Another tribute to the craftsmanship still to be found in traditional Italian shipyards (and elsewhere as well of course, thinking Maine, Scotland etc…), the 1968 I&P design Oryx, like Outlaw, carried a small daggerboard aft of the keel to improve tracking with the short keels that these innovative designers employed on their racing designs. Had the designers made the move to the separate keel and rudder configurations being pioneered by Van de Stadt the extra boards would not have been necessary and the boats even faster…


Primrose were commissioned to design a follow-up, the French-owned Oryx. She shared with Outlawa very similar hull and keel form and an identical cutter rig. And she benefited from a rating rule-inspired deck. I & P were now fully exploiting a


construction loophole in the rule that gave a rating benefit for heavily built sidedecks, while allowing the so-called coachroof to be ultra light. But despite this, at her launch in 1966, she was already outclassed by the flood of separate-rudder designs coming from designers across the world. John Illingworth himself owned a further


slightly smaller development of the design called Monk of Malhamwhich, along with several near-sisterships, raced the 1967 season, but without a great deal of success. Indicative, perhaps, of a slightly mercurial


approach to yacht design, Illingworth & Primrose began their path to a race- winning design partnership down two distinct development routes: the medium/ heavy concept typified by the 1958 Belmore design which was created specifically to race effectively under the American CCA Rule, and then the light-displacement Blue Charm, in 1960, designed to take maxi- mum advantage of the RORC Rule. Belmore, a 36-footer, was as unlike a


typical American CCA Rule boat as was possible to imagine. The design was narrow and, most significantly, featured a transom- hung rudder. Illingworth himself, in his book Offshore, described Belmore as a design optimised for reaching performance – an essential attribute for a race known for long periods of fetching. Despite the complete absence of any


44 SEAHORSE


effective stern overhang – a feature normally associated with good offwind performance – Belmore proved to be an efficient CCA Rule racing boat placing second overall in the 1958 Bermuda Race, giving the fledgling I & P design practice a major success in its very first year. While designs like Belmore may appear


almost pedestrian by today’s grand prix standards with their coachroofs, tiny cockpits, slack bilges and full keels, they unequivocally were the raceboats of their day. Nothing underlines this flat-out approach adopted by Illingworth & Prim- rose more than the complete absence of an auxiliary engine – even in a boat the size of the 36ft Belmore. The Blue Charm style of design of 1960


showed a direct path from the Myth of Malhamconcept and would rapidly evolve into another ‘great’ in offshore design folk- lore: the 48ft Outlaw designed specifically for the Admiral’s Cup… an event already establishing itself as a de facto world championship of ocean racing. Blue Charm, like the much heavier


Maïca class, became a production design with many cold-moulded sisterships built in the UK and France. One of the many racing high points of this design was winning the Island Sailing Club’s annual race around the Isle of Wight, securing the Gold Roman Bowl in 1960. While the Round the Island is something


of a family-oriented yacht race attracting record fleets, it is one of those must-win competitions that attracts the very best yachts and crews. It was a definite mile- stone in the I & P success story. Such was the success of both the Blue


Charm and Maïca designs that they regu- larly raced against each other, giving the designers the opportunity to compare per- formance of two very different concepts. Identical in waterline length at the


RORC minimum of 24ft, the displacement difference was huge, with the Blue Charms weighing in at a mere 3.4 tons while the Maïcas topped 5.3 tons. In the end both types were equally successful under the RORC Rule. An interesting part of these divergent


design routes was the intention, by Illing- worth & Primrose, to reduce costs with the design of the lighter boats, thereby helping to open up ocean racing to more owners. Funny how in today’s world light- ness has become a byword for expensive! Always driven to help popularise ocean


racing, John Illingworth helped ‘father’ another significant concept, that of the Offshore One Design. As Commodore of the Royal Naval Sailing Association he commissioned Laurent Giles, in 1949, to design the smallest and least expensive offshore yacht that would comply with the RORC minimum waterline length of 24ft. Size was dictated by the shortest waterline length that could join in on the RORC circuit and race the Fastnet, while cost was dictated by the very inshore and dinghy- style idea of one-design. The so-called RNSA 24 One Design,


which started with John Illingworth’s very own Minx of Malham, went on to become highly popular, due in part to the relative low cost of series production inherent in a one-design package. So respected for the effectiveness of their high-aspect cutter rigs, Illingworth &


GUIDO CANTINI


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  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118