Left: this graph represents the delta in seconds per hour that a reference boat (X-35 One Design) has to give (positive) or has to be given (negative) under IRC versus applying its ORC offshore single number. The bars to the right of the zero axis represent boats that have a more favourable IRC than ORC rating with respect to the reference boat. Using an extreme example, in Class 3 the one-off Katariina II has to give the Archambault 35 Amaris 2 almost three minutes per hour more under IRC than ORC. The relatively heavy X-41s (opposite) have been very successful at previous ORC championships but are less favourably treated under the IRC system and showed less strongly in The Hague
to believe that an unmodified Farr 30 one-design could get 27th under ORC and 4th in IRC in the same race! Analysing the standings of Class C, it is also important to take
into account that the final part of the offshore race had a massive influence on the top half of the scoreboard as it carried double points and could not be discarded in the event of a poor result. Inevitably there were complaints from those who did less well
in the long race but this was the World Offshore Championships and so it is hard to find much sympathy. That said, in the interests of ‘suspense’ in the future it may be
better to run the long race at the end of the series – just as the triple-point Fastnet Race was once the concluding event of the Admiral’s Cup at Cowes. This emphasis on the offshore race did eliminate a few serious
contenders at the beginning of the week, but should not detract from the fact that the overall winner, the J/112E J Lance 12 (also the current IRC European Champion), showed very consistent results throughout the regatta, with excellent crew work inshore and a boat that performed well in all conditions both inshore and offshore. J Lance 12 also had one of the lowest IRC vs ORC ratios in the
fleet – in other words, her rating under either system was similar. Second was one of five of our Italia 9.98 designs that were
competing, Immac Fram, which is actually one of the more heavily penalised boats under IRC. Then in third we found Team Pro4u, a well-optimised First 36.7 with an impressively good IRC rating! That said, in Class C it was generally difficult to correlate results
could not achieve a single ‘combined’ podium (scored under ORC alone the Swan would have scraped two thirds). Between the highest-performance boats it is also clear that size
still matters. In fact, the professional crew racing the Carkeek Fast40+ Hitchhiker with Hamish Pepper calling tactics never once beat either of the two 50-footers under either handicap system. Food for thought for the rulemakers. Class B was a different story. Twenty-seven entries in a very
homogeneous fleet both in terms of size and of sail area vs dis- placement ratio. The level of the crews was high but not as pro- fessional as in Class A. At this medium size the two systems are generally less in agreement, with IRC rating faster than ORC, result- ing in some big differences between ORC and IRC scores in this fleet. In the top 10 overall the boats with a good IRC rating compared to ORC are the Landmark 43 and the First 40 Elke. On the other hand, there are all the X-41s which are less favourably treated by IRC but which have historically been very successful under ORC. The differences here can reach more than one minute per hour – a lot when you are talking about quite similar boats. Nevertheless, the top six positions would not change much if
scored only under ORC or IRC. The Landmark 43, winner of the 2016 ORC Worlds, proved again to be the strongest opponent and was only ever threatened by the best of the heavier X-41s. The Farr 40 OD Mr Brightside, which I had modified specifically for this event, also showed good potential and with a bit more preparation could have been in contention for the podium. Class C, the largest fleet with 49 entries, was as usual the most
competitive as well as being the most diverse group in terms of design. This class is also where the biggest discrepancies between IRC and ORC are found. Moreover, the relative differences between some boats here reached more than three minutes per hour, mean- ing that two boats with the same ORC rating had a difference of three minutes per hour under IRC. This created huge scoring diver- gence, up to 20 places in some cases. In fact, I still find it hard
to rules since the racing was always close and even the best crews dropped down into double-digits on occasion. However, within a tight fleet it is no surprise that the faster boats benefited as much as ever from clear air in front. In this class the rankings would also change a fair bit if the rating systems were used in isolation. Under just IRC J Lance 12would remain on top but the rest of the podium would change; under ORC the overall winner would have been the Italia 9.98 Immac Fram, with the X-37 Hansen in second and the much-travelled Cossutti 34 Katariina II in third. From a personal perspective I am satisfied to see three of my
designs in the top 10 in such a different type of event and with one boat on the podium, proving that with a good design balance it is now possible to have a boat that performs well under both rules. Overall ‘The Hague’ was a very enjoyable event with some very
close racing in really nice conditions. The mixture of the two handicap systems did produce some difficulties at the measuring stage because of the different approaches but nothing that could not be solved – in fact, the spirit of co-operation between the two rule teams was one of the event’s highlights. Probably the most disappointing aspect of this first ‘coupled’
event was the fact that only a very small number of IRC-designed boats entered the series – despite the venue being so close to the heart of IRC activity. It would have been interesting to see more than one Fast40+ or some JPKs and other successful IRC boats competing with the proven ORC designs that took part. This was partly a matter of scheduling, but it will also take more than one such event for everyone to be fully sold on the concept. All consid- erations when organisers are planning for the future. The biggest positive to take away from The Hague is that this
year’s joint world championship represented the first step towards a unified international rating system. Much more needs to be done before we get to an eventual solution but this first experience will surely help us in getting there. And that is in the interests of all of us who enjoy offshore racing. Matteo Polli Matteo Polli Yacht Design
q SEAHORSE 33
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
