The return of the cruiser racer....?

[bedouin]

Edit: but with a wood burning stove - obviously!

I am a little out of touch with the current IRC rule - do you get a rating cut for having a wood burning stove?

 

[mrming]

I am a little out of touch with the current IRC rule - do you get a rating cut for having a wood burning stove?

Obviously IRC is a black box rule so we can’t tell anything for sure, but the rumours are:

Eberspacher - 0.001 to 0.003 drop
Butane heater - up to 0.005
Bulkhead mounted charcoal - up to .007
Full cast iron wood burner with chimney - up to 0.010

The speculation is that the rating decrease is proportional to the level of danger involved in racing with the particular heater alight.

As always with IRC, designers find ways to exploit the rule, and it’s rumoured that John Corby is planning his first new IRC boat in several years, dropping his iconic large ballast bulb in favour of a full size oil burning Aga, mounted longitudinaly above a lightweight stainless steel fin keel.

 

[Greenheart]

I do hope John Corby's aga will feature a bolt-on warm panel for keeping salopettes neatly flattened?

 

[mrming]

I do hope John Corby's aga will feature a bolt-on warm panel for keeping salopettes neatly flattened?

One would hope so. This could finally open the door for pleated salopettes.

 

[flaming]

As noted above, in the past when racing machines have been favoured boats have lost value so quickly that new building slowed dramatically anyway. I've often thought a good workaround would be to allow people to remove things like tables as long as they put a little bit more weight on board, bolted down in an area that would prevent it being used to improve weight centralisation or as ballast.

It would be good to allow lighter boats to be competitive, and to require the heavier ones to have simple things like forward bulkheads if they are going to be rated as cruiser/racers.

Some really good points Chris.

I get the point about the residual value of pure racing boats. However, a lot of what the IOR issues with this were surrounding the Ton classes, which were in effect a development class, and as they level rated once it was not competitive it was almost worthless. Ironically IRC has now to a large amount fixed that in the 1/4 and 1/2 ton classes as they now rate under IRC so boats are now competitive year after year. And the money that 1/4 tonners change hands for now is bonkers. As is the amount of money that is being spent on modifying them and bringing them up to date.

That is where IRC is good. A stable rule which gives people the confidence to mod their boats to be competitive for a number of years. I mean I'm sailing a 2006 boat that was designed in 2003 and we're still winning things.
And a rule that allows boats from all eras to be competitive. The overall winner of the IRC national championships this year was Whooper - a 1939 classic. And they also won Cowes week overall.

However, I don't think that tweaking the rule to allow cruiser racers to strip out unwanted interior joinery, and encourage designers to draw real race boats in the 35 foot region would kill the existing fleet. There's nothing at all to say that a currently competitive First 35, or J109 etc couldn't continue to be competitive. But those designs are over 10 years old. The new competitive designs, with the possible exception of the J112e, are just not cruising boats that will get use as cruisers.

 

[lpdsn]

Full cast iron wood burner with chimney - up to 0.010

And if you blow out your kite you can drop it straight down the chimney rather than the forehatch or companionway.

 

[Jenny RORC]

Hi everyone,

We (the RORC Rating Office) do not usually get involved in forum discussions, but having read this thread there are a few issues I can helpfully comment on.

The IRC Rating Authority does not say IRC is aimed squarely at cruisers or cruiser/racers; maybe it has in the past but IRC Rule 2 says “IRC is a system of measurement which classifies a broad range of cruising and racing ballasted monohull keelboats for competition… The IRC Concept protects the existing fleet… IRC encourages design innovation consistent with stability, rounded performance, seaworthiness and safety”.

Obviously, the ‘existing fleet’ develops along with design progress otherwise nothing would move forward!

And from the IRC introduction (https://www.ircrating.org/introduction/an-introduction-to-irc ):
“IRC is aimed at a very wide range of keelboats of all sizes and shapes including modern production cruisers and cruiser/racers through dedicated one-off race boats, older cruisers and racers to classic yachts and superyachts. IRC is continually developed to encompass new developments in both cruisers and racers while at the same time protecting the interests of the bulk of the fleet.”

