 9kts. Changed for a 110% genoa and they reported:
"We opened the smaller sail and the magic continued, now we really tighten to the wind, we pointed below 30 degrees, and we still sail at 8 knots. At 24 degrees of apparent wind, we are making 7.8 k, and the GS 44 crosses the waves almost without slowing down...no one touches a sheet, I helm from windward with incredible simplicity, the wheel has a millimeter precision".
With 10 kt of wind with the code 0, between 70º and 110º, they sailed between 9 and 10 kt, surfing in the waves at 11, 12kts and they commented: "there are 10 knots of real wind and this boat goes like a missile" and concluded:
"The new GS 44 Performance is a crazy boat. Associate uncommon performance with ease of use that, honestly, I have never encountered before. These hull lines are not only spot on, they are a new world or, if you prefer, a new way of sailing, different from what we have seen and tried to date. Briefly, I could define this boat as a 44-foot that goes like a 50 and that maneuvers like a ten-meter."
"Simple and fast, the new GS 44 Performance has hit the mark, creating a real fun machine, as perfect for racing as it is comfortable and simple for cruising, with family and friends who, inevitably, will have a lot of fun chasing and to “putting in the rearview mirror” any and all sailboats that come into view."
After these words, Matteo Polli's (yacht designer) comments, when he test sailed the boat for the first time, seem less laudatory, reasonable and accurate (quoted from Sea Horse Magazine):
"With the helm in my hands, I was able to judge the characteristics of the boat in various different wind conditions: the GS44 sailed well at all speeds, both upwind and downwind, confirming my expectations as a pleasant and fun hull to be at sea with, especially thanks to the ability to make careful and precise adjustments to the sails and the well-designed deck layout. Even in windier conditions, pointing high on the wind and at a steep angle of heel, the helm responds well."
"You can even afford some handling errors: her stability allows you to carry full sail even in strong winds, an interesting aspect for a boat that does not necessarily rely on having the weight of a full crew on the gunwale."
"We had a range of conditions between 6kts and 14kts with sea state from calm to 0.5m waves with a pretty long wavelength. The boat was equipped with a cruising fully battened mainsail and furling jib plus a furling Code 0 and sailed in double-handed mode.
Unfortunately, the instruments were not calibrated so we had the chance to check the speed but not the angles. That said, even with cruising sails the boat speed read-outs were promising. Top speed close-hauled was 8.2kts and 15.5kts was achieved on a beam reach with a Code 0, which is remarkable for a production cruiser-racer."
"The GS44 being larger and with a more cruiser-racer soul compared to more racing-oriented designs I did in the past, needed a diverse approach on the hull shape. Extensive use of CFD allowed me to find the best compromise between rating and performance while trying to maximize real performance, which is always important even when racing on handicap. "
"More attention was paid to the low wind range, where boats with such a high level of comfort tend to lack speed and fun factor. The most important feature of the hull is the ability to change the shape characteristics as the heel angle varies, passing from a relatively narrow, dry and low prismatic shape when upright to a wide, powerful and longer shape at higher heel angles.
It is particularly challenging trying to achieve this goal while maintaining the correct longitudinal trim balance and of course the volume for the interiors."
"The result can be easily seen looking at the boat from the stern and when entering in the saloon… hopefully soon we will also see it on the racing results! The GS 44 is very much an all-rounder. From the design perspective, I have tried to achieve an all-round performance profile without preferring one range of points of sail to another, looking for a balance that could be enjoyed both when racing and when cruising."
"Of course particular attention has been paid to VMG performance since it often represents the largest percentage of sailing, not only during inshore racing....Two things worth noting are the single rudder and lack of chines in the boat’s aft quarters. That decision has many reasons behind it. And it’s not really true that a single rudder blade configuration makes a boat more difficult to steer provided it is designed correctly."
"The twin rudders and chined hull combination works well at high heel angles and high speeds, but that only happens when power reaching in strong winds. On all other points of sail and also when mooring, a well-designed single rudder can be more efficient. For the GS44 I have designed a fairly big rudder blade and positioned it quite far forward to avoid ventilation at high heel angles. "
"This created some problems with the boat’s interiors, which the yard staff solved brilliantly and the result when sailing is remarkable. Pushing the boat hard at true wind angles of even less than 90° under a big Code 0 in 12-14kts and with 25° to 30° of heel, I never managed to lose control at the helm which is surely reassuring. The GS44’s big foretriangle is another key design feature. Large headsails help in acceleration not only out of tacks but also during starts, and it is particularly evident in light wind situations..."
Mauro Giuffrè that test sailed the boat for the "Giornale della vela" said: "Comfortable. This is the first sensation that we feel at the helm of the Grand Soleil 44. where comfortable, in this case, is the easiness while steering a true performance boat".
"At the helm the GS44 is precise and while correcting the course, in gusts, it gradually swerves to lean on the knee of the stern. At that point the inclination of the hull stops, or it increases even more slowly, giving a great feeling of stability and acceleration, as the waterline length increases."
