Martin Fischer on switching teams and AC75 upgrades
Martin Fischer on switching teams and AC75 upgrades
Cup Insider talks exclusively to the new Ineos Britannia lead designer about his move from Luna Rossa and how the changes to the AC75 design rule might impact the racing at the 37th America’s Cup.
Ineos Britannia’s new chief designer Dr. Martin Fischer looks exactly the way you expect a brilliant scientist/naval architect to look.
Serious and steely-eyed behind an impressively large pair of black framed spectacles, the German designer’s appearance is softened considerably by his hairstyle – an undeniably unruly crop of pure-white hair that immediately puts you in mind of Albert Einstein.
In conversation he is disarmingly polite and accommodating.
Fischer followed up his original physics degree (where he had specialised in fluid dynamics), with a PhD in geophysics, before moving on to work for 10 years on climate research using coupled ocean atmosphere models.
“That’s pretty different [to yacht design],” he admits. “But it's not so far away – because the the equations are the same. It's all fluid dynamics, it's just the scale that that is different.”
Fischer was introduced to sailing at the age of nine and says his love of the sport was what prompted him to study physics and to specialise in fluid dynamics.
Other than ‘a little club racing’ here and there, he says he doesn’t sail much these days. Back in the day, however, after graduating from the Optimist fleet he raced A Class catamarans for 15 years, followed by a further seven-year stint in Formula 17 cats.
Fischer has long been an established name in the professional yacht racing game and has been a go-to designer for a variety of top flight professional sailing teams – both inshore and offshore.
Amongst many other projects, he was the brains behind the underwater appendages for Franck Cammas’ all-conquering Groupama 4 Volvo 70 which dominated the 2011-12 Volvo Ocean Race, he led the design team for Team France in the 35th America’s Cup, and he was at the heart of the Luna Rossa design programme for last year’s 36th America’s Cup finalists.
Aside from all that, Fischer is also responsible for designing one of the world’s most successful one design foiling catamaran classes – the GC32.
“Originally it was not designed as a fully foiling catamaran,” he explained. “At first it was a foil-assisted boat and then after foiling hit the America’s Cup it was decided to transform it into a foiling boat. That was a relatively easy process as it was already designed for foils.”
For the 37th America’s Cup Fischer has switched allegiances from Luna Rossa to join Ben Ainslie’s British Ineos Britannia syndicate – the Mercedes-AMG Petronas Formula One Team-boosted Challenger of Record for AC37.
I tracked him down to his desk at the team’s new base in the vast Mercedes F1 team HQ in Brackley, England to find out more about his move to the British team and to quiz him on the changes to the AC75 design rule and their potential impact on AC37.
Cup Insider: This will be your second time working for an America’s Cup team acting as the Challenger of Record. Is there some advantage to being Challenger of Record?
Martin Fischer: Because you are involved in the rules discussions, that’s an advantage, – not a huge advantage, but an advantage nevertheless. It means you get a head start on the rules, at least. Plus, if there are things you don't like, you can negotiate that.
CI: How much was your decision to join the British syndicate for the 37th America’s Cup influenced by the team’s tie in with the Mercedes Formula 1 team?
MF: Of course I knew that Mercedes Formula One had been involved with the British team to a certain degree during AC36. But when I got in contact with Ben at the beginning, I didn't know about the new relationship. So of course that that was a nice surprise – a very nice surprise, even. Even before that though, I thought that this team looked looked interesting, and it was one I really wished to join.
CI: Looking back to the last America’s Cup Match between the Italians and the New Zealand, from your unique vantage point was it ultimately because the Kiwis had a faster boat that they won?
MF: Yes, the boat was definitely quicker. At the beginning we did pretty well, and I think that was because we had more race practice than the Kiwis. Also our boat had an advantage at the start. We had bigger foils and therefore we had more possibilities at the at the start. So that gave us an advantage.
It took the the Kiwis a bit of time to figure out how to overtake once Luna Rossa was was in front. But once they had learned how to do that, there was no way for us to win. We sailed 10 races in total and out of these 10 I think Luna Rossa won seven of the starts.
They [Luna Rossa] were also very good around the course – I think the split helmsmen was a good a good move – but the fact that we had more possibilities due to the bigger foils was really important. But then, later on, it was just speed that that won the races.