Sailcloth – I have been working the Rating Office long enough to remember when CHS (IRC’s previous name) rated different sailcloths, and what a nightmare that was! Whatever rule you come up with, a clever sail designer or sailcloth manufacturer will find a way around it. Also, there were instances of people buying multiple sets of ‘low-tech’ sails and using a brand new set for each event. Unfortunately, that is the nature of rules and usually the losers are the boats they were intended to help.

Furniture - yes IRC adds a small amount for each item of fixed standard furniture that is removed for racing. The reason for this is simple – owners of cruisers or cruiser/racers should not feel that they have to strip the table and doors off their boat to keep up with everyone else. The standard level of interior is taken into account in the rating, so if people want to strip stuff out for ergonomic or weight reasons then why should that not be taken into account?

Extra, heavy fixed cruising items can be taken into account in the boat weight. Eg. davits, sprayhoods, windlasses, generators etc.

As you will all be aware, IRC caters for designs from 1720 sportboats to classic superyachts and everything in between as long as it doesn’t have more than 2 masts. No rating rule is ever going to be perfect, and the question is ‘what type of boat do you want to encourage?’…. Whatever that is, it will of course not suit everyone.

There are many aspects of design and sailing practice that IRC could take into account, but we are very aware of the dangers of ‘creeping complexity’ and actively try and keep the application and the Rule as simple and straightforward as possible for the majority of the fleet. We know that complexity is one of the things that can put off potential new racers, so it is something we have to try and balance with treating racing/cruising features fairly.

As far as the actual racing is concerned, things we remind event organisers about include: 1) vary the courses and do NOT just do windward-leewards, so that different types of designs have their day in the right conditions. 2) if fleet sizes allow, split out small sportboats from cruiser/racers as they perform so differently. This and more advice for race organisers is published on the IRC website https://www.ircrating.org/racing/race-management.

Cheers,
Jenny
(Technical Manager, RORC Rating Office).

ps. yes, we have rated boats with a wood-burning stove installed!

 

[Greenheart]

Obviously IRC is a black box rule so we can’t tell anything for sure, but the rumours are:

Eberspacher - 0.001 to 0.003 drop
Butane heater - up to 0.005
Bulkhead mounted charcoal - up to .007
Full cast iron wood burner with chimney - up to 0.010

Compared to the pleasing simplicity of the Portsmouth Yardstick scheme (especially before it went to four figures), I always found the decimal point ratings that are allocated under the IRC system, too hard to remember or to use to compare boats.

Much better, if a rating could be issued according to the boat's BTU output. Interestingly, that would probably favour the cruisers.

 

[flaming]

Jen,

Thanks for diving in, and welcome.

In general I think IRC is a really, really good system and I have had some incredibly good tight racing under IRC over the years. My issue at the moment is that I do not see IRC reacting to the changing ways that owners are using their boats.

A couple of clarification requests if I may?

Furniture - yes IRC adds a small amount for each item of fixed standard furniture that is removed for racing. The reason for this is simple – owners of cruisers or cruiser/racers should not feel that they have to strip the table and doors off their boat to keep up with everyone else. The standard level of interior is taken into account in the rating, so if people want to strip stuff out for ergonomic or weight reasons then why should that not be taken into account?

Is it still the case that there is a rating change over and above the weight change for removing items such as tables? So for example if I remove the table and then re-weigh the boat in its new configuration will my rating change by more than if my boat had simply changed weight by that much for some other reason?

If there is, then I would argue for a change to that. By insisting that items such as tables have to remain then instead of rating the boat that the owner wishes to sail you are dictating to the owner the configuration that the boat must be in. It may be (as it is in the case of our owner) that the boat was originally purchased with the intent of both cruising and racing, but circumstances have changed and now the owner is only interested in racing. If IRC's weight calculation is correct then there should be no speed/rating advantage to removing the weight, but the advantages to the owner can be marked - whether it is protecting items from damage to make the boat more saleable as a cruiser in the future or (as in the case of the doors we wanted to take off many years ago) protecting sails from damage.

