The return of the cruiser racer....?

[flaming]

That explains the misunderstanding. Effectively you can have two or more different ratings for different sail set ups but you can only use one at once and to go from one to the other you have to pay the RORC rather than just take another out of the chart table drawer. Effectively this answers Flamings wish in post 125 albeit expensively.

It doesn’t. Mainly because most regattas have rating deadlines to prevent people from looking at the forecast and either including or excluding their biggest sails. So it would not be possible to sail offshore on one setup on one weekend and then insore on another the following weekend as the rating deadline for the inshore event would be before the previous weekend.

 

[Chris 249]

60 mile reach....? A bit boring for me....

The other problem with reaching legs in the context of this discussion is cost.

For example... At Dartmouth this year there was a race with decent breeze... Just the 1 if I recall... And we had a great beat and set off down the reaching leg with the J112e and the Sunfast 3600 that owed us time. The reach mark wasn't quite perfectly aligned, especially as we were going to the shorter ww mark, so the first leg was too tight for us to fly a kite. However the J and the Sunfast hoisted their code zeros, and that was game over for that race really.

The more wind angles you put into an inshore race the more sails you require the competitors to have to remain competitive. For us to have a code zero would require us to fit a little bowsprit, buy the sail and the furling gear, and upgrade one of the turning blocks at the masthead for a kite halyard to be able to take the luff tension. Since we're an inshore only boat that's a lot of outlay for us to do when the only time we would have flown one all season was that 1 leg of that race.

The other alternative is to just give a credit to boats that have fewer sails and therefore don't carry a Code Zero. It's the Zero in particular that is turning me away from offshore racing. Imagine if we worked our hearts out for 300 miles and then lost 5 miles on the last afternoon because of lack of a Code Zero. Imagine if we spent $10,000 getting one and then didn't use it.

It's an odd sail; just a plain and simple rule beater. It's even odder when some sailmakers complain that their rule beater sails are compromised in design by the rules they cheat. It's sort of like a bank robber complaining that banks being unsporting by using safes. Hey guys, the problem is caused by your attempts to get around a clear rule, not by the rule.

After being very excited about getting back into offshore racing when we got the new boat, I'm now looking to just stick to Lasers. One less boat on the start line.

 

[savageseadog]

The other alternative is to just give a credit to boats that have fewer sails and therefore don't carry a Code Zero. It's the Zero in particular that is turning me away from offshore racing. Imagine if we worked our hearts out for 300 miles and then lost 5 miles on the last afternoon because of lack of a Code Zero. Imagine if we spent $10,000 getting one and then didn't use it.

It's an odd sail; just a plain and simple rule beater. It's even odder when some sailmakers complain that their rule beater sails are compromised in design by the rules they cheat. It's sort of like a bank robber complaining that banks being unsporting by using safes. Hey guys, the problem is caused by your attempts to get around a clear rule, not by the rule.

After being very excited about getting back into offshore racing when we got the new boat, I'm now looking to just stick to Lasers. One less boat on the start line.

We had that on the 2013 Fastnet. We were well placed up to the rock, a beat then reach but back from the rock we suffered as the Code Zeroes gave the other boats a big advantage, we didn't have one.

 

[lw395]

The other alternative is to just give a credit to boats that have fewer sails and therefore don't carry a Code Zero. It's the Zero in particular that is turning me away from offshore racing. Imagine if we worked our hearts out for 300 miles and then lost 5 miles on the last afternoon because of lack of a Code Zero. Imagine if we spent $10,000 getting one and then didn't use it.

It's an odd sail; just a plain and simple rule beater. It's even odder when some sailmakers complain that their rule beater sails are compromised in design by the rules they cheat. It's sort of like a bank robber complaining that banks being unsporting by using safes. Hey guys, the problem is caused by your attempts to get around a clear rule, not by the rule.

After being very excited about getting back into offshore racing when we got the new boat, I'm now looking to just stick to Lasers. One less boat on the start line.

Didn't the 'code zero' originate in classes where there are no restrictions on sails?
Now that they're out there, perhaps the rules ought to either clearly ban them or adapt a little to make better sails.
AIUI, some of the compromises that sailmakers speak of reduce the life of the sail. A bit like courses with tight reaches give dinghy asy's a hard time?

Is it possible for local YC to say it will subtract something to a boat's rating if it's not carrying certain sails?
In the way that a dinghy club might add a bit to a boat's PY if it carries no spinnaker?
Obviously they'd have to make this plain in the NOR.

It comes down to it's not a great idea to race against people who are prepared to spend ten times what you are, and then worry about them beating you.

 

[Chris 249]

I'm fairly sure the Code Zero as we know it evolved from Whitbread 60s, which were seen as undercanvassed at the time and therefore managed to effectively bend the rules restricting headsail sizes by creating headsails that measured in as spinnakers.

