l An increase in optimisation and general running costs. l A further split and increased animosity between those who like non-stop optimising of their Maxis and those who do not. Not all of these are negative developments. On average lighter
boats provide more exciting racing; which is why at maxi size the positives of a lighter all-up sailing weight will for many outweigh the negatives of having water ballast. Django 70X has set the tone and could go down in history as a breakthrough design. Outstanding in the very light conditions in Saint-Tropez, I bet if she shows up at February’s breezier, reachy Caribbean 600 she will show just how different she really is from the former 72s. That could be a fun ride. That said, a large variation in boat optimisations may be fun for
some but certainly not for all; it may result in further pressure on organisers to tweak the balance between windward-leeward and coastal races to help certain boat types. Simultaneous to this discussion, those teams who are typically
boats are optimised in a similar way. If there would be a 50-50 split on optimising for trim tabs, then you race most of the time against 50 per cent of the fleet, whether for the top half of the results or the bottom half depending upon the course and the conditions. Water ballast vs no water ballast could have a less dramatic
effect on the outcome of races if well controlled. Maxi racers will all have water ballast and after a few (expensive) mods will find the most efficient volume for each boat, so not that much of a worry. However, at 45-56ft we could easily see 50-50 splits between
the two configurations, and for 39-43ft AC2 racers at the Sardinia and Admiral’s Cups the split could stretch to 25-75. In most conditions this should still provide close racing throughout the fleet, albeit with ‘every dog sometimes having its day’, but the question should be asked whether the additional cost and complexity out- weigh potential positives like lower average all-up sailing weights? With no further rating increase, water ballast might well work
longterm for high-level 45-56ft racers but I doubt it will for the best 39-43ft racers; apart from the relatively high added installation weight AC2 designs are already relatively much lighter and faster than larger boats. But we can also imagine IRC/RORC seeking to limit the use of water ballast for crewed racing to just the maxi fleet? There are safety aspects to this as well. Wide boats, less keel/bulb weight, water on the ‘wrong side’ once upside down or nearly so…
Possible actions around water ballast: l Wait and see, laissez-faire. l Limit the amount of water ballast with a sharp rating increase for volume over, say, 10 per cent of the Empty Weight creating a clear target to optimise to. And communicate this ASAP! l Discourage or ban water ballast for boats under 45ft. Not that easy as it hits the Two Handed fleet. Maybe a solution is to have a lower percentage trigger point before the sharp rating increase kicks in? Reducing the drive to go for water ballast? Admiral’s Cup and Sardinia Cup – actions to protect against
needing a different boat or hugely different optimisation for each: l Ban water ballast for AC2/SC2, simple and clear message. l Water ballast volume or list angle limit for AC1/SC1. l Trim tab ban for Admiral’s Cup and Sardinia Cup. The above does not head off one other possibility: enter a scow
Burt Keenan’s Frers 51 Acadia racing in the first Sardinia Cup in 1978 – won by Italy. Keenan returned in 1980 in the winning USA team of Merry Thought, Tatoosh and the new Peterson 43 Acadia. Acadia was later disqualified from the 1981 SORC for major rating ‘irregularities’ along with Williwaw and the Peterson 43 Louisiana Crude – the top three finishers. All were found to be racing much lighter than when measured, Acadia by 1,600lb, Louisiana Crude 800lb and Williwaw a full ton underweight. Plus Williwaw was also found with lead in her spreader tips when presented for inclination. All three owners received long bans from the sport. Happy Days!!!
pressing for more windward-leeward races are often the same crews currently lobbying for a reduced maximum wind speed… like 25kt max TWS. The key to this is the fundamental difference between ‘We never reef’ and ‘We cannot reef’. The latter I feel should be seen as a negative – all rating rules should be in the business of promoting good all-round boats and avoiding one-trick ponies. All important points to be agreed ahead of next season. But will
they be addressed in time, and if so by whom? By IRC/RORC, by the boat classes themselves or by the main events like the Admiral’s Cup and Sardinia Cup? Probably all three should take responsibility and discuss how to streamline rules between them. If not: l Similar developments will spread quickly beyond Maxi GP. l Maxi 1, the 100ft maxis, will be first to follow, then the sharp end of the rated fleet for designs of 45-56ft. l We face the undesirable – damaging – risk of expensive and complex detailing creeping into the smaller 39-43ft AC2 size range in pursuit of a narrowly tailored winning boat. The costs of optimising for trim tabs and water ballast, once they
become necessary to step up onto the podium, will chase many owners out of the competition. But not just the costs… if the spread of optimisation only extends to one part of the fleet, even a large part, then it will arguably make racing less interesting than if all
38 SEAHORSE
bow boat for the Admiral’s Cup with its high percentage of offshore points but a conventional ‘sharp-nose’ that is still the best bet to win the Sardinia Cup! The outcome for the Admiral’s Cup will of course depend very much on the amount of reaching in the Channel and Fastnet races. Scow bows, if they clearly prove to be underrated, will inevitably go up in rating. But that will not be a quick exercise.
Summary I feel strongly that inaction is not an option. Especially below maxi size. Or the drive to intense optimisation will soon be too much to attract enough boats for good racing. Even at Admiral’s Cup level.
Other areas Apart from this the IRC Technical Committee has expressed concerns about the means to control the angle of windward rudders or trim tabs. In my opinion this should be covered under RRS 52 (Manual Power) so only operated by the crew. But a computer will do a better job and as long as there is a lack of clarity teams will experiment with a mix of computer and human control and try to test the edges of the RRS. Trespassing on RRS 52 is hard to detect and control, certainly at events where RRS 52 is modified allowing steering, ram and winch systems, moveable appendages, trim tabs, water ballast and canting keels to be mechanically powered. Relatively new, now that twin-rudders have spread into rated
racing, is the use and control of the toe-in and toe-out connection bar controlling the angle of the windward rudder for minimum drag. A sensor connected to the instrument system allows settings to be logged together with optimising of windward rudder angle. Another one that will be much better handled by a computer than by crew. Of course, we can just let it all be without more restrictions, but
sooner or later humans will play little part in sailing our boats… We have to ask ourselves whether sail-by-Bluetooth is what we want? Rob Weiland, TP52 Class Manager
q
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
