All change? Design - RORC Rating Office

SH Design hi res.qxp_Layout 1 17/09/2015 10:22 Page 49
Design
Relaunched this year following a colossal
‘rectification programme’, in the words of
her owner, after some serious early issues,
Hetairos is the biggest in so many ways,
but not in displacement. This all-carbon
super-super-Maxi boasts a record IRC TCC of 2.028 and an air draft of 62.5m,
the maximum to fit through the Panama
Canal. But at a displacement of 220 tonnes
she is, in fact, quite light for her length and
with a slippery, shallow underbody. Fast…
All change?
SH: And UNCL…
MU: Ours remains a very strong relationship – IRC is still very much
a shared joint venture. A lot of the research takes place here but
many of the new ideas come from UNCL. And when changes are
being considered each year there is a great deal of back and forth
across the Channel before anything is ever finalised.
SH: What about technical developments during your time?
MU: Masses! Huge changes. Twent- two years ago boats were IOR,
IOR derivatives or IMS of sorts, spinnakers were symmetric, boats
had spinnaker poles and bowsprits were banned. Neither water
ballast nor canting keels were permitted. Masts were aluminium.
Standing rigging was steel wire or rod. DSS had not even been
thought of! Powered winches were not permitted… so trimmer’s
thumb was unheard of. CHS and then IRC led the way in allowing
in all these innovations which then spread elsewhere.
We have always strongly held that IRC is permissive – we must
embrace the modern and the new, but it is key that we must at the
same time protect the existing fleet and not devalue their boats
overnight… But if we do not embrace new ideas then IRC will go
the way of its predecessors.
SH: In terms of the changing of the guard, how were your
responsibilities split in the past and what role do you (Mike) see
yourself having in the future?
MU: James has always held responsibility for the Whitbread/Volvo
work while contributing substantially to research for not just IRC
but also IRM and the Sportsboat Rule. (As an aside, it was gratifying
to watch HPR being introduced in the US, though I wasn’t sure
whether to feel proud as it confirmed that IRM was basically right,
or to reach for the lawyers; HPR is similar in so many respects.)
However, going forward James will now take on my role managing
the office and holding responsibility for all of its activities.
I will be leaving all the day-to-day stuff behind but will continue
to be involved in a consultancy role with responsibilities towards
research, software development and so on. Activities such as the
joint RORC/USS/ORC Universal Measurement System project –
which is going well – will also remain with me and I will continue
䊳
to contribute to ISAF matters.
CARLO BORLENGHI
Seventeen years after joining the RORC rating office, James Dadd
took over the helm in September from Mike Urwin. During his tenure
Dadd has also been a measurer at four America’s Cups and four
Volvo races and was in charge of the creation and subsequent
management of the V065 class used in the 2014-15 contest
Seahorse: Firstly, a brief history of the rating office…
Mike Urwin: The office was originally set up in the mid-1950s – on
a dining room table in Bournemouth – before moving to Lymington
in the 1970s. The aim has always been to try to remain at the forefront of rating rule development. Originally, it was the RORC rule
which was superseded by the IOR in 1969 with the office centrally
involved in IOR development. CHS then came along in 1984 and
was initially run from here, issuing certificates in CHS in parallel
with IOR and IMS. Some boats including one-designs were issued
a triple certificate incorporating all three systems. During the late
1980s and 1990s CHS grew exponentially until it was replaced by
IRC (to all intents and purposes CHS brought up to date by changing
the structure of the code rather than its effect), heralding a further
period of growth to the point now that we and UNCL issue some
7,000 certificates annually across 38 countries.
The office, of course, does much more than just IRC – it was
centrally involved in the development and management of the Whitbread 60 rule and then the Volvo 70 rule, which James developed
and we managed. More recently James was seconded to oversee
the build of the new Volvo 65s; with a finished boat weight range
of just 29kg we feel that he did OK.
Along the way we also developed and ran IRM, the RYA/RORC
sportsboat rule, and worked with builders such as Nautor for the
development and management of their in-house rules and also their
one-design classes.
Ultimately, we see the role of the office as the de facto
unappointed governing body for offshore sailing in the UK. We like
to think the UK plays a major role internationally and so we’d like
to see the office as also contributing to offshore sailing worldwide
and in the broadest sense. Yes, sometimes we spend money with
no return but we’re happy to support the sport. We are also heavily
involved in safety issues and regulations.