As you will all be aware, IRC caters for designs from 1720 sportboats to classic superyachts and everything in between as long as it doesn’t have more than 2 masts. No rating rule is ever going to be perfect, and the question is ‘what type of boat do you want to encourage?’…. Whatever that is, it will of course not suit everyone.

To what extent does RORC take into account the type of boat that is actually available to buy when deciding whether any tweaks to the rating are in order to encourage a particular type of boat in a rating band?

It is the feeling of many in my particular section of IRC (35ish CRs between 0.990 and 1.040) that the only boats in the "IRC favoured" box that are currently available to buy are very expensive, or small production run boats such as the JPKs etc. The major yards have retreated from the market of making IRC friendly boats in this range. And that has us worried for the future of IRC racing in this size and type of boat. Fleet numbers have absolutely crashed in recent years in this range, and I wondered if this was something that RORC are looking at?

 

[Jenny RORC]

Hi Flaming,

Yes – IRC rule 22.2.2 explains that Hull Factor may be increased for removal of furniture or other fitted equipment to compensate for potential increase in performance. It is interesting that you see this as a disadvantage for cruising boats, whereas it is intended to protect cruising boat owners from pot-hunters who buy a ‘cruising’ boat and then strip it out to gain an advantage not only in weight but in ease of sail handling etc down below. Accommodation level is part of the HF calculation so even without owners changing standard fitout it affects more than just the boat weight. I have seen very competitive production boats with all the standard furniture aboard but a protective cover over the table and the door handles taped up to stop them catching on sails.

The IRC Technical Committee does of course look at trends in design types and at different sizes. The trick is to work out what is a true trend (as opposed to a minority flash in the pan), what that trend actually is (ie. what feature(s)), whether it is undesirable and if so how to deal with it.

cheers
Jen

 

[mrming]

Thanks for taking the time to comment Jen. As a race organiser at a club level sometimes you are trying to handicap a motley crew of different boat styles and no rule is ever going to be a magic wand for that. I do feel however that the way the rule favours heavy boats at the very small end is a bit of an anomaly. We have trouble with things like Folkboats which rate very low but sail very well, rendering them all but unbeatable a lot of the time.

Interestingly the number of IRC certs is up at our East coast club this year, with 16 out 29 boats in our current Autumn Series having a cert and being dual scored.

 

[flaming]

Hi Flaming,

Yes – IRC rule 22.2.2 explains that Hull Factor may be increased for removal of furniture or other fitted equipment to compensate for potential increase in performance. It is interesting that you see this as a disadvantage for cruising boats, whereas it is intended to protect cruising boat owners from pot-hunters who buy a ‘cruising’ boat and then strip it out to gain an advantage not only in weight but in ease of sail handling etc down below. Accommodation level is part of the HF calculation so even without owners changing standard fitout it affects more than just the boat weight. I have seen very competitive production boats with all the standard furniture aboard but a protective cover over the table and the door handles taped up to stop them catching on sails.

The IRC Technical Committee does of course look at trends in design types and at different sizes. The trick is to work out what is a true trend (as opposed to a minority flash in the pan), what that trend actually is (ie. what feature(s)), whether it is undesirable and if so how to deal with it.

cheers
Jen

Thanks for the clarification.

I've also seen plenty of boats with covers etc, and we do of course tape the door handles. But then we're admitting that the boat as configured is not really suitable for the use it's being put to. It just seems a little odd that the owner is not allowed to decide how to configure his/her boat.

I think my point is that the number of people who are actually cruising and racing the same boat is now so limited that it might be time to allow owners to configure their boat however they like and just measuring the weight, not the interior fit out. The people the rule seems designed to protect - the true cruiser-racer, who's racing this weekend and cruising next... They don't exist any more. I asked the question on this board before and basically got 1 example of people who race and cruise the same boat.
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?435714-Cruising-the-racer

Especially when, as discussed, rating things like sail cloth is a nightmare. And everyone knows that to be competitive you will need quite a lot of go fast kit like 3 kites, and if you're going offshore one of them needs to be a code 0 unless you have a massive genoa. And if you don't have a big genoa you'll need inhaulers, and a whole host of other things that are expensive but do not effect your IRC rating. All of that is frequently mentioned here and elsewhere as barriers to entry into the IRC world. And yet the furniture policy is, as you say, designed to protect people sailing cruiser racers from pot hunters. But... The protection hasn't worked. The number of mid 30s CRs actively racing has absolutely plummeted... And (as was the original point of this thread) they're not even really being made any more.

