How did I miss this one

[angus]

Having just recivied the latest copy of the hand book I notice that admiral cuppers can now be double bottomed, is this correct and if so when did this change occur. I know I am not the fastest but I totally missed any discussion on this, when did it occur. It does appear to me to be a bit of a pointless step in the wrong direction, but then who am I but a admiral cup boat sailor.

[John Meadowcroft]

Angus
Indeed you are correct about the change. 
The Admirals Cup was originally donated to Burton Week to encourage competition between older boats.  when the double bottomed boats came along it was quickly perceived that there was a difference between old and new boats.  It was at this point that the term Admirals Cup was first used outside of Burton Week.  The "definition" has been successful.  Some double bottomed boats are even becoming old now.  The first Winder Foolishes have done more than 10 Burton Weeks if they have been to all of them!  There are few retrofitted double floor boats and those that have been done are clearly old and within the spirit of the gift of the trophy.  We want all boats to come to Burton Week including any which the owner has decided to fit a double bottom to.  We hope the rule change will get these boats out on the water and may also encourage projects on older boats which would otherwise have not been contemplated.
As with all things like this the decision is not straight forward.  The key principle is that Admirals Cup = Old Boat, not Admirals Cup = Single bottomed.  There are no new Admirals Cuppers!
Hope this makes sense!

[philipcosson]

That seems quite a big decision to be sneaked out! It'll be OK Angus as long as you don't capsize. Perhaps one of the redundant trophies could be reinterpreted as a prize for the first single bottom admirals cupper?
Phil 

[Antony (Guest)]

Angus/Phil,
I don't think this is a very big decision at all, it adds about 3 or 4 older boats with a DB conversion to the Admirals Cup.  There is no evidence at all that these boats are significantly faster or slower than their peer group, with the possible exception of the very, very well sailed Bouncer at Burton Wk in Brixham and in that case you could argue that a new mast, sails, the weather and top helm and crew had more to do with their results.  As a class we have a history of people updating their boats, and there are already a few examples of AC boats with a carbon rig.
These are my views, I was not involved in the decision and have probably in the past heard it discussed at committee half a dozen time.
Antony
N3514

[Derek]

I missed this one too but I would aplaud it.
It is a return to the original idea of Admiral's cup, which was for old boats.
I have a bit of a personal one here because I had an old boat which was cheap, fun and competitive as an Admiral's cupper.
The "no double bottom" rule was enacted with almost no debate and meant that I ended up with a boat of very margin competitivity and now not an AC boat either - this was a strong disincentive to updating your boat.
Adding a double floor takes a bit of work and requires you to be careful with weight, but it gives you a dry boat and is a good sight cheaper than 1000 pounds for a carbon mast - more than the value of most AC boats.
A double bottom isn't obligatory - 3162 is still very fast possibly even faster in light airs than ever.
Single bottom boats are better inland and in light airs.
Double floors make the boat dry if you assume you are going to ship loads of water.
However they are a pig to right and do make it more likely that you will fall over in the first place - because it puts the crew higher in the boat and gives less space between the floor and the boom.
I have capsized my double floored boat more than I've ever capsized a single floored boat.
As for Bouncer, I don't think Joe would claim it was a "Bouncer" as a hull shape. There is very little of the original boat left - not even the daggerboard...and there we have another thread in the making..
 

[philipcosson]

More doublethink than double bottom!

As Antony very well knows, the post from Angus was not about the rule but about the way the rule changed - with no discussion.

I quote "The 'no double bottom' rule was enacted with almost no debate"; this is evidence that this has happened before, and two ungoods don't make a good.
I'm frankly taken aback by the Blackwhite that double bottom boats arn't faster than single bottom boats, it seems any fact can be bent to assist any cause - doubleplus ungood.

Phil

[Antony (Guest)]

Sorry Phil, you are right that i did miss that point while debating the more general one.  
The eligibilty for the Admirals Cup is something that has always (in my time around the class) been decided at a winter meeting of our elected General Committee.  It has in the past been just as contentious (if not more so) than this change and has not been debated at an AGM. Interestingly this subject comes up almost every year, and the change that has been made has probably been discussed every year since about 1998.  As Meds points out the only difference is that we now choose to use the eligibility more widely than just at Burton Wk.
I guess the answer is to be on the GC next winter..... 'we' did elect them... or perhaps this leads to an even wider question about whether we should use new communication and technology to make the NTOA more democratic... one for another thread.
Antony

[FuzzyDuck]

Antony, you did make me smile with the:
"There is no evidence at all that these boats are significantly faster or slower than their peer group"
Next time you are on the sea I will give you a 5 gallon drum full of water to carry up every beat and see how you compare to the other boats that came out of the same mould. I think that is how much we had in Hot Fuzz on every beat at Teignmouth. Yes I know a deck would have made a difference but there you go...
On principle a development class should develop and people should be encouraged to update their boats.  What would be the step to far would be the inclusion of the early Foolishes in the AC class. If that happened you might as well make a bonfire for all the old single bottom boats.
The solution is simple, take Philip's very sensible idea. Create another prize. The more prizes the better.
Why not: vintage, four plank, single bottom, Admirals Cup, Double Bottom... Comments?
Simon
3470
Derek, one you forgot to mention DB = painful Knees!

