Paul Cayar
Rob Weiland
Still captivating after all these years…
Soon it will be the 20th anniversary of the TP52 and a little thereafter of the TP52 class itself. The class was founded in 2001 but given that in that year TP52s were already launched and sailing these must have been contemplated, designed and possibly construction started already in 2000.
Since then 84 TP52s were launched and close to 15 IRC52s
were built outside class but from TP52 moulds. At this LOA any production yacht manufacturer would be happy to achieve the 100 unit mark for a racer-cruiser type boat, let alone for a pure racer. A 2019 TP52 is in detail very different from the first-generation
TP52s. I feel allowing evolution is the main reason that after 20 years there is motivation and interest to build new boats. Recently British designer Julian Everitt wrote on his Facebook
page, ‘The TP52 class has really matured into the most spectacularly competitive inshore event in a development class boat and rule. ‘While sailing skill in every sense comes to the fore, as it should
in any sailboat event, incremental alterations to keel, bulb and rudder shapes, as well as sail and rig development, do continue to impact on boat speed and therefore on the results. The question remains, however, why isn’t there any substantial growth in fleet numbers after so many seasons of captivating racing?’ There is not one answer of course but in the eye of this beholder
for a development class at this level of racing, new boat price, running cost and time consumption, a fleet number of anywhere between 10 and 15 is about as good as it gets. Only by adding special ‘participation rewards’ will you go beyond these numbers. These ‘rewards’ could vary but to name a few: substantial interest
to sponsor teams (as in the past triggered by royal leadership promoting the class), representing one’s country (as once the Admiral’s Cup created a biennial boatbuilding boom) or I can imagine
32 SEAHORSE
representing one’s club (for instance if the TP52 class would be seen as a training ground for America’s Cup teams). In a development class it is less attractive to race older boats
in class events. As, also after 20 years, even in periods of the class rule being frozen, the boats continue to develop. Optimisation never stops, the bar keeps creeping up. Yes, we
try to encourage older boats to keep racing in class by allowing them to speed up, by optimising beyond the box rule limits, but it is difficult to then set limits that create a boat as all-round for the same performance as the new boats. Besides this, out of class TP52s do very well in IRC and ORC events, which creates an attrac- tive alternative to class racing. Certainly if measured by the chance of winning trophies. Apart from this there is the impracticality of having to travel from
a long way away to go racing. In the end 52 Super Series is so far mainly racing in the Med. Which is far away from local fleets in Australia, New Zealand, Asia and the USA. It is easily said that 52 Super Series should be a true international series and travel more… but not that easy to achieve on a regular basis. A way to attract older and also a wider spread of boats to class
events would be to introduce handicap racing, possibly combined with modifying the rating system of choice for class purposes, as now tried by the Australian TP52 owners including rating the use of pro sailors. In Australia, of course, because of the varying age and performance potential of the boats, there is little choice than to race on corrected time. To then correct some more is nothing but logic and if supported by the owners simply the way to go. The reason for being in the TP52 class, however, is of course
its boat-for-boat racing mantra. The pureness of racing is its strength and at the same time its weakness as it leaves little room for excuses. Apparently this element is needed to trigger building new as substantially fewer 52s are built new to race on corrected time.
CHRIS SCHMID/ALAMY
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
