New rating rules on "flying headsails"

[flaming]

I read in the latest seahorse that "flying headsails" are now to be rated. These appear to be headsails set in front of the forestay and having a mid girth less than a spinnaker (which is at least 75%) but more than 62.4%. These sails are expected to be used in TWA 55-100ish. So you can now declare such sails, and their area and the number on board, and get a rating adjustment.
Excellent idea for offshore racing. Allows you to have a proper light wind reaching sail without compromising your spinnaker choice, and means that these sails can be cut to work properly in these wind ranges rather than too compromised, as a code zero often is. And boats without them get a rating benefit.

But...

They're not going to be any good for inshore racing. So once again we have a situation where a boat moded for offshore racing is going to need to change its rating to remove these flying headsails before being at all serious about an inshore regatta. So yet another barrier to participation in regattas that are bleeding entrants, year after year.

I do not understand why RORC keep resisting the obvious solution of having inshore and offshore ratings for each boat, and allowing them to declare a different inventory for each.

 

[Birdseye]

Could it be to do with the O in RORC?

 

[flaming]

Could it be to do with the O in RORC?

Undoubtedly.

Doesn't stop it being annoying for those racing inshore though...

 

[TernVI]

Undoubtedly.

Doesn't stop it being annoying for those racing inshore though...

People who want to race around dinghy courses in the Solent are entirely free to set up their own rating system.
Maybe some sort of 'Sportsboat Rule'?

Or you could do what my first sailing club did. We sailed on a little river where trapezes and spinnakers didn't exactly come into their own. So we adjusted PYs a couple of points if your boat was rated with a kite. It worked OK, because handicap racing was a bit of fun in the afternoon, after proper class racing in the morning. A club could make allowances for such sails being in the offshore rating, to create its own inshore rating.
Or you could set some courses with TWA's other than 0 and 180 of course....

 

[Mudisox]

Many of the races in the UK orientated RORC calendar, seem to have as many turning marks as inshore races, whereas in the "Old days" the races had long legs with a final destination. IRC is run by RORC, and there is no real accepted alternative at the moment.

 

[flaming]

People who want to race around dinghy courses in the Solent are entirely free to set up their own rating system.
Maybe some sort of 'Sportsboat Rule'?

Or you could do what my first sailing club did. We sailed on a little river where trapezes and spinnakers didn't exactly come into their own. So we adjusted PYs a couple of points if your boat was rated with a kite. It worked OK, because handicap racing was a bit of fun in the afternoon, after proper class racing in the morning. A club could make allowances for such sails being in the offshore rating, to create its own inshore rating.
Or you could set some courses with TWA's other than 0 and 180 of course....

But the point is that there are big IRC events every year. And every year we see lots of lovely IRC boats that could do them, and used to do them, but are now only doing offshore events. Part of that is obviously down to the will of the owners and sailors of those boats, but there is a growing feeling that a boat set up for offshore racing is not capable of being competitive inshore and vice versa. So there is little draw to a predominantly offshore boat deciding to do, for example, RORC's own IRC national championship event.
Having separate inshore and offshore ratings allowing different sails to be used (even if mainly this would be removing the flying headsails and rating with only 3 kites) would go some way to encouraging the offshore boys to do a regatta or two for fun every year. And clearly fleet growth is going to be easier when persuading people who already race to do a little bit more than persuading entirely new people into the sport...

 

[savageseadog]

Just remind me what percentage mid girth qualified a sail to be a spinnaker previously?

My understanding is that "flying headsails" will be rated as headsails.

 

[flaming]

Just remind me what percentage mid girth qualified a sail to be a spinnaker previously?

My understanding is that "flying headsails" will be rated as headsails.

1st line of my OP.

These will not be rated as headsails, but a new category.

 

[TernVI]

But the point is that there are big IRC events every year. And every year we see lots of lovely IRC boats that could do them, and used to do them, but are now only doing offshore events. Part of that is obviously down to the will of the owners and sailors of those boats, but there is a growing feeling that a boat set up for offshore racing is not capable of being competitive inshore and vice versa. So there is little draw to a predominantly offshore boat deciding to do, for example, RORC's own IRC national championship event.
Having separate inshore and offshore ratings allowing different sails to be used (even if mainly this would be removing the flying headsails and rating with only 3 kites) would go some way to encouraging the offshore boys to do a regatta or two for fun every year. And clearly fleet growth is going to be easier when persuading people who already race to do a little bit more than persuading entirely new people into the sport...

The problem is really that lots of people don't want to do your w/l races in whatever boat they have.
The rating is only an issue if you want to win rather than enjoy the racing.
Only one boat wins a race, most boats in a race are not going to win, they need other reasons to be there.

I've mostly given up inshore big boat racing because it doesn't deliver the right blend of enjoyment and value for money. I get better racing in smaller boats.

In dinghies, people love a good moan about the PY system, in a normal year it shifts a lot of ale in sailing club bar discussions. But it doesn't matter, the same people win the cups, mostly by doing all the races and the club relies on a critical mass of regular sailors who go out and race with no expectation of coming at the top of a spreadsheet. But often e.g. the Lasers are having a very serious race among themselves despite being uncompetitive against the RS400s on PY.