With 12k true wind with a 110% gennaker at 25º to the apparent wind, the boat sailed between 7.3/7.5kt. With Code 0 with 60º apparent wind, sailed between 8.3/9.0kt.
With no French, Spanish or Nordic tests yet, the less enthusiastic sail review, and sail test, was the one made by Michael Good, for the German magazine "Yacht", the biggest European Sail magazine.
With German pragmatism, he points out that due to the fine hull entries, even if the GS has a small sail locker in the bow, the forward cabin is not wide on the forward side, and that, at shoulder level, the available space is only 1.25 meters, and that is a bit tight for two adults.
Obviously, that can be solved by sleeping with the feet towards the bow...but the reading lights are at the bow side, and all is conceived to sleep the other way around. He is right, the space should be redesigned reversing the sleeping position, with the feet to the bow, with all necessary design implications that imply.
He complains that the saloon is nicely designed but with little storage, though of course, if you want you can have cabinets on the saloon (Performance cruising version) even if you chose in all other components the Racing version. In fact, you can have your proper mix, between the racing and the performance version.
He also says that the storage space outside is not much, and again I agree. The sail locker is small, there is a dedicated space for a life-raft and a reasonably sized locker on the cockpit floor but there is no storage space under the cockpit seats, being all space used to give more interior volume to the aft cabins.
If you want to use this boat for cruising and living aboard for considerable periods, probably you will have to use one of the aft cabins for storage, unless you don't stay much at anchor. He complains also that, for the ones that need to use a cabin for storage, this would be better achieved if the boat had a two-cabin version, allowing for a smaller cabin/storage space and for a truly decent-sized chart table and seat, instead of the small one that is provided.
Racing version interior
I agree that for some sailors, including me, a two-cabin version would be more interesting even if I would choose to prolong the galley over a bigger chart table, but I know that the three-cabin version would be much more popular, and can understand the savings that are obtained proposing a single interior layout, but still believe some would be glad to pay more for that solution.
He had bad luck because the boat he tested had the rudder cables too tight, and that made for a hard rudder with a lack of sensibility. Because this contradicts what other test sailors said about the rudder feeling and precision I assume this was a problem with that particular boat.
Performance cruising interior
Besides that, in what regards sailing, he says about the same as the others, that the boat is very good with light wind, that is very dynamic while maneuvering and that it allies power and fun in a very pleasant and satisfactory way.
So, by now, you should be thinking: well, that's a lot of data, but what I want to know is what difference this boat has in what regards other fast performance sailboats with different hulls, for instance, how it sails compared with a Solaris 44, or a Pogo 44? Ok, let's accept the challenge and try to explain the differences, the stronger and weaker sailing and cruising points of each one of them.
Pogo 44 interior
Starting with the Pogo 44, which is really a smaller yacht (not a 44ft boat but a 42ft boat) with a hull lenght of 12.80m (GS - 13.40), but even so a much beamier boat, with a 4.5m beam (GS - 4.27), with an ultra-light building, and to save weight, a very simple interior that dismisses all interior trims and materials that provide insulation, and even dismisses all doors, with the exception of the head one, a spartan and less comfortable interior.
The Pogo displaces only 6900kg (GS: 9000 - 9500kg) with a non-discriminated ballast and a swing keel with 1.38/3.10m draft, while the GS has a 2.40 to 2.80m draft. However, if the boats were the same length, the Pogo would be proportionally heavier, having, maybe, around 8200 kg displacement.
Besides length, displacement and beam, the hull form is completely different, not only due to beam, but also due to transom shape. The Pogo is a boat designed to sail with small angles of heel and to provide maximum stability and power on a beam reach, and downwind, while the GS 44 has a hull that is designed to offer minimum wet water surface when sailing with small angles of heel. It was a hull that "has the ability to change the shape characteristics as the heel angle varies, passing from a relatively narrow, dry and low prismatic shape when upright to a wide, powerful and longer shape at higher heel angles".
These characteristic give the GS44 a much better sail performance in light winds and upwind, and even if the hull characteristics mentioned by his designer minimize the losses on beam reaching and downwind potential, if compared with a more traditional hull maximized for upwind and light wind, like the one of the J45, it will never have the power or hull form stability of Pogo's hull, while power reaching or sailing downwind, with high-medium, or strong winds.
On a circumnavigation, on a Transat, or sailing on the trade winds, the Pogo will be a faster and easier boat to sail, but on variable and coastal conditions, with weaker and variable winds, with more of a 50% of upwind and downwind conditions, the GS44 will be faster. On coastal traditional regattas, with upwind and downwind sailing, the GS44 will always win and I don't mean in compensated (where it will be hugely faster) but in real-time, over the water.
In what regards offshore regattas or races, it will depend on the conditions. On a Transat, the Pogo will be faster, probably it will be faster also on the Caribean 600, or any other offshore race with a lot more beam reaching and downwind sailing, than upwind sailing, and where the winds are high-medium to strong.
