It does not require huge numbers of boats to give boat devel-


opment and mixed inshore/offshore racing a push. A mere 100 TP52s built since the year 2000 is proof of this in the 50-72ft range and we see a similar effect in France where Imoca and Class40 development is translated into production designs. If a few Admiral’s Cups deliver a similar number of new builds


in combination with slowly improving performance, plus the bi-annual Cup racing itself sharpening skills and stimulating interest, this will grow local fleets competing both offshore and inshore all over the planet. Once the ball starts rolling… I feel the Admiral’s Cup is the only event with potential to trigger


building new one-offs and dedicated semi-production racers in numbers that surpass the 52s themselves. After a long period of declining numbers (and quality) this has the potential to change offshore racing in private yachts below maxi size for the better. For that reason alone the 2025 Admiral’s Cup Notice of Race deserves a read – and then some serious consideration to support the event. Apart from being part of making history and having some great racing of course. Only reservation I have is that a successful Admiral’s Cup will


help rated racing back into the saddle. Which is ironic given that for the past two decades rated as well as one-design boat and equipment development is mainly inspired by what fierce competition within three box-rule classes has produced. Still, I feel the Admiral’s Cup right now is best served by rated racing. It would be a mistake to have teams based on, say, TP52s and Class40s. Whereas 10 years ago I had the dream of achieving TP52 synergy


between the Admiral’s Cup and the restart of the MedCup, so between the new 52 Super Series and a restart of the Admiral’s Cup, that hope is no longer realistic. At least not in the foreseeable future since for most of the owners in the 52 Super Series the opti- misation gap will be too large, and also a mix of inshore and offshore racing is simply not their cup of tea. Between 2012 and 2016 the already minimal support for coastal


racing at 52 Super Series events diminished to zero and was replaced by full focus on windward-leeward racing which meant that equipment and deck layouts lost any dual-functionality. Surprisingly, however, hull design remains as multi-functional as ever. Appendages are relatively easy to optimise but rigs and rigging are a bigger pain in the behind, as there any multi-functionality has been traded off for marginal performance gains. If I failed anywhere to convince towards a more sensible


approach… then water tightness, or rather the lack of it, should not be seen as a design flaw but just over-enthusiastic optimisation for W/L racing –which is relatively easy to resolve once boats start to go offshore again. All in all a pity that the Admiral’s Cup did not get resurrected 10


years ago. It’s likely that the 52 Super Series and surely the Admiral’s Cup would be at a different stage of development now, and the synergy between them would have resulted in more boats racing at both. But here we are, 52 Super Series about to welcome three new builds into its 11-strong fleet and the relaunch of the Admiral’s Cup spicing up the Royal Ocean Racing Club’s first centenary!! What is increasingly urgent is to agree how many teams per


country may enter in 2025 and the detail of the conditions of entry. The sooner the better and the more detail the better; serious racing requires serious preparation and serious preparation requires ample time. And all of that requires serious money. Sure, it will be great racing, sure, it will be great fun just to be in


Cowes in summer 2025, but to succeed long term the Admiral’s Cup will need once more to become the Everest of fully crewed yacht racing. A dream for most, the pinnacle of achievement for the best, based on ability, training, experience, perseverance, etc, etc. Offshore sailing especially, possibly more than most sports, has


an element of luck that to a certain extent can be limited by the chosen event format. Serious international competition must arguably depend less on luck than for instance local racing, which can be achieved by installing rules that restrict performance spread and optimisation options for both equipment and crews. Depending less on luck, what many label fair competition, and to some extent also less on money/professionalism, is easy said. My feeling is that for the Admiral’s Cup reducing the element of luck will be successfully achieved, in addition to the class limits


38 SEAHORSE


on rating and length, by restricting the options for crew weight variation between races, the total number of sails that can be measured for the event, and certainly also by being very strict on when and how boats are measured, as well as executing serious measurement checks during the event. Crew weight plays a considerable role in performance. IRC rules


a maximum crew number as well as a maximum crew weight, based on hull length. Both are generous, resulting in a full rail if taken to the max. Events are allowed to go by crew number only, which is often preferred as checking crew weight is complicated. It also brings negative aspects, not least for crew themselves trying to drop weight in a very compressed time period. Increasingly today’s events allow crew changes between races


or race days, which allows light-weather optimisation by reducing crew and so overall sailing weight. Adapting the number of crew on a daily basis, in combination with water ballast and reducing bulb weight, is a relatively new performance optimisation phenomenon – not necessarily one that is beneficial. Once pushed to the max these ‘liberties’ work to the advantage


of top professional sailors used to playing these games. As we see in the maxis, good sailors used to racing shorthanded can get away with being understaffed for complicated manoeuvres. This works well for owners of large yachts trying to reduce numbers onboard but seems less desirable at an international event in smaller yachts like the Admiral’s Cup where taking on and dropping off crew to suit the conditions brings performance benefits unlikely to be available to every yacht taking part. The political question then is whether the Admiral’s Cup is best


served by being one more regatta in which you can only do well with a deck full of battle-hardened professionals, or by making an attempt to balance this slightly differently? And not just between being paid or not, but also in reference to gender, age and nationality? All in all, for the 2025 Admiral’s Cup, being raced using the IRC


Rule and aiming for it to once again to become the Everest of yacht racing, I would restrict crew as follows: l The maximum number of crew on a yacht shall be the number shown on the certificate, provided the crew consists of either at least two females, or at least two 25 years old or under, or at least one female and one 25 years old or under. Otherwise the crew limit shall be the certificate number minus one. l Not just the maximum number of crew but also the minimum number shall be specified, and this to be quite close to the maximum and therefore forcing very similar crew numbers on similar boats throughout the event. l No crew weight limit. l At least 50% of the crew to be passport holders of the nation the boat represents. l No change of crew for the duration of the event other than for genuine good reason. If a limit on professionals is seen as useful then at least X% of


the crew shall have World Sailing Group 1 status (sailors who take part in racing only as a pastime). Whether the X is 25, 35 or 50%, I have no clear preference. I guess 35% might be a good balance – and one that may result in less pressure on qualifying for Group 1 status, as well as on checking the applicant’s status? I would forbid protests of crew status once confirmed by World Sailing. As far as sails are concerned, in general I feel a limit is seen


as a useful instrument to level the playing field between the have- a-lots and the have-endlesses. In which case measuring in a max- imum of 20 sails plus a heavy-weather jib, storm jib and trysail for Class 1 should be adequate; similarly 18 sails plus a heavy-weather jib, storm jib and trysail for Class 2. All just the opinion of this old salt. Chop it around how you like,


but the sooner the better. At this level nobody will commit without clear rules. Once again participating in the 2025 Admiral’s Cup will foremost be a very rewarding personal experience. The Fastnet Race alone might already be worth the effort if that is a first. But this time if the invitation is well thought out and results in a healthy fleet, then you might be part of, once again, lifting fully crewed yacht racing to a level that many thought we would never see again. See this as a bonus worth considering. One that you might benefit


from for decades of sailing to come. Rob Weiland, TP52 Class Manager


q


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  |  Page 113  |  Page 114