CI: I can only imagine the workload you and the design team must have had in the months and years leading up to the America’s Cup in Auckland as you constantly developed the design of the boat. But by the time you get to the final match series were you still refining the boat even at that point?
MF: We were refining the boat to the very last moment. Of course, the gains became smaller and smaller. But, I guess like any team any, we worked on every detail we could to make the boat faster every single day.
CI: Can you describe that process?
MF: First of all, you have an idea and then you test it on the computer. If it is promising then the design team has to produce drawings and then the new piece gets built as as quickly as possible. You always want to go through the through the numbers and and check everything, but towards the end, when the time is so short, sometimes, as a team, you have to take a decision without having all the information.
CI: How does it work when someone like you leaves a high profile key position at one America’s Cup syndicate to join a rival team? Presumably you cannot bring anything with you – just what’s stored in your head?
MF: Yes, basically, that's that's how it works. You don't take any files or anything whatsoever with you. To do anything different would, first of all, be a breach of contract. And the new team – certainly this team here – would not appreciate that. Because if if you do that when you come here, it's very likely that you that you do the same thing when you go away. That's not a good start to building up a relationship of trust.
CI: You joined the team in June of 2021. What were your immediate priorities?
MF: In the beginning the first there were, of course, lots of discussions. I had made a list of the good things and the bad things at Luna Rossa. What would I change and how would I change it? And of course, the people at Ineos Team UK (at that time) did the same.
We compared those lists and then prepared a common list. So that was where the first steps to identifying the main things that either had to be changed or should be kept.
And then you you go on from there to look at people. With whom do we want to work? You discuss a lot about who to hire and that also takes a lot of time at the beginning.
CI: When it comes to hiring, is your preference to work with people you have worked with before?
MF: Of course, that's always a preference, but it's not absolutely necessary. We are all professionals so we have to be able to work with people we haven't worked with before. There are people here that I have known before, but the vast majority of the people is new for me. But that is fine as it provides an opportunity for new ideas, new thinking, new ways of collaborating – and I think that is not a bad thing.
CI: No need to be specific, but have you found the culture of your old and new teams to be very different?
MF: Yes, it's very different how this team is managed and structured. I can say I like the way they do it here, a lot. I think it's a very good approach and I'm convinced that this is the right way to to manage such a team.
CI: In our recent interview with Ben Ainslie he told us that he believed the advantage that the Italians and Kiwis had last time as Challenger of Record and Defender was much diminished this time around for Emirates Team New Zealand and Ineos Britannia. Would you agree?
MF: I think that’s a fair comment. There is very little advantage. Both teams – the Defender and the Challenger of Record – were quite open straight away that it would be more or less the same boat, just with some changes.
It's not so important to immediately know all the details of the rule. You look into all that a bit a bit later on, but at the beginning it's mainly concept work. Knowing that it would be more or less the same boat meant other the current teams – and any potential Challengers – could immediately start working on those concepts.
CI: The changes to the AC75 rule that you mention are principally aimed at making the boats lighter and maybe more powerful so they are able to foil and race in lighter winds than the last generation. Can you highlight the key changes?
MF: The boats are not going to be more powerful – they will have the same power as before. But they are lighter – about 800 kilos altogether.
That’s partly come from having less ballast in the keels. We gave up the the self-righting constraint from last time – where the goal was that if the boat capsized, it would right itself – because we found found out it doesn't work anyway. Another weight saving aspect is that the crew is reduced from 11 to eight. That brings a reduction of close to 300 kilos.
The second big point is that the span of the foils is bigger. The span [the distance from tip to tip of an individual foil] has increased from four metres to 4.50 metres. That is a an increase of about 12 per cent and it helps a lot – especially at take off at low speed. At low speed the main drag source of the foil is the so called induced drag – that's the drag caused by the vortices that are created at the tips of the foil. By increasing the span of the foil we reduce this kind of drag by about 20 per cent at low speed.
At high speed there's no difference, but at low speed there is significant drag reduction, and this – combined with the weight reduction – should allow the boats to take off earlier and easier.
Last time the lower wind speed limit was six and a half knots. It’s not yet decided but most likely it will be the same for AC37. Even in six and a half knots, sometimes the boats could not take off.