On a Fastnet, it will depend on the edition, on the Sydney Hobart the Pogo will be slower, as well as on Med and Baltic races. On races with a fair share of upwind and downwind sailing, and a fair share of different wind conditions, the GS44, will always be faster, unless very unusual conditions prevail, and I am always talking about real-time over the water, because on compensated time (handicap racing), maybe except on a Transat, the GS 44 will always win.
Regarding cruising advantages, the Pogo offers the fantastic potential of a swinging keel, that when up has a draft of only 1.38m, allowing the boat to go to any small and swallow port or anchoring where others will not be able to. It offers a very stable platform, sails with a small heel, and offers great fun and ease in sailing very fast with beam and downwind winds, with the advantage of being easy on the autopilot.
GS 44 Racing Version
It offers also an unbeatable price for the performance, especially if we consider that a swing keel with all ballast on the keel is expensive. The Pogo costs standard almost 50 000 euros less than the GS44 and that difference will be even bigger on fully equipped boats.
As for disadvantages, the Pogo is an uncomfortable boat to sail upwind, slamming where the GS44 will go smoothly, it has no interior insulation, it has almost no outside storage space and it has a functional luminous interior that many will find too stark and devoided of coziness, with no doors, small cabin cabinets, very basic and with little storage.
Pogo 44
While on the GS44, due to the outside storage, it is possible to live and sail on the boat using the three cabins, on the Pogo, in any extensive cruising, one of the cabins will have to be used as storage space, due to the almost absence of outside storage space.
It would be tempting to say that Solaris 44, in what regards sailing characteristics, is in between the Pogo and the GS, but it would not be entirely true.
Although the Solaris 44, due to the transom design, seems beamier than the GS44, actually it is narrower, with a 4.18m beam (GS - 4.27) and it is also a bit smaller in length, even if it is hard to say how much because they don't give the hull length, only the overall length (43.8ft). However, the 41.7 LWL indicates that it is a smaller yacht, maybe a 43ft.
Solaris 44
These three yachts have very different hulls, all very well designed but maximized for different purposes. In what regards transom design the one of the Solaris will not allow the excellent light wind performance of the GS, but will allow a better one, if we compare it with Pogo's light wind performance.
If compared with Pogo, the Solaris will also have a better upwind performance, because Solaris hull transom shape allows more heel without increasing so much drag. This is true also on stronger conditions where Pogo will have a disproportional increase of wave drag, due to its much beamier hull.
GS44 Performance version
To understand better those differences you can follow the performance of Hermes, a Pogo 12.50, and Baltazar a Solaris 44, on the 2019 Caribbean 600 edition, which was raced with medium-high winds and that as usual, was mostly beam reaching/downwind sailing with very little upwind sailing. Look how the Pogo goes away downwind, and how the Solaris 44 catches up on the small upwind legs:
Due to the very particular GS44 hull design, even considering the narrower hull of the Solaris (4.18 - 4.27) and its bigger B/D, probably only with stronger winds and only upwind will the Solaris be able to match the GS44 performance, unless there is a full crew sitting on the side of the GS44.
However, the comparison between these two boats is difficult due to the vagueness and confusion regarding the GS44 displacement and ballast, which, in different documents from the shipyard, varies a lot: the hull between 9000 and 9500kg and the ballast between 2700 and 3000kg. I asked for a clarification from the shipyard, but I have received none.
Gs44, Pogo 44, Solaris 44
For the same draft and keel, it's very different to have a 9500kg displacement yacht with a 2700kg ballast or a 9000kg one with 3000kg ballast. One will have a 28% B/D, the other 33%, a very considerable difference that will give it a very different performance upwind with stronger winds as well as a better performance beam reaching, with medium-high to higher winds.
And then there is also the problem, that I have referred to in previous posts, regarding too optimistic projected design displacements, that later. when the boat is built, have no correspondence with the real boat displacement, and that most of the time are not corrected on the shipyard site.
That was not the case with Solaris 44, which was initially given with a 9900kg displacement, and then corrected to 10500kg. But even so, the Farewell IV, a Solaris 44 that has made some races on the Italian ORC championship, displaces, according to its ORC file, 11433kg without sails or tankage and 12778kg in sailing condition.
This yacht seems not to have carbon spars and almost for sure it could be lighter, but it is certainly lighter than most Solaris 44 that are bought for cruising. Regarding the first announced displacement and the weight of Farewell IV (without sails or tankage), there is a 1533 kg difference, that was reduced to 933kg, when they modified, on the shipyard information, the displacement attributed to the Solaris 44.
GS44, Pogo44, Solaris 44
The Solaris 44 has a 3600kg ballast but considering the same standard torpedo keel with 2.60m draft, this ballast has a different meaning on a boat with 9900kg, 10500kg or 11433, giving respectively a 36.4%BD, a 34.3%B/D and a 31.5%B/D and the sail performance will vary the way it was described above for the GS44, with a bigger or smaller B/D.
