Liquid assets. Building a new TP52 is not cheap, but unlike in other cutting-edge classes it rarely takes long to re-home your existing boat when the time comes to build new. With his previous TP52 Platoon (left) Harm Müller-Spreer won almost everything and was rarely beaten among owner-drivers, consistently holding his own against the world’s best pro helms. Retired from the Super Series as the reigning 2023 champion, Platoon quickly sold to US skipper John Huhn to join the growing Great Lakes 52 fleet. Meanwhile, Müller-Spreer’s new Vrolijk design is now coming on song nicely
So with some universal rules of racing agreed, soon afterwards
in 1961, at the suggestion of German sailor Rolf Schmidt, for many years the president of the Segelkameradschaft Das Wappen von Bremen (SKWB) yacht club, a meeting took place in Bremen to similarly explore and hopefully agree on one universal rating rule. While nothing was finalised, the meeting was a success and so
later the same year delegates from Germany, Great Britain, Sweden and the United States sat down together in London and decided to form the Offshore Rules Co-ordinating Committee. This functioned well enough throughout the 1960s, initially aligning the RORC and CCA rules, but by the end of the decade they were jointly writing a completely new rule, the International Offshore Rule (IOR). By now the four original nations had been joined by Denmark,
Norway, Finland, Holland, France, Italy, Australia, Canada and Belgium and in 1967 a Technical Committee was created, chaired by Olin Stephens (USA), with designers Dick Carter (USA), Gustav Plym (SWE), Ricus van de Stadt (NED) and Paul Spens (GBR) as its first members, along with experienced yacht measurers David Fayle (GBR) and Robin Glover (GBR). To cut a long story short IOR was launched in 1968 and national
authorities were advised to switch to IOR for the 1969 season. On 1 November 1969 the Offshore Rules Co-ordinating Committee held its final meeting and with IYRU’s blessing a new Offshore Rating Council (ORC) took over as administrator of the new rule, as well as of the Offshore Special Regulations in a similar attempt to streamline offshore safety rules. Unsurprisingly, given such a positive signal, offshore racing quickly
took off and by 1976 the title Offshore Rating Council was dropped in favour of Offshore Racing Council, aiming for a wider role than just rating boats. Success has many fathers and just one child was soon not
enough. Sadly, because this child lacked proper parental guidance, by the second half of the 1980s we had boats being replaced at the speed at which they could be built, a trend that was soon irritating even the wealthiest of those who could still afford to keep up with the pace – particularly at the highest levels. A new system, IMS, appeared from the USA which promised to
tackle the problem of rapid obsolescence, along with other IOR irritations including a trend of distorted hull shapes and reducing stability. IMS was adopted by the ORC in 1985 while the RORC launched its own less complex alternative, the Channel Handicap system, in 1984 – which in 1997 was upgraded and renamed IRC. By 1997 IOR had disappeared (other than in pockets of South America where it is still used today), leaving ORC and IRC and split- ting international handicap sailing in two. Depending upon your perspective, the competition between IRC
and ORC may well have played a part in driving forward the quality of both products; but the effect of there being two competing rating rules was quickly damaging rated offshore sailing. And it continues to do so to this day. By 1990 offshore racing had already been made increasingly com-
plicated with the appearance of new ‘offshore one-design’ classes, followed a little later by new box-rule classes; both types avoided the worst uncertainties of measuring and rating while better controlling construction (e)quality and so delivering previously unprecedented longevity even at the highest level. The initial investment in these new one-designs and box-rule classes was typically lower than in the rated classes, as were running costs and capital depreciation. Meantime, under internal pressure from members as well as
external pressure from ISAF (formerly the IYRU), in 1997 the ORC agreed to merge with ISAF and take space at the organisation’s waterside headquarters in Southampton. Some viewed this as ‘moving in with the Pope, seeking blessing and protection’. However,
in practice it reduced offshore sailing to a small side-show of Olympic sailing, the focus of the ‘worldwide’ governing body and, most fun- damentally, the four-yearly event from which ISAF (later World Sailing) derived and continues to derive the vast majority of its income. ORC had already moved out of Southampton in 2002, and ISAF
granted the RORC’s IRC system international status and equal billing with ORC in 2003. To be fair, by the mid-1990s the moment had already passed for the ORC to have a chance to be accepted as the world governing body for offshore yacht racing, if such chance ever existed? As rated racing was no longer playing anything like the dominant role in offshore racing as was the case in the 1970s and ’80s. On the other hand, in my opinion offshore sailing of any type is
still not being adequately represented – let alone administered – by World Sailing, and I fear there is little hope this situation will ever change. Certainly, for as long as World Sailing remains financially dependent upon its relationship with the IOC. World Sailing’s principal ‘connection’ with offshore sailing is via its Oceanic and Offshore Committee, but this is primarily a technical body and I have yet to see any ambition for it to be anything more than that (to challenge the supremacy of ‘the family’ would be asking a lot from any World Sailing committee). So with the sport’s so-called governing body only having minor
time for offshore racing surely there is a vacuum for a dedicated offshore sailing governing body, which if filled would free us up from the endless politics and scramble for Olympic money that reduces our substantial sector of the sport to bit players, largely ignored and left on the sidelines. Meanwhile, what do we have today? Attending World Sailing class
committee meetings is torture. The Equipment Committees I avoid, let alone anything taking place higher up ‘the tree’. Rarely is there any talk about nor interest in offshore sailing, yet
offshore yacht racing spans so many and so much, and goes back so many centuries. Those racing offshore spend, or if you wish invest, so much in their sport. Not just money, also time, care, passion… Offshore we not only sail but live, cook, clean, eat, drink, sleep, exercise, read a book and generally enjoy being at sea. Just as the Olympic and dinghy classes like to focus on their
needs and aspirations I like to focus on the needs and future of offshore racing. With anybody, but foremost with the owners of offshore yachts and their crews. At an administrative level I would prefer to be speaking to people
who share a passion for ocean and offshore racing, who appreciate and understand the equipment, rules and organisation this requires, working with and for private owners, pro or amateur crews, high- profile sponsors and offshore event organisers. I see how and where the two sailing worlds meet, overlap and
possibly need and can support each other. But nowhere within World Sailing do I see a balance between the two. So how about a better structure, completely separating the disciplines, within or outside World Sailing? If within – and why not try this road first – have two classes and
equipment committees, an offshore one and an inshore one? The reason that the current Equipment Rules of Sailing are inadequate is they aim to treat inshore and ocean sailing the same. They are not the same. Two dedicated Racing Rules and consequently committees may also be better for each of the ‘constituencies’? And two Event committees? So you do not waste your time at conferences and on calls discussing topics that are irrelevant to your responsibilities. I can imagine considering even further branching out between
oceanic and offshore? Oceanic racing has become an industry (predominantly French) in itself. Perhaps sub-committees for oceanic and offshore as well as maybe one for pro sailing? Professional sailing and recreational sailing are now two different worlds. It will help connect us with those we rule from behind our laptops,
and give easier (if not easy) access to World Sailing, which too often resembles a castle with its drawbridge up. Yet behind whose walls are taking place labyrinthine decision-making processes that make the famous Hampton Court Palace Maze look like a minor pedestrian crossing. Rob Weiland, TP52 Class Manager
q SEAHORSE 35
BORA GULARI
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