rating racing required a measurement rule to equalise the boats. Originally this was provided by the RORC rule and then by the International Offshore Rule (IOR). No such rule exists today. Attempts have been made, over the years, but nothing has worked to date. IRC and ORC remain unsuitable for absolute level racing that requires a fixed formula rule to design to. IRC does a fine job of levelling the field for the widest range of types possible. It even does a good job of creating ‘almost- level’ classes like the Quarter Tonners and Fast40s. But not to the level of rating preci- sion that gave us the IOR Ton Cup classes. Three hugely successful yacht designers played key roles in the creation and the writing of the details of the International Offshore Rule. Those designers, at the height of their commercial and creative skills, were Olin Stephens, Dick Carter and Ricus van de Stadt. Ironically, as touched upon, van de Stadt was to drop out as he felt the proposed formulas discouraged the development of light boats…
Many other contemporary designers were also involved over the 24-year life - span of the rule in making technical improvements and helping to shape rule policy. Yet nobody ever seriously believed that this inside knowledge of the rule bestowed any tangible benefit to those who either created it or policed it. But this is not the way it is today with ‘world’ rules like IRC where measurement factors lie hidden under a blanket of secrecy. Is this wrong? Well, more than
anything it depends on the duties the rule is expected to perform.
IOR was sometimes a brutal develop- ment arena, but it did produce a remark- able disparity of designs and a genuine opportunity for developing truly competi- tive yachts within a recognisable frame- work. Similarly, the Metre Boat Rules, otherwise known as the International Rule, introduced in 1907, gave designers and owners the ability to develop yachts under a meaningful set of measurements that are available for all to scrutinise. The International Rule has produced over 6,000 boats with some 3,000 still sail- ing today, from the 4 Metre to the mighty 23 Metre. And this doesn’t include the 2.4 Metre, built to the same formula, which enjoys its own 4,000-strong class. Like IOR the International Rule was conceived by sailors, but most importantly it was supported by yacht designers who under- stood the consequences of ‘cause and effect’ in measurement systems. IRC, the de facto replacement of IOR, is more oddball, but very effective at draw- ing together extremely mixed fleet racing. Originally conceived as a kind of second division to IOR, under the title of Channel Handicap, the original intentions of the rule were to provide a handicap formula that would allow cruiser-racers a platform for racing where development was not par- ticularly encouraged, or indeed expected. To ensure that no designers or owners could ‘design’ to the rule, two key elements were included in CHS from the beginning
in 1983 which still exist in IRC today. One of these elements is secrecy, but perhaps even more important is IRC Rule 2.5: ‘The spirit of IRC requires that owners and designers shall not seek means of artifi- cially reducing the rating of a boat, eg increasing performance without a corre- sponding increase in rating.’ That, to me, spells out that optimisation is either against the rules or ‘should’ have no bene- ficial effect on the speed/rating equation. Some will argue the word ‘artificially’ is a get out of jail free card and I agree it is somewhat ambiguous. But the second part of the rule, ‘increasing performance with no increase to rating’, is clear. More than secrecy ever can, this wording is powerful enough to manage the limits of boats being built to exploit the rule. A utopian concept, but it is still there, on tap, ready for action should IRC ever be ambushed by some- thing so powerful and unexpected as to put the system itself in jeopardy. At this year’s Admiral’s Cup we saw how good IRC has become in rating the world’s most competitive grand prix yachts against each other, while still doing a pretty good job for the grassroots where it all began. And all while avoiding the trap into which other systems have tumbled, of punishing new developments before enough empirical data has been gathered to make a fair judgement… Or to slightly misquote the great philosopher Herbert Spencer, ‘One of the greatest enemies of any new principle being contempt prior to (full) investigation.’
SEAHORSE 49
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