The GS44 is too new to find any ORC file, but as a way to see if the divergence in displacements given by the shipyard and the real measured displacement is so big as on the Solaris case, we can look at the GS44 big brother, the GS48, that has already a ORC certificate.
The Athyris was the first GS48 built, an R version (Racing), not the full carbon one, but with lighter furniture, with spars and other items in carbon, racing big draft keel, a version that according to the shipyard is 1000kg lighter than the Performance version.
The GS48 shipyard displacement is 10500kg, the ORC Athyris measured displacement, without sails or tankage, is 11327kg, adifference of about 827kg.In sailing condition the Athyris displaces 12651kg.
They could say that 10500kg is the displacement of the full carbon version, but if so a 1000kg difference to the performance version seems far-fetched and taking into consideration the fiberglass hull and deck, the smaller draft (and bigger ballast), the teak deck, the aluminum spars, it should be more than that, and I bet the performance version, without sails or tankage, will displace about 12300/12500kg (and not 11500kg). If we consider that the GS48 is a bigger yacht, even so, perhaps a smaller difference between the given and real displacement on the numbers given by GS shipyard, if compared with Solaris' ones.
Grand Soleil 44
With this incertitude regarding the real boat's displacement, and the ballast used in different keel versions, it is more difficult to make conclusions, but assuming that between these two brands the difference in the displacement given by the shipyard, and the real one, is not very different, the Solaris 44 has a superior B/D for a similar keel and it will sail probably faster upwind with strong wind (unless there is a crew seated on the GS44 side).
Pogo44, bellow Solaris 44
Downwind with medium-high to strong winds, the Solaris, even if not probably faster, it will be easier to sail by a short crew, with less heel, and on strong sea conditions with big waves, it will roll less, being also probably easier to be sailed (on those conditions) on auto-pilot.
The GS 44 will be faster and more fun to sail in light and medium winds, and in what regards racing and overall performance, will be always faster than the Solaris 44, unless in very specific and limited offshore situations. If the boat is used for racing and cruising the more adequate boat will be the GS 44, for cruising it depends on the sailor's preferences.
The superior Solaris aptitude in stronger conditions upwind is a relative one, and I don't have doubts that even, if not subjected to those conditions in any test (yet), the GS44, due to its fine entries, hull design, draft, ballast/type of keel, will have the power to have a good performance upwind in strong conditions, and anyway, those are conditions that most cruisers avoid (sailing upwind with more than 20kt).
The sail hardware is of similar quality, with the difference (on the GS44) of having as option transversal rails for the small genoa. Both yachts offer similar equipment and the possibility of having very good and complete sail hardware, even if on both cases, fore having a top one, there is the need of selecting several options, on the GS case, from de "Racing" version.
GS44
The interiors have a similar quality (I have not been yet inside the GS 44, only inside the GS48) but offer, by design, a different feel and liking more one than another is as much a personal thing as preferring the sailing characteristics of the Grand Soleil over the ones of Solaris, but regarding that, you will have no problem in choosing, and I hope that in what regards sailing characteristics this article will help.
The main difference is that the Solaris offers a true chart table with a dedicated seat while the GS only offers a small one, using not a more comfortable dedicated seat, but the salon seat. For some that will be a big issue, others could not care less. On the Grand Soleil there is the possibility of choosing between the lighter interior of the racing version and the one of the Performance version, with cabinets on the saloon.
GS44
Regarding storage, if we consider the GS44 Performance version with cabinets on the saloon, the difference in storage will not be big, even if the Solaris has cabinets on the forward cabin and I am not sure about that on the GS performance version (no information), and there is more storage space on the galley superior cabinets, where the GS does not present a great solution. Maybe they will improve it on the Performance version.
In the outside storage, the Solaris sail locker seems a bit bigger and more usable (less narrow) and there is storage under one of the seats, while on the Grand Soleil both spaces under the seats are used for increasing the space on the aft cabins. This is somewhat compensated by the bigger space on the stern under the cockpit that is provided by the GS, due to his more advanced ruder position.
Anyway, two great performance cruising boats, with the GS44 offering more versatility in what regards the possible combinations between a faster version, more race-oriented, or a simpler and cheaper version, more cruising oriented.
Gs44, Pogo44, Solaris 44
In regards to building, all three boats use vacuum infusion, fiberglass and a sandwich with a foam core.
The Pogo uses polyester resins and only uses vinylester on the outer layer. The bulkheads are made of cored fiberglass.
Only on the GS Racing version are used fiberglass sandwich on the main bulkheads, on the performance version they are made of maritime plywood (bonded and laminated to hull and deck).
On the GS44 hull and deck are made with a fiberglass sandwich having Airex (high-quality PVC foam) as core and vynilester resins. They also use carbon fibers where bigger reinforcements are needed, namely on the keel structure.
As it is normal, on the three boats, monolithic laminate is used on the keel areas, hull windows, and through-the-hull passage areas.
On the Solaris 44 the forward and main bulkheads are made of sandwich composite, on the others they use plywood.