You could fly in six and a half knots, but you could not necessarily take off. Often you needed a gust of seven or seven and a half to get airborne. After that, the wind could drop again. But if you didn't get that gust you couldn't take off.
This time, hopefully, we can take off at the minimum wind speed and – hopefully – those races where one boat is flying at 30 knots and the other one is drifting at six knots will be less likely.
CI: Moving on to the reduction in sailors from 11 to eight – which job roles are we going to see disappear?
MF: It will mainly be the grinders. The rule says that you can have cyclists now – but only four of them now. That is a severe limitation. But we need less energy this time.
We have a self taking jib – so no more winches for the jib – and that is a big reduction in the energy required. Their is no Code Zero headsail this time and also the runners [running backstays] – that were also quite energy hungry – are gone too.
The higher power output from using legs rather than arms should hopefully compensate more or less the loss in grinders.
CI: Do you think it will be a no brainer that the teams will go for cyclors?
MF: I don't know. From a first view, I would say yes. But we have to look into into that in detail to be certain, Right now I would say yes.
CI: What what sort of performance upgrade can we expect from the new generation AC75 when racing begins at the 37th America’s Cup?
MF: We are in the process of estimating/computing that to see what the gains could be.
In light winds the new boats should should be a bit quicker because they are lighter and and they have more span. In stronger winds there's absolutely no gain as the the boat is lighter so we we are losing righting moment. Based on that we would expect that the boats are slower in stronger winds.
However the loss of righting moment is compensated somewhat because the the foil box [the virtual box inside which the dimensions of the the foil have to fit inside] is a bit deeper now. A deeper foil box means you can generate more righting moment and that compensates more or less for the loss in weight.
Right now, theoretically, we we expect more or less the same the same performance overall with a slight advantage in lighter conditions.
CI: Based on what you observed from the last America’s Cup, is the design goal still to create a boat that is fast all the way around the course, rather than one that necessarily has the highest top speed?
MF: Of course the top end speed is important. But, in the end, we must win the race – so we must survive upwind as well. If we design a boat that is too much biased towards a high top speed, we lose out upwind – and in a race where each team can choose their foils, you cannot afford that.
You really need a good overall performance. In other words, to be one knot slower upwind and one and a half knots faster downwind, probably wouldn't work.
CI: What has changed with regards to the rules around the control systems on the boats?
MF: There's a big change and it is something that you can't see from outside. Last time, any kind of feedback through software between the control systems was forbidden, and this time it's allowed.
This time, for instance, you can you can couple your main sheet traveler position and the jib sheet traveller position. Last time, you had to adjust them independently.
This time, you can have more more of those couplings and that will allow you to tune the boat more efficiently. I think that will help to to increase the performance of the boat overall.
Theoretically, it does not increase the speed of the boat, but in reality it does. Now, with these feedback systems when the wind changes you don’t have to adjust lots of things – you just adjust one thing and the rest follow.
CI: So the boats are sort of automatic?
MF: There is a certain level of automation. It's not, of course fully automatic. Every command still has to be has to come from humans. It's not a computer that flies the boat and any kind of autopilot is strictly forbidden.
CI: Why has the rule been changed in this area?
MF: Last time we were very afraid that teams would would build mechanical autopilots – a bit like on the Moth where there is an autopilot for the fly height. In order to lock that down and make it impossible there were many rules on what kind of mechanisms you could use. To be sure that that team could not build such a mechanical autopilot, these rules had to be very restrictive.
That meant that, to some extent, things that you find on any modern sailboat could not be used on an AC75. For instance, on many sailboats you have a main sheet in two in two steps. A low purchase at the beginning for the for the big movement and then you use a high purchase system. Such systems were forbidden in the AC last time because you could have coupled many of them to to build a sort of stepwise control. You find this kind of of system even on on dinghies, but on an AC 75 it was forbidden.
That was a bit ridiculous and there was still loopholes. This time, the approach is to say that it is explicitly forbidden to use any kind of autopilot. Last time, the approach was to to make the the autopilot impossible through limitations on what you could use. This time you simply say: ‘You must not use an autopilot’.