 

[olly_love]

The big change we all want to know about is the poles rule change, as they seem to be penalising having a stubby sprit,
SPL traditionally was the measurement but now its 2 measurements which is odd,

we will have to put a trial cert in this season to see what happens

 

[flaming]

The problem is really that lots of people don't want to do your w/l races in whatever boat they have.
The rating is only an issue if you want to win rather than enjoy the racing.
Only one boat wins a race, most boats in a race are not going to win, they need other reasons to be there.

True, but the situation has evolved to the point that a boat that can expect to be up in the chocolates on an offshore race is wildly uncompetitive on an inshore race when racing under the same system. Now whilst it's undoubtedly true that some sailors "have another reason to be there" the crew who are used to at least feeling like they are in with a shout offshore are unlikely to do much inshore racing to make up the numbers at the back.
It doesn't seem to be a lot to ask of RORC to allow 2 numbers on a cert, inshore and offshore, to be determined by the race committee at the NOR stage. To start with this could be as simple as declaring different sails. Then at least boats who have optimised for offshore could turn up at an inshore event with a rating that reflects the sails that they will actually use.
An even better situation would be if that inshore number was then more biased towards ww/lw racing, and resulted in boats that have enormous reaching potential (and consequently high ratings) having a chance inshore that they don't currently. Then these boats might think that turning out for a couple of inshore regattas a year was a worthwhile thing.

 

[savageseadog]

1st line of my OP.

These will not be rated as headsails, but a new category.
[/QUOTE}

If not rated as jibs, do we know how much it will affect ratings?

 

[flaming]

The big change we all want to know about is the poles rule change, as they seem to be penalising having a stubby sprit,
SPL traditionally was the measurement but now its 2 measurements which is odd,

we will have to put a trial cert in this season to see what happens

My reading of that was that you could in effect decide the correct length of your stubby bowsprit without having to carry the rating for the same length pole. So if, for example, you wanted to keep a J length pole but have a stubby sprit you wouldn't take all the hit for the over J pole. Suspect that it will mean no change of rating for boats as they are with pole and sprit the same, but opens up options to change the bowsprit or pole length independently to suit what you want to do with each sail. Think it will probably evolve over time to more boats having longer sprits for better reaching sails but shorter conventional poles for about the same rating. Because that's what you'd want to do if you could, have a longer sprit without paying for it in terms of pole length rating.

Seems sensible to me.

 

[flaming]

If not rated as jibs, do we know how much it will affect ratings?

Not yet....

 

[Laser310]

I read in the latest seahorse that "flying headsails" are now to be rated. These appear to be headsails set in front of the forestay and having a mid girth less than a spinnaker (which is at least 75%) but more than 62.4%

I am pretty sure ORC allows these sails to be anywhere between 50% and 75% mid girth - since 2018.

one of the boats I race on has one and I think it's 55%

this raises the question of why they wouldn't just follow the ORC limits - do they think that boats that bought one for ORC at 55% are going to buy another for IRC at 63%?

I doubt that will happen...

 

[flaming]

I am pretty sure ORC allows these sails to be anywhere between 50% and 75% mid girth - since 2018.

one of the boats I race on has one and I think it's 55%

this raises the question of why they wouldn't just follow the ORC limits - do they think that boats that bought one for ORC at 55% are going to buy another for IRC at 63%?

I doubt that will happen...

That's a very good question. I've also seen some trial certs that suggest that a J109 with a 60sqm flying headsail would get a 7 point hit. Which seems high for a sail filling the gap between a jib top and a traditional code zero....

 

[Laser310]

That's a very good question. I've also seen some trial certs that suggest that a J109 with a 60sqm flying headsail would get a 7 point hit. Which seems high for a sail filling the gap between a jib top and a traditional code zero....

it's certainly very high.., if you have to carry that +7 for windward/leeward...

 

[flaming]

it's certainly very high.., if you have to carry that +7 for windward/leeward...

Exactly....

 

[Laser310]

I'm not a 109 sailor.., and don't know the boat or its sails.., but don't they have overlapping jibs?

Unless you rate with a small jib.., I wonder if this sail is really appropriate for the boat

You can already have a big jib top, and a C0, and there's not much of a gap.

More generally.., for non-overlapping boats.., i wonder if the 63% requirement makes it close enough to a C0, that it's not worth the cost and rating hit.

 

[flaming]

I'm not a 109 sailor.., and don't know the boat or its sails.., but don't they have overlapping jibs?

Unless you rate with a small jib.., I wonder if this sail is really appropriate for the boat

You can already have a big jib top, and a C0, and there's not much of a gap.

More generally.., for non-overlapping boats.., i wonder if the 63% requirement makes it close enough to a C0, that it's not worth the cost and rating hit.

Almost all 109s race IRC with non overlappers. It was a similar hit for a JPK1080 and a first 40.

As to whether or not the hit is worth it, conversation for a sailmaker I think.