Airex is used as core in hull and deck, carbon reinforcements are used on the boat structure, but in what regards the used resin, even if some boats have been made with epoxy resin, on the technical building specifications the type of resin is not mentioned.
There are several types of resins, but not even the best Polyester resins are as good as Vinylester resins, which are epoxy-based resins, and Vynilseter resins are not as good as true Epoxy resins.
GS 44
The prices grow, from Polyester to Epoxy, being Epoxy resins several times more expensive than good Polyester resins.
Vynilester and Epoxy resins are waterproof and have other superior characteristics. Polyester resins are not truly waterproof, with time they absorb water, and that's why on boats with hulls where polyester resins are used, many times the first fiberglass coat, the one that will have contact with the water, is made with vinylester resins.
Regarding prices, the Pogo 44, which is a 42ft boat, is the least expensive and a decently equipped boat will cost about 350000 euros (plus VAT) and discounts are not to be expected. On the GS 44 and the Solaris 44 (43ft?) a small discount is possible and in the end, between these two the prices will be very similar and a relatively well-equipped boat will cost just a bit more than 400,000 euros (plus VAT).
When we come closer to another America’S cup (6 - 12 March) and are already near the final series that will decide who will be the Challenger that will try to beat the New Zealander Defender (13 - 22 February), a big controversy seems to be developing about the new yachts, and its adequacy as the chosen Yacht for racing the America’s cup.
It’s time to participate in that controversy about the AC75, but I will do that informed by a historical perspective about what America’s cup is, and has been, and I will invite you to give your personal opinion on the comments, taking into consideration what America’s cup historically represents.
Prada Cup- credits studio-borlenghi
This edition of the Vendée Globe brought a lot more public to sailing and the same is going to happen with this America’s cup, because these are the fastest and more spectacular boats ever and contrary to what some purists think, that is what attracts public, the spectacle.
But not all is well with this America’s Cup, being obviously the main issue the very short number of challengers, only 3 when on some editions there were 11. It is necessary to understand how we arrived here, on an edition with the fastest regatta boats on the planet but with so few entries. If we want the America's Cup to be truly a World's Cup, it is necessary to reverse that trend.
Let’s have a look at America’s Cup past and history to try to understand what should change and what should be maintained to warrant it has a central role in the sailing panorama and that it will boost public interest, making sailing a more popular sport.
America as a denomination for the cup is a confusing one because it has nothing to do with the continent, nor with the United States of America, it is just the name of the Yacht that won the first race of what would become America’s cup. So, it is really all about the Cup that was once won by a yacht called America, even if that yacht was an American one.
Yacht America - 1851
That race was not even in America but around the Island of Wight and it took place as part of the celebrations of the 1851 World Fair. Contrary to what it is today, it was not a match race between two yachts but a “normal” coastal race, in open waters, disputed by many yachts, regular yachts of the time, not specifically designed for winning that race under a set of particular circumstances, as it is today.
The Yacht America entry was made by the New York yacht club. It was an American yacht with an American crew and the British were frustrated and pissed with an American victory in their home waters. The challenge starts from there, a re-match in New York to bring back to the UK the cup America Yacht had “stolen” to Britain on the Isle of Wight. A Cup that started to be known as America’s Cup.
Yacht America - 1851
But now the American yacht (not the Yacht America anymore) was specifically designed to win that race, that was still a coastal open water race, but with the race location chosen by the Americans (New York Yacht Club) that could maximize the design for the local conditions, while the British had to race on a yacht seaworthy enough to cross the North Atlantic and therefore a heavier and slower boat. This was essentiality the reason why the British were never able to beat the Americans.
In fact, it was an almost impossible task but they kept trying, unsuccessfully, for more than a century. As it was put by a prominent American Yacht designer, Clinton Hoadley Crane: "America's Cup racing has never led to good sportsmanship. The attitude of the New York Yacht Club [...] has been more that of a man in the forward position at war who has been ordered to hold his position at all costs – at all costs."
Shamrock IV versus Resolute - 1920
The America’s cup had not in its first century the regularity that has now and between 1851 and 1958, the year that saw the introduction of the 12-meter class to race the event, only 17 Cups were raced and exclusively disputed between the Americans and the UK (England and Scotland) with the exception of 1876 and 1881 were the challenger was Canadian.
Between 1914 and 1937 America’s Cup yachts were designed through the Universal Rule that created the J class. It allowed for the first time similar yachts that represented the best of the technology at the time. Well, similar just in shape, because they had to be built on the Challenger country and had to sail on their own hull to the America's Cup, and that allowed American boats to have a lighter built and a lower displacement.
J-Class Resolute 1920
Between 1937 and 1958 (WWII) there were no challenges. The 1958 edition was raced on a smaller Yacht designed under a rule that existed since 1907 and that ruled the boats used on the Olympic games of 1908, 1912, and 1920, the 12-meter class designed under the international rule.