[GC]

I agree that the Admirals Cup criteria has changed in the past and must change again. All Old boats were new once and all new boats will one day be old. I have no problem with the new crieria but the handbook contradicts itself. This gives the definition in the first paragraph (on page 9) as  ...'none  self draining boats not having a double bottom or similar hull construction.' but in the second states irrespective of hull configuration.'' One of these paragraphs must be wrong.

[Chris Troth]

Some form of clarification would be great....I sail 3412, which is included in the definition as she is under 3414, but she is double bottomed / self draining.
I think the boat database needs updating 'cause that says shes a single-bottom.

[John Murrell (Guest)]

Chris,
 
Don't worry - you are not the only one! 3003 is most definately has a double bottom and isn't on the list either. Oh! and I think the Ella (3344) is missing too. I suspect that there are a couple of others that have been b/d'd  too and aren't on the list.
The problem is that if d/b's are retro fitted a new measurement form isn't raised when they are re-measured (always assuming that does happen"!) so the Classes Hon Records Officer isn't aware of the change and the Classes records aren't updated.........................:B
 
So the if anyone reading this has a boat that has been retro fitted with a double floor and it hasn't been recorded, a message to Michael Brookman would seem to be the polite option.................... and yes I am doing it!!!

[angus]

Of course silly me. Looking at the hand book I see my mistake, The Admirals cup is just some minor cup awarded at Burton week and has nothing to do with any gill or travellers compertition. Really it doesn't make much difference to me, I'm still going to be at the back what ever I sail.......... except........ If you look at the Northern travellers out side of Tynemouth and yorkshire Dales oh and Scaling dam there isn't a decent patch of water among them, and in the midlands Paul Turner has openly said that it is set up to try and put old boats on an equal footing. I don't really know anything about the midlands, but in the North there are only two dbs regularly travelling. I don't think it is intentional but people just go to the ones where they have do better. hence Windermere, Filey and Derwent have all gone. Perhaps Thia is why Bernard and Mark are the most regular sailors on the Scottish curcuit.
I probably havn't said this very well but This move made By a few people may actually discourage morre people than it encourages to come to Burton week and serve to heighten the north south divide.
Also I think this move is akin to allowing 4 plankers into the vintage section.

[Antony (Guest)]

Work is depressing, so i keep popping to the NTOA website....
Angus, do any of the boats impacted by this change even sail in the Scottish or Northern circuits?  If not how can it have such an impact.  The AC rule is important at both Burton Wk and now elsewhere, indeed it is a great trophy too and well worth winning.  To your point about the 'few', it is a democracy and i trust the people on our Committee a lot further than others elected to represent me in other capacities...
Simon, I said 'evidence' , I for one have never really seen a test of two boats of the same design/weight/rig etc with and without the DB.  I have not been convinced that the retro-fit DB boats (as that is all we are talking about) benefit from the same dramatic increase in stiffness that clearly helps the new boats.
There are clear advantages to having boat self-drain but to me they only really apply on the sea.  On flat water the DB boats fall over more and are harder to right, only partially offset by coming up dry and the 'no bailing' benefit.
Chris,  You highlight a difficulty of this rule, that there are boats with DBs that were built slowly and so have early numbers just as there are one or two late numbers on AC boats.  I am not even sure i know how 3412 fits into this story... was it a retro-fit or an early original DB!?!
Look forward to seeing you all at TB if not before!
Antony

[andyp]

Angus,
The midlands is the bit of the country between the north and the South LOL;D

[MikeDay]

This is an aside to the main theme of this thread but I just wanted to debate:  'There are clear advantages to having boats self-drain but to me they only really apply on the sea' ... Antony - I agree with all of your posts on this thread but I'm not sure I'm entirely with this statement.  On the river in light / gusty conditions, d/b boats get rid of any water as soon as it comes in - and when I roll-tack, that's pretty often.  Single-bottom boats always sail around with water slopping in the bottom that the self-bailers won't shift.  That's actually less of a problem in breezy conditions on the sea when the s/bailers usually work pretty well.  Of course the downside of d/b boats on the river is that the higher floor gives less room for your legs, but after some years, I have got used to it and my Numinous tacks like a dream too.  D/b boats are at a significant disadvantage righting after capsizes and they feel more precarious dead-running in a blow, again because of the feeling of sitting on, rather than in the boat, (and also maybe because the Numinous wobbles a lot downwind).
 
Mike D
N3496