Again, I'll restate that I think IRC generally does a great job of rating boats, and I've had a lot of fun racing IRC in a range of boats. But this is one area where I think RORC is significantly behind the curve.

 

[lw395]

Are there really dozens of people ready to write the cheques for new 35ft cruiser racers if only they could leave the table and cushions at home?

I think what's really happening is there's a shortage of people willing and able to spend the cash. A lot of racing seems to have lost critical mass now.
I seem to know a fair few cruising yacht owners who rarely race the cruiser, but regularly race their second boat, whether than's a Laser or an XOD.
The trend for really short inshore 'yacht races' means you can get similar racing in smaller boats with not only a lot less expense, but also more competition.

 

[Muddy32]

The change in type of racing is surely one of the reasons - Classic and JOG seem to be having a return. Folk were brought up in dinghies sailing windward leewards or trapezoidal which are similar. More sausage triangles and longer passage races with socialising at the end are more attractive to many.

 

[wotayottie]

You have to wonder about a rule that allows people like us to put carbon sails, inhaulers, specialist racing tuff-luffs, uprated cordage and a whole host of other stuff that has an actual effect on how fast it goes on the boat with no rating penalty, ................ I fail to see how that encourages participation. By saying you can have all the go fast goodies without penalty you are saying that to be competitive you have to have them. So the average cruiser baulks at the cost. So we're not encouraging cruisers to race. Yet we're making racers sail boats with all the cruising goodies on board?

.

Really you have said it all there. There already is a huge difference between a successful race boat and a cruiser in all the bits you have mentioned. Allowing the removal of doors cushions etc would only going to make that gap even bigger. And whilst ever keen racers are prepared to put their hands in their pockets to buy all the go faster bits, then you can never get a successful cruiser racer outside a one design fleet

 

[Chris 249]

then you can never get a successful cruiser racer outside a one design fleet

But you can have a cruiser/racer with good sails, a good Tuff-luff, inhauls and all the rest, and don't results like 8th overall out of 300 in the last two Fastnets prove that such boats ARE successes?

To make it clear, the boats were a Ben 44.7 and a J/109, which are pretty similar to my own boat and more luxurious than our old one. We're perfectly happy cruising such boats for a week or two and would be happy for much longer cruises if we had time, especially with additions like dodgers, a watermaker and anchor winch which are either counted in the ratings or can easily be added for that annual cruise.

Uprated cordage costs a bit; inhauls very little. People like me may have to cop a penalty on our cruiser-style furlers but that's OK; we probably lose no more than one missed windshift. What concerns me is the $50,000 worth of extra sails the other guys can carry with no penalty, and which fill up the boat in a way that makes even a weekend cruise far less comfortable.

 

[Chris 249]

Hi everyone,

We (the RORC Rating Office) do not usually get involved in forum discussions, but having read this thread there are a few issues I can helpfully comment on.

The IRC Rating Authority does not say IRC is aimed squarely at cruisers or cruiser/racers; maybe it has in the past but IRC Rule 2 says “IRC is a system of measurement which classifies a broad range of cruising and racing ballasted monohull keelboats for competition… The IRC Concept protects the existing fleet… IRC encourages design innovation consistent with stability, rounded performance, seaworthiness and safety”.

Obviously, the ‘existing fleet’ develops along with design progress otherwise nothing would move forward!

And from the IRC introduction (https://www.ircrating.org/introduction/an-introduction-to-irc ):
“IRC is aimed at a very wide range of keelboats of all sizes and shapes including modern production cruisers and cruiser/racers through dedicated one-off race boats, older cruisers and racers to classic yachts and superyachts. IRC is continually developed to encompass new developments in both cruisers and racers while at the same time protecting the interests of the bulk of the fleet.”

