Paul Cayar
Rob Weiland
Man and machine
The TP52s are a development class. This can be read as boat development within the class rule, also including development of that rule. From early on the class has updated the TP52
rule yearly, at first mainly to correct obvious short- comings and to be more explicit where the rule left too much room for interpretation, later a
rather large step was made with the clear intention to cut all ties with IMS and go for a typeform closer to the ultimate monohull racer at the end of the first decade of the 21st century, followed by regular small steps gradually allowing us to speed the boats up without obsolescing the existing ones. Since 2018 there has been complete rule stability, possibly also as a result of some unusual times. Today, 20 years later, I still very much believe in the ‘fast = fun’
principle that motivated our Californian ancestors to create the TP52 in the first place; since then of course many more options to go fast with a monohull have materialised. But most of these are (still) quite remote from another principle often mentioned in relation to sailing: ‘kiss’, as in ‘keep-it-simple-stupid’. There is much wisdom as well as often elegance in the simplicity
of one hull, one keel, one rudder, one mast. In fact, so much elegance that I do not see yet how, once mixing in the team-sport element, any of the alternatives we know right now can present monohull big boat competition of similar balance between the human (team) element and the equipment element. Just compare the equipment vs crew balance of an AC75 with that of a TP52 or Maxi72. Fast is fun in a racing context is in my opinion all about this equip-
ment-crew balance, not about ultimate boat speed, as in the faster the more fun, nor solely about the human element. Of course speed matters, but there are very few equipment sports effectively prac- tised by a team of more than four people, let alone by substantial teams of eight or (many) more. Fully crewed yacht racing really stands out for the combination of the complexity of its equipment and the complexity of the team operating that equipment. Fewer crew tends to result in more technology, and vice versa,
possibly expressed as more complexity. Technology can of course be attractive in itself. I love the Imoca 60 boats and their equipment development, intriguing to see the solutions and how the equipment performs – but machines with emotions only exist in the movies. As sport, ‘reduced-crew-sailing’ will always have to be careful not
to swing too much towards equipment dominance if it is not to lose its large fan base. Theoretically it is already possible to build an Imoca capable of going round the world autonomously. In between
34 SEAHORSE
that option and rules strictly separating human from equipment tasks there are endless choices between pure sailor/sportsman competition to a competition in which the human contribution is (almost) solely that of the service-mechanic/onboard reporter. I watch sport for its human element – the equipment is at best
an interesting second. Watching the IBM supercomputer Deep Blue play chess was only interesting when it played Kasparov. And then not more than twice… Returning to TP52 reality there will always be discussion about
rule development. Many may have an opinion but the TP52 is a class fully owned by its members, nothing moves without their con- sent. By two-thirds majority members can push the class rule any- where they like, even a 52ft hull length is not chiselled in stone. The debate is never just about performance but also about cost.
Cost reduction or increase, short or medium term, faster up, down or all round. And in my eyes more relevant: will a change promote the aspirations of yacht owners to continue to race a TP52? How the TP52 looks is part of the fun. I like how a TP52 looks.
At her berth, on the water, when racing, whether in a mix with other TP52s or individually. Tons of photos to prove they look good, if not great. All in the eye of the beholder of course – where many see their dream racer some see a dinosaur. The somewhat over-the-top positioning as ‘ultimate monohull
racer’ we have heard for the past few years would be more accurately reworded as ‘ultimate Archimedean monohull racer’. Many others think along TP52 lines: witness the many one-design classes of boats looking rather similar to the TP52 that are performing and selling well. Also witness the popularity of secondhand TP52s. For some years I have felt that from a visual aspect the rig could
be slightly taller, perhaps about 1m. On some photos, at certain angles, it really is obvious, and ever since non-class TP52s have been optimised with a taller mast we know how it looks as well as performs. Am not too worried about the performance differences, but looks shall not be underestimated So a taller stick slowly creeps up on my list where my mind mainly
for cost reasons has always blocked the idea as it makes the current rigs obsolete. So big money for little reward. And it is big money… you can buy three Dehler 30 one-designs for the cost of a new state- of-the-art TP rig, or a year’s sails for the 52 Super Series, or make a downpayment on your favourite Ferrari model… But if we do change up we could sneak in a few other rules for
added medium-term rewards, like greater reliability in rigging . Also make it possible to have a spare rig and components that will fit
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