With the 12m class, the America’s Cup passed from a vanguard design event in Yacht design, raced in the fastest sailboats, to retro design, with a rule that was based on the type of sail yachts that were designed 50 years before. The rule formula, through Chain Girth, effectively prevented modern torpedo keels, modern beam, and modern draft (for a racer), and it is just incredible as an old formula producing outdated sailing boats, lasted for 29 years on an event that had been always been about the fastest sailboat!
It says much about the conservative spirit of many sailors, that is confirmed when some, today, still see this period as the golden age of the America’s cup, instead of a dark period, where the boat evolution remained on small details, not on big breakthrough and groundbreaking innovations that would have contributed to sail yacht design development and too much faster sailboats.
J-Class Ranger 1937
Curiously, contrary to what the name seems to indicate the 12-meter class is not a 12 meter yacht, referring the 12 meters to the result of a complex formula. In fact, the yachts have between 20 and 23 meters, typically a full keel and a small draft for a racing boat of that size (about 2.7m). In the last years, because they could not increase draft without losing a lot on other parameters, they had massively oddly designed bulbed keels.
This class allowed yachts smaller and less expensive than the previous J class (36 to 42m), billionaire's yachts, but it proved not to be able to provide inexpensive yachts, and gave a greater role to design in what regards the adaptation to the very particular conditions that were to be met in Newport, where the event took place and to extract all speed from an outdated formula. In the words of Halsey C. Herreshoff: “the International Rule is an inelegant arbitrary formula that controls and restricts the design of these boats within narrow limits.“
12-meter class, Weatherly - 1962
But even if the boats were slow, due to rule, the development and money needed to make a slower boat faster than other slower boats was absurd, or as it has been put by Lawrence Livermore: “The America’s Cup has moved away from being a sport where the skill of the crew counts, you need the best scientific minds to win. I’m spending more computer time on this 12-meter than I would designing a submarine. If we win, it will be because we controlled the knowledge base.”
Or in the words of Tom Blackaller, referring to America’s Cup and the 12 meter class: “Sailing is a cross between war and business. If you try to compete under the assumption this is a sport, you’ll never know what hit you.”
In 1962 for the first time, the challenge comes not from UK but from Australia. The Australian yacht won one of the four races and finished another one close enough to lead the Americans to immediately change the rules, forbidding the use of American technology and design by the cup challengers.
Australia II - 1983
The 1983 edition was a special one; it was the edition where for the first time the Americans were defeated….and by the Australians, after six consecutive attempts as a challenger. That was also the year America’s Cup came closer to become a World’s championship with 7 yachts from 5 nationalities disputing the right to be the challenger.
Before 1983 America’s cup was almost an exclusively American, UK, and Australian affair. Till 1970 no more than two nations disputed the right to be challenger, and no more than 3 till 1983.
In the next edition (1987) the international success of America’s Cup continued, 4 Australian yachts disputed the right to be the Defender, while 25 Yachts from 6 countries disputed the right to be the challenger. An American yacht won the series, beating the Australian yacht, bringing it back to America.
Compare Australia II hull and kell with the ones of a racer designed 14 years before.
Already for some years, the 12m yachts have become strange, having lost the long keels in favor of odd-looking bulbed massive keels. The low draft and narrow beam, a need imposed by the rules, resulted in heavy boats with big overhangs. It was ridiculous to dispute a true World Cup in such outdated sailing boats and even if the American Defender had decided to maintain them for a 1994 edition, a New Zealand Syndicate issued the first hostile Deed of gift challenge in America’s Cup history.
Because no agreement was reached in what regards the choice of boats, this edition would be disputed under a strict interpretation of the deed of gift and the yachts would have very little limitation being the more obvious a maximum of 90 feet (27 m) length, or less at the waterline (if they had only one mast).
The NZ 1994 challenger
But what would have been a very interesting challenge, in what regards sailing yacht development, turned sour because while the New Zealanders built the fastest monohull to date, the Americans chose to race on a catamaran, that was even faster, but that was an obvious mismatch to the spirit of the event, that was based on racing in yachts with similar characteristics.
It ended up in the American court that firstly attributed the Cup to New Zealand, due to a race between a catamaran and monohull being a gross mismatch and against the spirit of the Cup, but later the Supreme Court reversed the decision and the cup stayed in the United States.
This sad episode had at least a big benefice: after this, it would have been even more ridiculous to continue racing on boats based on an 81-year- old rule, boats hugely dated and with a poor and very outdated performance even if their development needed to be faster than the one of the neighbor cost a fortune.
A new box rule was created, one that would provide faster yachts and that would be used in the next five editions, the International America’s Cup Class (IACC). The new box rule, was intended “to produce wholesome day sailing monohulls of similar performance while fostering design developments that will flow through to the mainstream of yachting”.
IACC 1992 French Yacht
A committee of designers (22) and prospective owners developed the Rule prior to the 1992 America’s Cup. Unfortunately, the new rules limited the hull beam to 4.5 meter and that in a 25-meter boat would imply narrow boats with a huge ballast (79%B/D) and that meant that the boats would be much lighter than the previous ones, due to considerably more draft, but still heavy boats, that were fast upwind but would not be able to plane downwind, being overall slow boats that could be easily beaten by other yachts of the same size without these restrictions on beam.