SEAHORSE 49
SH Design hi res.qxp_Layout 1 17/09/2015 10:23 Page 50
SH: And new staff…
James Dadd: The VO65 project was very helpful – because I was
out the office for most of the time it freed up a little funding so we
could bring Andrew Yates in two days a week, learning IRC, the
software and its development. Now Andrew will do more of that
work. As Mike steps back so Andrew will gradually step up.
SH: So what about the Volvo and the Cup stuff…
JD: People think those two events have been my life – that’s true
to an extent but originally it was all IRC. But IRC is a bit of a cuckoo:
every time we’ve focused on it there has been another egg drop
in the nest, IRM, other rule development, the Cup and so on. As
far as the core ‘product’ is concerned, over the past 10 years we’ve
gone from trying to protect IRC to realising it does not need
protection – we just need to encourage and develop it.
MU: And all of this is only possible due to a team here that now
boasts over 100 man-years of rating rule experience…
SH: James, what about the next Volvo and the next Cup?
JD: For the first time since 1992 I’ve got no plans for the Cup right
now. For the VOR we’re in negotiations with Volvo as to where we
go with the 65s. I will remain class manager but the real question
is how much time I can manage with my increased role here.
Certainly not the four days a week I was away for last time.
SH: What about IRC and the growing Superyacht racing scene?
JD: The maths of IRC does alter through the size range… as does
the physics. That said, many of the larger yachts are weighed and
receive an IRC certificate in the usual way. There are no tweaks
in IRC for any one class or size range.
However, we did not pursue the avenue of a dedicated ‘Superyacht rule’, because we felt that the only way for boats of such
diverse types to really be looked after properly is not via a VPP or
any other type of purely scientific rule; you’ve got to put in subjective
elements. You need to account, for example, for the fact that some
boats have to roll their jibs before they can tack and, even there,
some will have fast systems and others slow systems. These boats
are basically set up for cruising not racing. With IRC as the foundation, we did not want to get sidetracked away from an objective
system. We didn’t do that with the Wallys or Maxi 72s, which are
both IRC classes, and both fleets to date seem to like that approach
and don’t show any signs of wanting to change.
MU: Once you move above 100ft there are too many variations for
a pure VPP system. What Superyachts need is not a rating rule,
they need a handicap rule. An objectively managed handicap rule.
JD: Over the years there’s been a lot of shouting at IRC that it’s
more of a handicap rule, that we have a set of dials we use to adjust
ratings. In fact, that’s what the ORC has created with ORCsy – and
I don’t disagree with that as it’s what’s needed for those boats.
But it’s something that we did not want to do; our core constituency
is the IRC cruiser-racer fleet and we felt that if we did something
like that for the Superyachts it could adversely affect general opinion
50 SEAHORSE
With more America’s Cup and Volvo
crews now racing on the big boats
comes pressure on rating systems.
Wally Yachts (left) have used IRC for
some years, with input into rating
management but not the formulas
of IRC – it’s never been something we tweak for individual types
of boats. In any case we would never have the time.
SH: So has Comanche got the highest IRC number ever?
MU: Nope. The highest TCC was Hetairos at two-point-something.
So in context compare that with a Folkboat on a rating of 0.7
something, Hetairos has to get around the track three times faster.
Which is of course entirely possible.
SH: Handicap racing is always fairer between boats of a similar
size. When classes like the Maxi 72, TP52 and 100-footers
come up against each other under IRC how does it go…
MU: It’s reasonable, but it often comes down to conditions. The
particular issue with the TPs and Maxi 72s and their success under
IRC is more about the budget and effort those guys put in, which
inevitably has an effect on performance. Put the same effort into
almost any half-decent cruiser-racer and it would do just as well.
JD: The other thing with the TP52 in particular is the amount of
design refinement and design investment that has gone in. The
amount of information that Judel-Vrolijk have on a 52ft raceboat
– compare that to if they did a 40ft version where they don’t have
anything like the same amount of data to base their choices upon.
Plus the TP52s are very cool boats. I’m much happier that the IRC
optimum is thought to be something like a TP52 rather than something like the old slab-sided IMS 50s.
SH: The size cut-off where lighter boats and even carbon have
become effective in IRC seems to be drifting below 40ft for the
first time. Will that downward trend continue and do you want
it to?
MU: Yes. We are seeing well-sailed 40ft racers doing just fine under
IRC. The challenge now is to extend that downwards. IRC is inclusive
and we very much want to embrace these boats which is why we
are actively working to better treat designs like the new Farr 280
and C&C 30. Will we get it right first time? Of course not, but come
January and you will see IRC changes to help lighter boats around
the 30ft size.
