In shutting the door on IOR bilgeboard designs like Terrorist the rulemakers inadvertently opened another one, leading to a new generation of very deep drafted daggerboard and centreboard designs – again with all of the ballast inside the hull. First came the moderate centreboarders led by Britton Chance’s superbly restored Resolute Salmon (left) – which won the 1976 One Ton Cup in a dazzling fleet of no fewer than 43 (sic) hot racers. This was quickly followed by the brief but exciting era of the wilder offshore centreboarders – such as Murray Ross’s blindingly fast (in all conditions) Paul Whiting-designed Half Tonner Newspaper Taxi, seen (below) during a self-righting test… The entirely dinghy-like Taxi’s deep lifting board weighed just 92kg; she also featured a tiny 12hp engine mounted in front of the mast for rating purposes but offset to port so that the shaft cleared the board casing
you wouldn’t want to repeat that in… It is interesting to reflect that if rule-
makers, back in 1974, had not reacted as they did to Terrorist and her ilk, would the multiple-foil boats seen today have devel- oped earlier – perhaps even under IOR? When Terrorist first appeared this new
development was not just stamped on because of the extra speed it delivered, but because the rule establishment at the time regarded the idea of multi-foil boats as unsavoury and therefore a development that just had to be closed down. Light displacement wasn’t so popular
And what made this particular develop-
ment so effective? Once again it was due to an oddity of the IOR. While the rule writers felt they had addressed the dangers inherent in the Terrorist design, they com- pletely overlooked the free pass, in rating terms, offered to unballasted centreboard or daggerboard boats. The ‘free pass’ in question, allowed a staggering 20 per cent increase in draft and hence keel leading edge, without any additional rating. Little wonder that once this fact became evident with Resolute Salmon’s success, numerous other designers wanted to jump onboard to further develop ‘keel-less’ concepts. Another innovative designer, Ted
Hood, had, from the very start of the IOR spotted the opportunity for much greater keel depth and draft when an unballasted keel foil was employed. But the centre- board designs of Ted Hood carried their internal ballast in deep-bodied, heavy- displacement hull forms. Indeed, Hood’s One Tonner Robin, which appeared one year earlier than Terrorist, was almost double the displacement at 20,000lb. While Ted Hood’s concept proved
effective, it didn’t capture the imagination of other designers who were all busy figur- ing out how to make their own designs lighter, not heavier! Thus, until Terrorist and Resolute Salmon appeared, designers had largely ignored the benefits of unbal- lasted centreboards and daggerboards. And these benefits were not just ‘free’
48 SEAHORSE
draft, but improved weight distribution, too, inherent with internal ballast, better centring the mass of the yacht which helped give all of these designs even better performance in choppy water. But then the unballasted daggerboarders
suffered the same knee-jerk reaction from rating authorities as the bilgeboarders a few years earlier – albeit a reaction acceler- ated by the stability issues raised in the aftermath of the 1979 Fastnet storm. Too often enough, good ideas like the
centreboard IOR generation just get killed off because they are seen as impractical or too radical. Imagine that argument being used today where multiple foils don’t just spring out of the bottom of raceboats but out of the sides, like giant scythes. There is zero regard for practicality in offshore racing boats in the 21st century! The rule changes brought in after the
1979 Fastnet effectively put an end to the combination of unballasted keels and light displacement. Whether this was entirely rational is a moot point and very much down to the specifics of each and every design. In the case of Terrorist, Bruce King, being an extremely responsible designer, I am certain created a fully sea- worthy boat; pointers include his tumble- home and a fairly wide waterline beam. It’s worth remembering that she had
sailed across the Atlantic to participate in the One Ton Cup in 1974. There are prob- ably a fair number of today’s 35-footers
either! Such a shame that a certain Ricus van de Stadt fell out with the embryonic estab- lishment of the IOR over the issue of light displacement. Oh, what might have been! So now, what of the pros and cons of
different rating rules, one-designs and the fairness, or otherwise, of giving some of the winning edge to the designers and builders rather than just to the sailors? For the best sailors, of course, the one-design is favourite as it puts their skill front and centre of the competitive solution. But for the purposes of reflecting on the ongoing development of offshore racing boats let’s just park the one-design idea for now. First, let’s just say there is a significant
difference in types of rules. Popular these days are ‘box’ solutions which perhaps generate the highest levels of design devel- opment. Then there are the IRC and ORC rating systems which both do a good job of levelling the playing field for a disparate range of yachts. Arguably the IRC does a more fulsome job of embracing a really wide spectrum of sailboats, embracing both boat type and design age with aplomb while always encouraging positive speed-enhancing developments. But one style of ocean and inshore
racing is today much rarer – that is level, boat-for-boat competition. The kind of yacht racing that fired up the offshore scene with the reintroduction of the One Ton Cup in 1965 and that helped to create wonderful yachts like Terrorist, Ganbare, Resolute Salmon, Waverider and others at the different rating levels. The unprecedented success of this level
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