Not properly the F1 of the seas that we would have liked to see on America’s cup but a big improvement over the previous yachts.
Hard to understand how a sailboat with such a length/ beam and that B/D could have contributed to “fostering design developments that will flow through to the mainstream of yachting”, but the new box rule (IACC) brought racing on boats that were not hugely outdated.
IACC 2003 Swiss winner
The first edition with these yachts (1992) was a success: 7 nations and 8 yachts fighting to be the challenger that ended up to be the Italian boat which was beaten on the America’s cup by the American defender.
Even if the first Cup on the new boats was won by the American yacht, 1992 and the new class, ruled after a certain point by collective management, marks the beginning of the end of the United States' big domination in America’s Cup. Since then in 8 editions, the United States won three, as many as New Zealand (that can still win this year’s edition) and Switzerland won two.
The 1995 edition started well with 10 challengers from 8 nations and seemed to continue the internationalization of America’s cup, but the increase of costs due to constant change of rule technicalities (five versions of the IACC rule), led to an escalation of costs, and that edition ended up having fewer countries participating, only 5 and 7 challengers. The New Zealanders won and America’s Cup left America for the 2nd time, now to New Zealand. In the 2000 edition, there were 11 challengers from 7 countries and New Zealand defended the Cup with success.
In 2003 there were 9 challengers from 7 countries and the cup was won by Switzerland, and because Switzerland had not ocean waters, the races were hosted in Valencia, Spain. Swiss won again the 2007 edition that had 11 challengers from 9 countries.
All seemed to go well in what regards the popularity, the number of nations and the number of participating yachts and even in what regards the evolution to a more modern and fast yacht, the AC90, a new box rule proposed by the Swiss team and accepted by the Challenger, a Spanish yacht club.
IAAC versus AC90
The new class would provide a 90ft yacht that would be beamier, lighter, 50% stiffer, and considerably faster, but then the challenger was contested in its right to issue a challenge by the American team Oracle.
The Americans, that had not only been unable to win the Cup on the last three editions as they had not even been able to challenge it (being defeated on the series to choose the challenger) managed this way, winning a legal action ruled in American courts, to be appointed as the official challenger and therefore being able to change the rules in what regards the chosen yacht for America’s cup.
They rejected the proposed monohull box rule (AC 90) and without an agreement over the boat choice, reverted to the original Deed of Gift and the 2010 America’s Cup was disputed again without limitations others than length, and that resulted in huge multihulls, without any another challenger than the American, due to high costs.
In what regards sailing sport, a very uninteresting America’s Cup with a giant Swiss catamaran against a giant American trimaran with a fixed-wing, that proved to be substantially faster and brought back America’s cup to America.
But if the sportive interest was low, it was very interesting in what regards sailboat development, with the first flying yachts in America’s Cup.
From then on it would not make sense to return to relatively narrow monohulls that would not even be able to plane fast downwind. The AC90 was not a revolutionary boat but just an improvement over the previous cup yacht, with more draft, a large transom, more hull form stability but still with a narrow hull that was not designed for maximum performance….but conditioned by the space available in berths in Valencia marina!!!
Tom Schnackenberg, the NA that was developing the class, started with an initial idea of a yacht with 26 meters, with a 5.7 beam (conditioned by Valencia traveler lift capacity!) and a 6.5m draft, to end up, after discussion with the interested teams, in a far less exciting yacht with 26 m length, 4.8 m beam and 5.0m draft.
No wonder that after the technological sail show o in the 2010 edition, a joint management decided that the 2013 edition would be raced, not on the AC90, that had become obsolete even before racing, but on smaller flying catamarans, the AC72.
The choice seemed to have interested many challengers; they were initially 12 from 7 countries. But soon it was evident to all that the yacht would be much more expensive than what was previewed and, due to the escalation in costs, only 3! out of 12 remained.
The American defender prevailed for very little with the NZ boat winning all the first races and the American one managing an almost impossible recovery, winning successively all the other races among protests of cheating due to a new control system of the foils. Oracle had already been found guilty of cheating previously, but this time nothing came out of it and the American Oracle team won the 2013 edition.
In the 2017 edition, among a controversy with the lack of safety (a boat destroyed and a sailor dead on the previous edition), it was decided to race in a smaller catamaran, but confusion followed when the AC62, initially chosen, was substituted by an even smaller boat, the AC 50, and the Italians retired in protest. Only five challengers remained and the NZ team beat the American one.
When it was expected some sort of stability that would allow fewer costs and more challengers, this edition (2021) marks a new revolution with the NZ team refusing to continue to use catamarans and proposing a revolutionary flying monohull, the AC75 with two wings with foils that work also as ballasted “keels”, a monohull they said would be able to be faster than the previous catamarans, being able to exceed 50 kt and right itself up from a capsized position.