JD: Another area you mentioned is the carbon boats and I’ve been
looking at this for a few years now. What we must do above all is
ensure we are not incurring unnecessary costs. If you are building
a new boat at 50ft it is now cost-effective to build it in carbon. But
it used not to be cost-effective at 40ft. However… if you look at
the current cost of carbon, use it at 40ft and you’re going to use
less material, less resin and fewer man hours. Against that you
can’t use decent gel-coat and there are also other drawbacks. But
the gap is closing.
It’s useful in this regard that before I sat down here I was a
boatbuilder and also set up a couple of one-design classes. We’re
certainly seeing that in the right context for these smaller boats
carbon can become a cost-effective way to go, especially for
previously high-labour items like keel-floors.
The whole approach of IRC is that we do not want to cause someone
CARLO BORLENGHI
Design
SH Design hi res.qxp_Layout 1 17/09/2015 10:23 Page 51
to do something they would not naturally do. For example, what
material would you choose if a rating rule wasn’t involved? Right now
I’d say that at 35ft carbon is already very much in the mix.
MU: But we still need to be careful about the effects on the bulk
of the fleet – the cruiser-racers that IRC will continue to be aimed
squarely at. But well-sailed ‘wiz bang’ boats should be competitive
and if we can achieve that then were doing alright. But it’s not easy.
JD: Any boat will also always have a preferred set of conditions and
that’s as it has always been and as it should be. That is why it’s
so important that organisers experiment more with varied course
formats. Especially for the Corinthian sailor, always doing the same
manoeuvres at the same marks can get pretty dull. Mixed courses
can offer more interesting and more testing racing… and also more
fun. For one thing, we need to learn to go reaching again – and the
boats too should be made more capable of it.
SH: How do you select and develop your tools?
MU: We make heavy use of internally developed software. We have
the ability within that to run ‘what ifs’ against the whole fleet to
explore the effects of potential changes to any one boat – what
are the unintended effects? We also use WinDesign, mainly for
performance prediction.
A key element, however, is that we have worked over the years
to earn the trust and confidence of the designers themselves. Many
of them are happy to share their research and their predictions
with us, safe in the knowledge that we will keep the data confidential.
A few years ago we were struggling with a particular issue so I called
up a designer who right away said ‘sure, come over, there’s all the
design work, the CFD work, the tank work, and by the way we’ve
now got records of the actual performance on the water. Help
yourselves.’ That is worth far more than almost anything else.
Given the big-budget design programmes out there, we could
never hope to match their spending. The resources that the design
community enjoy are orders of magnitude greater than what we will
ever have. And the same goes for any rating office. Some design
offices now have ready access to supercomputers; none of us can
match that nor are ever likely to.
SH: Empirical observation is often talked about in the same
breath as IRC, is that still the case?
JD: Yes, absolutely. As one designer once said to me, ‘The only
reason we go racing is to validate the VPP.’ Things don’t always
work in the way theory suggests, even today. There was that –
expensive – phase when the Mini Maxis ended up putting chines
on the back of the boats, and they did not always go in the right
place nor work as expected; a number of hulls and even boats were
scrapped as a result. Empirical observation of how boats are actually
performing in the water is immensely valuable. Are the heavy boats
winning, or the light boats, or the over-canvassed boats? Is that
specific to a set of conditions or a location. What we do find interesting is, if the heavy boats are winning are the light ones coming
last? That would suggest something really might be wrong.
SH: Returning to the Universal Measurement System (UMS)…
MU: Good progress is being made. A common standard for sail
measurement for all commonly used rating systems is very close
now. The same data for all and involving all sailmakers; it will be
announced at the ISAF conference. And this new sail measurement
programme will be rolled out jointly with the ORC. There are also
other changes underway in the equipment rules to embrace this
move, plus other areas to be addressed. We’re getting there.
SH: Finally, at some sizes IRC and ORC designs appear to be
converging, although this is currently skewed by the fact that
most big ORC events take place at light air venues, meaning
that for ORC you will usually crank up the sail area…
JD: More important than that, I do not believe that we have yet
seen a truly ORC-optimised design – and until we see that it is very
difficult to comment with any certainty. Also, we have seen some
pretty unusual-looking keels in ORC this year that we suspect are
driven more by the rule than by pure design advantage.
SH: The TP52s win under both systems…
JD: They do at the moment. But I have no idea how the TP would
fare against a completely optimised ORC design of a similar size.
To be honest at this point I haven’t got a clue.
Andrew Hurst
q
SEAHORSE 51