CI: You mentioned earlier the dual helmsman setup used to good effect by Luna Rossa. Can we expect other teams to adopt this for AC37?
MF: For sure we will study it in detail on the simulator to see how it works. Last time Luna Rossa definitely looked good with it. Other things may develop but it is definitely an option that I guess each team will look at too.
CI: Ineos Britannia have partnered with Mercedes F1, Alinghi with Red Bull F1, and maybe there will be a Ferrari tie up with Luna Rossa. From your perspective, what are the key benefits that having access to the resources of an F1 brings to an America’s Cup campaign?
MF: It is partly related to the extra resources but that is not everything. The America's Cup is, of course, a sailing competition, but it is also a design and a management competition.
I think that in the America's Cup world we can learn a lot on the management side from Formula One. They are used to managing big teams under lots of pressure and to a very tight time schedule, and they have developed methods from which we can learn, I think.
CI: Is is some of that learning about how to avoid wasting precious time?
MF: Time is really the biggest asset in a team. Well almost, money is still the biggest – but time you can't buy and you have to manage it very, very carefully. One way of looking at it is that the F1 relationship enables you to be quicker – for example to be to be able to run more tests in a given timeframe.
CI: Can you give us an idea of the of the computing power that's available to you now? Is it dramatically more than you have in previous America's Cup campaign?
MF: I’m sorry, but I can’t talk about that.
CI: Do you think it is now the case that, if you want to challenge properly for the America's Cup, you need to have a Formula One team on board?
MF: I don't know. We will see in three years or so. Team New Zealand does very well without without a Formula One team. I really don't know – it could be that there is a change going on, but we won’t know until after the next Cup, I think.
CI: How much difference does it make that for this America’s Cup cycle the teams can only build one AC75? That must mean a lot more pressure on the designers?
MF: For sure it is more difficult. But this time, at least as far as the boat goes, it is also a bit easier because we know more or less what such a boat should look like. Last time we didn't know anything.
Last time the big thing was the bustle underneath all of the boats – that was completely new. I don't expect anyone to come up with something completely different liken that this time. I may be wrong but I think it is more about refinement.
A bigger problem is probably the the number of foils. It is very much restricted, in that we can only build three foils. [Teams were allowed to build six last time]. That that is difficult and it means that we must get it right straight away. Last time, you could take a risk at some stage. This time, you must be very cautious how much risk you're willing to take, because you only have one shot.
CI: How much does not knowing the venue for the 37th America’s Cup impact you on the design front? The prevailing conditions are very different between Jeddah, the Mediterranean, and Cork.
MF: That's definitely a big difficulty. The venues are very different and at the moment, we really don't know. Nobody knows. I believe the Kiwis don’t know where it will be – I don't think that they are playing a game. So it is a difficult situation for all of us and we have to prepare for all the different possibilities.
CI: Might the boats would the boats look very different? Or would just the foils that would be very different if it, let's say, was held in Cork rather than, say, a Mediterranean venue?
MF: I think we would also see differences also on the boats.
CI: Do you think the teams will use the AC40s a lot for foil and rig development?
MF: It is very difficult to say. For sure, using an AC40 as a test platform is not cheap, because the you have to build foils and then rig and and so on. It is also very time consuming. It also depends when we can get those boats. At the moment, they are saying, if I remember correctly, autumn or late autumn next year, 2022. That will be quite tight to do lots of testing on those boats.
So, yes, it makes sense to use the smaller boats for testing, but at the moment it is questionable as to what extent that will be possible.
CI: So what’s the alternative? Can we can we expect the teams from AC36 to sail their AC75s for training and development?
MF: Well, they can do that. But if you sail an old boat, you can modify the deck layout to switch to to a self tacking jib and things like that, but you must not modify the underwater shape. As soon as you modify a foil an old foil, it counts as a new foil. That limits the amount of testing you can do, but the crew could train on an old boat.
CI: Would you expect this time around that all the the new AC75s will look very similar to the Italian or the Kiwi boats from AC36?
MF: We saw that already with the second generation boats last time. The first generation boats were split into groups and then the second generation boats all had the bustle. They all looked look much more similar. Probably, the only exception was the Kiwis who went even a step further.
I would expect that this time the boats will become even more similar.