Initially, there were 6 challengers from 5 countries but even if all yachts share the same mechanical parts to save costs, and the proposed soft sails are less expensive than the previous wing sails, only three challengers remained.
It seems that the safety problems were solved, no pitch-pooling till now, and the capsizes brought no big problems, except on the American boat due to a battery that went loose (but that should not have happened and it was easy to solve). However, the yachts, contrary to what was expected, were unable to recover from a capsize, even if they would not turn upside down and remained lying at 90º. Not difficult to solve that, with a bit more ballast on the wings, but that would diminish their ability to lift on the foils with light wind, something that should be addressed in the evolution of these boats.
These yachts have proven to be spectacular, faster than the previous catamarans, able to sail over 50 kt, and if criticism can be made it has not to do with the boat’s performance, or close performance between the yachts, but with the need to have eight muscle guys working almost permanently at grinders to produce the power to operate the boat systems.
We should not forget that on Cup boats before the era of the flying boats the crew needed to sail the boat had already big muscled guys on the grinders, even if for other reasons, and that these boats carry in fact a smaller crew than in any other yacht in America’s Cup history, except on the smaller AC50 and on the AC72 that had the same number of crewmen.
The problem here is that from the 11 crew members, 8 are grinder athletes and don’t need to know anything about sailing, just have to do what is asked them on the grinders and only crewmen 3 actually sail the boat. That does not make much sense. These grinders are used mostly to produce hydraulic energy but I don't see the difference regarding using hydraulic systems or electrical systems.
Regarding the need for human power to generate energy for the systems, the easiest way to manage its decrease is to make the crew smaller; taking four guys out of the crew will probably solve it partially and would introduce another interesting factor in racing: the need to manage the available energy on the boat. The use of hydrogenerators and solar panels can also contribute to solve this problem and their development will be very useful for sailing in general.
Also, the use of a bigger battery bank, not for using previously stored energy to run the systems but to manage the energy generated in the boat during the race, can contribute to ending the disproportional number of grinders: eight on a crew of eleven.
Those batteries, that would be discharged and verified at the beginning of the race, would be used as a storage system, for energy generated in the boat during the race and would allow for fewer grinders, that now are used to generate the needed energy at any given time, with the yachts having very little energy storage capacity.
If we compare these boats with the boats used in the decades, previous to the use of multihulls, we would have to agree that they brought again the America’s cup to its origins, meaning great racing on the fastest yachts on the planet, mixed with extraordinary sail yacht development.
The Cup had been about that since its origins and for 141 years, if we exclude the unfortunate period of 29 years during which it was raced on outdated boats (12m class). During those years there was great racing, but without the original spirit of doing that on the fastest sailboats around, contributing in a decisive manner to yacht design evolution and to sail evolution.
But there is something really bad on this edition, something that should be addressed in a decisive way: the very small number of challengers. That has to change and in what regards that we should look to the past, to the IACC class, the one that was able to reunite more challangers.
Measures should be taken to assure that this happened due simply to the very innovative boat design and the necessary development costs and that now, with much less development work to do, with all the mechanical and hydraulic parts being the same and provided by independent contractors, maintaining the stability without rule changes (that imply more costs) it is possible to have a high number of challenges for the next edition.
That means that any changes that imply the use of hydrogenerators, solar panels, or other ways to generate or store energy produced on the boat should be developed and manufactured, as the other systems, by an independent contractor and provided to all teams, forbidding all alterations.
The past proved that stability was essential to lower costs and to increase the number of challengers and challengers from many countries are needed to turn America’s Cup into a true world top sail championship, not only a sailing one, but also a design one.
And something more is absolutely needed to make the America’s Cup a true world championship and that is preventing the possibility of hostile challengers attributing the management of the yacht choice and alteration not only to the Defender and Challenger but to a group formed by all that had participated on the previous edition, or editions and intend to participate on the next ones.
It is also necessary for independent arbitration in what regards rules, regulations, and interpretations. It is not acceptable for the arbitration to be provided by the courts of only one of the countries that participate, the American courts.
The arbitration should be international and independent of any country and if therefore it is necessary to change the name of America’s Cup, well, I don’t see a problem, call it the World’s Cup. That’s the spirit that should be maintained as well as the conditions to have a fair and independent competition with many participants, on the most advanced and fast contemporary sailboats.
The GS44 is too new to find any ORC file, but as a way to see if the divergence in displacements given by the shipyard and the real measured displacement is so big as on the Solaris case, we can look at the GS44 big brother, the GS48, that has already a ORC certificate. 
The GS48 shipyard displacement is 10500kg, the ORC Athyris measured displacement, without sails or tankage, is 11327kg, a difference of about 827kg. In sailing condition the Athyris displaces 12651kg.
The GS 44 will be faster and more fun to sail in light and medium winds, and in what regards racing and overall performance, will be always faster than the Solaris 44, unless in very specific and limited offshore situations. If the boat is used for racing and cruising the more adequate boat will be the GS 44, for cruising it depends on the sailor's preferences.
