Rob Weiland
The message is getting out there and in 2025 we may have an Admiral’s Cup worthy of that tremendous heritage. This is peak IOR at the 1986 Sardinia Cup (won by the UK, just). At the time events like this including the Admiral’s Cup were still often dominated by the One Tonners at the lower end of a single-rating band, but the fleet at these pinnacle events still ranged between 40 and 50ft, give-or-take, and it worked. A few years later the Admiral’s Cup switched to level rating classes, leaving no place for the good also-rans that bulk up every healthy fleet; it was the beginning of what proved to be a terminal decline. And once the Admiral’s Cup started to slide the events in Sardinia and elsewhere collapsed. But the news for 2025 is more encouraging, a small but growing number of new raceboats building (remember those?) plus enough planning around the world to reasonably hope for a fleet of between 25-35 boats next July in Cowes
Just thinking…
About what could be a better balance between measuring every aspect of a boat to produce a rating or VPP, and a combination of taking the most critical measurements but covering other areas with allowances? There is no rating system that only works with measurements, and so allowances, whether credits or penalties, are
established and introduced in ratings or VPPs in one form or the other. IRC and ORC compute generic allowances like Hull Factor (IRC)
or Dynamic Allowance (ORC) from measured values using fixed formulas, avoiding human interpretation wherever possible as this would soon be seen as manipulation, potentially leading to different results for identical cases. There are many notifications on IRC and ORC certificates that I assume influence rating or VPP, otherwise why note them? On an ORC TP52 certificate I see: Hull construction (carbon), Rudder (carbon), Stanchions (light), Trim Tab (no), Propeller (folding 2-blades), Mast material (carbon), Non-circular rigging (no), Fibre rigging (yes), Adjustable mast foot (yes), Runners/Checkstays (2), Spreaders (3), Rotating mast (no). On an IRC Application Form I see similar terminology, again for
a TP52: Version (custom), Hull form (fair), Keel (fixed single fin, T-bulb), Keel fin material (solid steel, surface fairing only), Bulb
(lead), Rudder (spade), Hull materials (exotic, eg Nomex), Accom- modation (empty), Accommodation material (racing), Unusual features (trim tabs (no), daggerboards (no), canard (no), topside hollows (no), canting/moveable ballast (no), water/variable ballast (no), foils creating lift (no), stored power (no), adjustable mast foot when racing (no), adjustable headstay when racing (yes), Rig type (Bermudian, sloop), Pairs of spreaders (3), Mast material (carbon), Spreader sweepback (more than 5°), Standing rigging (composite), Prop (2-blade folding). Some of these qualifications will contribute to the IRC Hull Factor and others to the IRC Rig Factor. I could spend much time trying to figure out where terms and
qualifications like ‘Hull Construction – carbon’ lead to rating-wise, but of course there is a world of variation covered by broad terms like carbon or composite; one then wonders whether and how much these broad terms are then split out deeper into the rating? [For an interesting look at how deep ORC digs to rate boats, check out a document called ORC VPP Documentation which can be down- loaded at
orc.org.]. This is a serious approach and miles away from the caricature of a person behind a desk deciding on a multiplier from information supplied by the owner or a measurer. By scanning hulls ORC has a close idea of their 3D shape and by inclining boats of their righting moment; where IRC measures
SEAHORSE 41
GUY GURNEY
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112
