One or many IRC
So, for the IRC column, this month I would like to consider one- design and development class racing. This may seem a little off topic, but bear with me. One-design racing is highly competitive with all boats built to strict class rules. A well-maintained one-design class fosters tight, tactical racing. One-designs like the J/70, Melges 24, Etchells and Dragon have all been successfully delivering competitive racing over many years, while newer classes like the ClubSwan 36 and Cape 31 quickly gained popularity by offering high performance with controlled development. The first step away from one-design racing is what I call single-
class racing, with a degree of flexibility in design but within a defined rule framework that aims to keep competition fair and prevent an all-out development war. Such classes often employ a box rule, with constraints on key parameters such as length, displacement, sail area, draft and sometimes materials. Notable examples include the TP52 class, which has remained highly competitive despite allowing design evolution, and the Metre yachts which have been refined over decades while still maintaining historical continuity.
then a period of retrenchment followed by a second wave of more sustainable growth include the J/70 and Melges 32. So if you’re designing a new class, beware – because sailors are competitive animals and any slack in the regulations will soon be severely tested. Nowhere is this more of an issue than personnel. One-design
racing exposes crew performance with a greater emphasis on sailing skill, teamwork and strategy rather than, say, boat optimisation. I have no research to say that the best one-design teams tend to be more consistent in their personnel, but it feels as if this is true. Similarly, nowhere is the issue of pro vs am crew more hotly debated. So how does stating the obvious – like telling you that water is
wet – relate to IRC racing? Let me ask you this: if you had the chance to race your optimised IRC boat against a fleet of identical boats, would you adjust your sailing and development approach? The answer is almost certainly yes. Without the variable of differing boat designs, your focus would shift entirely to optimising boatspeed, crew work and equipment within a fixed set of constraints. This shift can lead to significant performance gains, even without
any changes to the boat itself. The ability to refine tactics, sail trim, boat handling and teamwork in a controlled, consistent environment allows you to push both boat and crew to a much higher level. An example: even within the realms of one-design and class
racing there is significant variation in performance across a fleet. To illustrate this, imagine applying IRC to a one-design class with the goal of adjusting times so that all boats would, in theory, finish simultaneously (the fundamental purpose of a rating system). In practice, even in tightly controlled one-design fleets, differences in crew skill and small optimisations lead to substantial time spreads. At the recent ClubSwan 50 Worlds the IRC-equivalent rating differ- ence across the fleet was around 90 IRC points (0.090) over a short 30 to 50-minute race. Hence if the fleet had been racing under IRC the slowest boat would have needed a rating adjustment of 0.090 just to match the winner’s corrected time. In a larger one-design fleet, say the Etchells, these gaps can also
Why IRC is such a beautiful thing. For over 10 years now IRC has encouraged simple, fast designs like the Cape 31… which in some weird kind of inverted reality are now winning in ORC too. Yes, they will struggle on handicap in lighter air, but would you prefer to own some knuckle-dragger that will nevertheless be extremely competitive if you opt for one of the alternative ‘fairer’ systems?
Now many would have you believe that one-design and class
racing primarily highlights skill, tactics and fine-tuning of equipment within the constraints of the class rules. But this strict framework paradoxically leads to continuous improvements in sailboat perfor- mance as sailors and teams seek every allowable advantage. While class racing encourages innovation and can lead to faster
boats, it also tends to favour teams with bigger budgets that can afford the latest technology and improvements. This is a key dis- tinction from one-design racing, where spending power is often – but not always – less of a factor. So class racing often sees an ongoing cycle of optimisation and rule tweaks to keep the fleet com- petitive while preventing excessive disparities between boats. For the sailors refinement usually starts with rig and sail trim,
as these are the most flexible within class rules. But beyond the rig and sails, there are still plenty of tricks to be explored. The hull, rudder and keel are more difficult to modify due to their structural nature, but that doesn’t mean sailors won’t try. Polishing, fairing, aligning and fine-tuning appendages make small but crucial differ- ences on the water and top teams will experiment with every legal (and sometimes less legal) route available. If a new class is launched without strict regulations already in
situ, sailors will quickly exploit any gaps and before long the class can easily drift away from the original objective. Once this happens it’s incredibly difficult to bring things back under control. What starts as a level playing field becomes an expensive arms race and the wider draw of the class is lost. Examples of excellent one-designs that have been through this cycle of peaking early, and expensively,
36 SEAHORSE
be very pronounced, and the time difference between first and last is typically at least eight minutes or more – for boats that are sup- posedly identical. Over a 90-minute race the IRC-equivalent spread can exceed 75 IRC points (0.075). In real terms this is a huge range in terms of the change in the principal measured parameters. Now let me come to my final point. When a competitive one-
design or class boat enters a rating class it often performs excep- tionally well, especially if the boat design has inherent qualities that align with the rating system. A prime example is the TP52 class (which performs well not just under IRC, by the way). The TP52 is a highly refined design within a flexible enough rule
framework. Its success can be attributed to strong class control – and here massive respect is owed to Rob Weiland for keeping it moving forwards while staying on track. Thanks to tight class governance and a culture of continuous development, the TP52 has flourished for many years; the TP52 development pyramid is as sharp as it gets. The boats have undergone countless hours of boat-on-boat testing. Equally, if slightly less exotic, the J/109 fleet in Ireland has many
examples racing together and doing just fine under IRC. Also, con- sidering that if you were designing an IRC-rated 31ft boat the Cape 31 might not be your first choice as starting point, this boat nev- ertheless performs admirably under IRC (and ORC), handicap per- formance driven upward by the learnings of one-design competition. This highlights how a well-designed and, most importantly,
well-sailed one-design can thrive in a rating environment, even if it wasn’t originally conceived with rating optimisation in mind. So what’s the takeaway from all this? Simply put, the similarities
and relationships between one-design racing, class racing and IRC racing are closer than ever. One-design and class boats can do surprisingly well under a rating system. Good sailors, good rules and a bit of creativity will always go a long way. So next time you think about IRC racing, remember: it’s not just about the boat. Dr Jason Smithwick, Rating Director
q
STEPHEN R CLOUTIER
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