Sailcloth – I have been working the Rating Office long enough to remember when CHS (IRC’s previous name) rated different sailcloths, and what a nightmare that was! Whatever rule you come up with, a clever sail designer or sailcloth manufacturer will find a way around it. Also, there were instances of people buying multiple sets of ‘low-tech’ sails and using a brand new set for each event. Unfortunately, that is the nature of rules and usually the losers are the boats they were intended to help.

Furniture - yes IRC adds a small amount for each item of fixed standard furniture that is removed for racing. The reason for this is simple – owners of cruisers or cruiser/racers should not feel that they have to strip the table and doors off their boat to keep up with everyone else. The standard level of interior is taken into account in the rating, so if people want to strip stuff out for ergonomic or weight reasons then why should that not be taken into account?

Extra, heavy fixed cruising items can be taken into account in the boat weight. Eg. davits, sprayhoods, windlasses, generators etc.

As you will all be aware, IRC caters for designs from 1720 sportboats to classic superyachts and everything in between as long as it doesn’t have more than 2 masts. No rating rule is ever going to be perfect, and the question is ‘what type of boat do you want to encourage?’…. Whatever that is, it will of course not suit everyone.

There are many aspects of design and sailing practice that IRC could take into account, but we are very aware of the dangers of ‘creeping complexity’ and actively try and keep the application and the Rule as simple and straightforward as possible for the majority of the fleet. We know that complexity is one of the things that can put off potential new racers, so it is something we have to try and balance with treating racing/cruising features fairly.

As far as the actual racing is concerned, things we remind event organisers about include: 1) vary the courses and do NOT just do windward-leewards, so that different types of designs have their day in the right conditions. 2) if fleet sizes allow, split out small sportboats from cruiser/racers as they perform so differently. This and more advice for race organisers is published on the IRC website https://www.ircrating.org/racing/race-management.

Cheers,
Jenny
(Technical Manager, RORC Rating Office).

ps. yes, we have rated boats with a wood-burning stove installed!

Thanks for commenting, Jen. I can recall the old sailcloth rating issue, but would still be interested in getting a rating reduction for having a minimalist wardrobe without going for the roller furler+HWJ reduction. Many one design classes cater for it fairly well by having sail button restrictions, of course, and one imagines that there are few people in this size range who will do the Etchells trick of buying another boat just for its sail quota.

Obviously the people who wanted a full wardrobe could still have them, but personally I'd love it if those of us who want to cruise and race could just register a minimalist wardrobe, whack some buttons or a measurer's signature on them to prove we're not buying new ones each week and don't have a set of substitutes in a tender to choose based on the forecast, and get a couple of pips benefit. Couldn't that encourage people to come out and sail in the knowledge that they could just buy a good 105% and a good 3/4 oz or something and be reasonably competitive, instead of having to buy a full wardrobe including Code Zeroes and three kites?

It's odd, when I was a penniless kid I was so keen I lived in my boat (which was sort of like a run-down version of an Impala 28) just so I could afford to have a racing boat. Now we can afford the sort of typical 36 foot boat (or something much bigger if we wanted to) quite easily, but we look around and see skyrocketing costs that have driven almost everyone who sails anything less than 40ft out of the game around here and it looks like an elitist game that we don't want to play. I see it's a lot better in the UK than here in Australia.

Maybe what we need down here is a specialised local class association for small to medium cruiser/racers that would bring in its own tweaks or class restrictions, but would that be allowed by the Rating Office?

 

[flaming]

But you can have a cruiser/racer with good sails, a good Tuff-luff, inhauls and all the rest, and don't results like 8th overall out of 300 in the last two Fastnets prove that such boats ARE successes?

To make it clear, the boats were a Ben 44.7 and a J/109, which are pretty similar to my own boat and more luxurious than our old one. We're perfectly happy cruising such boats for a week or two and would be happy for much longer cruises if we had time, especially with additions like dodgers, a watermaker and anchor winch which are either counted in the ratings or can easily be added for that annual cruise.

