Cup strategies: advantages and disadvantages of Luna Rossa’s prototype

The six teams, the defender Team New Zealand and the five challengers, have chosen different strategies of preparation for the Barcelona 2024 America’s Cup. Those who chose the path of building a prototype, Luna Rossa and Ineos Britannia, and those who opted to work initially with two AC 40s one of which was modified to test design solutions and then also sail with the old AC 75, such as Team New Zealand, American Magic and Alinghi. The only team currently behind in preparation is Orient Express Team France, the latest entrant, which currently has only an AC 40 in its equipment and has purchased a prepackaged package from the Kiwis for the future AC 75.

So what is the best strategy ahead of the 2024 America’s Cup? The main focus of the teams in recent months has been to make the final design decisions and begin construction of the new AC 75, but which approach will have been most beneficial among those listed? Did Luna Rossa make the right choice by building the prototype?

America’s Cup – Luna Rossa’s Choices

The Italian team’s decision in part was forced since, in light of agreements among the other teams on construction slot exchanges, Luna Rossa Prada Pirelli ended up at the tail end of AC 40 deliveries. A team aiming to win the Cup cannot waste time, because in the America’s Cup it is the one thing you cannot buy.

Luna Rossa therefore decided to build a home-scale prototype of AC 75, the so-called Leq 12 envisioned by Protocol. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this choice?

The positives are several: development of know-how in construction, and making a boat that resembles the 75 much more than the AC 40, are definitely two elements in favor of Luna Rossa’s choice. Building solutions to test on an older AC 75 is more expensive and time-consuming than doing the same thing on a 12-meter boat, and also the Cup Protocol imposes a narrow range of modifications on the older 75s and much more freedom on the Leq 12.

Purely theoretically, however, and here come the drawbacks, training and testing design solutions on a 75 is more effective and realistic than doing so on the prototype. If only because you can try the crew in the ideal formation. Not surprisingly, the Kiwis modified their 75 by trying out cycling grinders who will be seen again in the next edition. Cyclists also planned on the Italian prototype, but size differences make the exercise a bit different.

This is why the “mixed” approach, testing on both AC 40 and the old 75, is probably the most comprehensive. The Kiwis basically started with the AC 40 “lab,” where the cost and time to make new components is lower, and then transferred the best ideas to the old Te Rehutai, the boat that defeated Luna Rossa in the last America’s Cup and proved to be significantly faster.

As to why Luna Rossa decided not to “unfreeze” one of the two old AC 75s, one can make several assumptions. The first is still about time: faster to do design tests on a 12-meter boat, especially if you have a gap to make up. The second relates to the type of AC 75: in fact, the design of Luna Rossa’s two boats at the last Cup proved effective as long as it came up against the other challengers, but came out with a clear rejection against Te Rehutai.

The Italian design team is aware of this aspect, and may have decided to go for the Leq 12 considering by now the design of their AC 75 as definitely outdated. Better to start from scratch, on a design that more closely resembles that of the future AC 75.

Perhaps in ideal terms it is a less complete choice than the kiwis, but they were leaving for this campaign with a major advantage in terms of design. To close this gap Luna Rossa needs radical and bold choices, entirely different from the past two Prada-designed AC 75s. So welcome the Leq 12, if it served to design a future AC 75 that could turn the tables and not simply resemble Team New Zealand, but also propose new solutions to shorten or reverse the performance gap.

Mauro Giuffrè