Uprated cordage costs a bit; inhauls very little. People like me may have to cop a penalty on our cruiser-style furlers but that's OK; we probably lose no more than one missed windshift. What concerns me is the $50,000 worth of extra sails the other guys can carry with no penalty, and which fill up the boat in a way that makes even a weekend cruise far less comfortable.

There's absolutely no doubt that cruiser racers can be very competitive under IRC. To me though the issue is simply that a situation where CRs are favoured has not resulted in every brand offering a competitive cruiser racer. Instead there are essentially just 4 options from major yards for an IRC cruiser racer in the mid 30s bracket today. The Dehler 35, the XP33, the GS34 and the J112E. If anyone knows of more, please let me know.
Of those 4, the XP33 and the GS really fail the "make a good cruiser" test by not having doors to the cabins, or an open forepeak. They are simply not going to be bought by dual use owners in the UK. Which leaves the Dehler, which is in effect a 10 year old design that's been given a facelift, and the J.

What we do have is a few specialist short handed boats - the Jeaneau Sunfasts and the JPKs. Which have also proved to be pretty decent fully crewed boats, the JPKs in particular, but again nobody is going to buy as a genuine dual use boat, certainly not once you've seen the cabin of the equivalent sized cruising boat.

So I guess the question for RORC is, what next? Are we abandoning racing in this size range because nobody is making the boats any more, or is RORC doing anything to encourage new designs and racing in this size?
What they could do is an interesting question. I don't think I'm alone in suggesting that the "bang for buck" in this size sector is out at the moment. You could buy a trailable sportsboat for a lot less, or a Fast 40 for a LOT more and get both exciting racing and fast sailing. But if you're buying that J you're spending the best part of £200k, possibly more, to put it on the water in a state to win races. For a boat that isn't really any more exciting than the J109 was 15 years ago. But if you spent less on something like the Farr280, or the C&C30 you can't win races under IRC, that is well proven. And there's a great big space between the performance profile of a C&C30 and the J112e.
We get to watch a lot of the Fast 40 racing. There is an excellent pic of us at a mark rounding at the IRC nationals this year with Fast 40s all around us. And we are saying - "why can't sailors on smaller budgets sail boats like that and have a chance of winning?" Why isn't there a 35 foot version of that boat? Do we really think that there would not be owners for a similar style of boat if it had a prayer of winning on IRC? We already know that most owners of CRs in this size aren't cruising them, so do we really think they'd be put off from a boat that didn't have any accommodation?

I think the J111 proves that point. It's the closest there is to a fast 35 at the moment. And it's (slowly) getting a fleet, even if it is massively expensive and difficult (but not impossible) to win under IRC.

But this would all, to me, be a bit of a moot point if there was a big fleet of cruiser racers out on the Solent week after week. Because that would be awesome. It was awesome! I've done IRC regattas with 20 boats on the line, all within 30 points and about 15 different designs represented. Amazing racing. But they've gone. So given that policies designed to protect that type of boat have not resulted in growing (or even not shrinking) fleets, is it time to shake things up?

 

[lw395]

I think the danger is, if you shake things up, you'll damage what there is at the moment, without replacing it with anything.

I think it might be worth looking at what the rest of the world is up to, there is more to yacht racing than doing dinghy courses zig-zagging around Lake Solent.
I think a lot of your problem is that the keen middle-aged, affluent racing sailors who could afford to move 'up' to that are largely not interested. They're buying drysuits and distorting the demographic of dinghy racing instead.

 

[bedouin]

What is the average length of boat racing IRC these days?

Many of the problems inherent with a "Cruiser Racer" are related to the sort of compromise you always need in say a 35' boat - add a few extra feet to the 38-42 foot range and there is a lot more opportunity to combine the two (at least in theory)

There are lots of ways the rules could be tweaked to make it more satisfactory for CR-type boats to race, but that would all be dependent on there being enough to make it worthwhile so it is a big of a "chicken and egg" - the current set up favours racers so CR boats don't enter....