It is a good idea not to race against people who are prepared to outspend you, but it's not a good idea for the sport to turn so many of us off.

As you say, the answer could be for clubs (or perhaps class associations) to write in their own restrictions just as the Halves, Quarters and Fast 40s seem to do. I've run a national class before and in a while, after I've helped get our new local club back on its feet, may end up seeing if there's interest in a local association for smaller cruiser/racers, sort of like the Scottish CR36 class but with more restrictions.

 

[flaming]

I'm fairly sure the Code Zero as we know it evolved from Whitbread 60s, which were seen as undercanvassed at the time and therefore managed to effectively bend the rules restricting headsail sizes by creating headsails that measured in as spinnakers.

Correct, on the EF boats if memory serves. And have risen to "necessity" offshore in IRC as IRC has effectively penalised the genoa out of existence. That they have to have a mid girth of a spinnaker compromises the shape somewhat compared to what sailmakers market to cruisers as light wind reaching sails.

To be honest, given the choice I think it's probably cheaper to have to have a code zero than 3 Genoas of varying weights (as we used to) which have short lives due to being dragged round the rigging every tack. But that isn't much comfort when the opposition hoist a sail you don't have and stretch away from you.

 

[Jenny RORC]

The IRC Tech Comm is researching ways of rating Code Zeros for 2019 - as with all things it is never as simple as it appears at face value.

 

[Jenny RORC]

I think in many years the certificate deadline for the national champs is before an offshore race. So it is not even possible for a boat that is doing that offshore event to then do the IRC nationals without compromising their rating for either the offshore or the championships. That is not helping participation.

In circumstances like that we and the Race Organiser will always find a way around it - ie. the owner declaring before the deadline what they will change, but we don't run the rating until after the other race has started. Or we run it with a 'valid from' certificate note and make sure the two race organisers are aware of the issue. If owners call and talk to us about this kind of thing we really are quite human and helpful

Talking of deadlines, it is usually only the more major events that would have a deadline more than 7 days before the event, and much of that is to do with race admin as much as taking advantage of expected conditions.

Offshore/Inshore - not on this subject specifically, but on the general question of multiple ratings, I remembered this article:
https://www.rorcrating.com/40-irc-rating/irc-misc/364-seahorse-jul16

 

[flaming]

In circumstances like that we and the Race Organiser will always find a way around it - ie. the owner declaring before the deadline what they will change, but we don't run the rating until after the other race has started. Or we run it with a 'valid from' certificate note and make sure the two race organisers are aware of the issue. If owners call and talk to us about this kind of thing we really are quite human and helpful

Talking of deadlines, it is usually only the more major events that would have a deadline more than 7 days before the event, and much of that is to do with race admin as much as taking advantage of expected conditions.

Offshore/Inshore - not on this subject specifically, but on the general question of multiple ratings, I remembered this article:
https://www.rorcrating.com/40-irc-rating/irc-misc/364-seahorse-jul16

Glad to hear it, I'll mention that to the owner I heard complaining about that next time I see him!

Interesting article. The 1 number for all wind strengths thing is something that I absolutely support, the arguments that could transpire with that would be epic... But if there was a rating for inshore and a rating for offshore then which rating was to be used would be on the NOR, so that shouldn't cause any arguments.

Out of interest, it was only my memory telling me that IRC is supposed to be 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, but as you haven't corrected me I'm guessing my memory must have been fairly accurate? How easy would it be for RORC to run trial certs based on different splits between upwind, reaching and downwind? Could make for an interesting bit of analysis if applied to a couple of events.

 

[Keen_Ed]

Correct, on the EF boats if memory serves. And have risen to "necessity" offshore in IRC as IRC has effectively penalised the genoa out of existence. That they have to have a mid girth of a spinnaker compromises the shape somewhat compared to what sailmakers market to cruisers as light wind reaching sails.

IIRC it was Chris Dickson on Tokio in the 93/94 race, but it was ruled illegal. Made using mesh.

Then taken up for the next race. But had to be flown from trad spin poles, which required extra structure for the pole down haul.

 

[Keen_Ed]

The IRC Tech Comm is researching ways of rating Code Zeros for 2019 - as with all things it is never as simple as it appears at face value.

Must be a nightmare to come up with wording beyond IRC defn of a spinnaker, especially if like the new Doyle sails they don’t have a luff cable.

 

[Jenny RORC]

Out of interest, it was only my memory telling me that IRC is supposed to be 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, but as you haven't corrected me I'm guessing my memory must have been fairly accurate?

I haven't corrected you because I don't actually know the answer!

 

[flaming]

Another "Heavy racing boat" CR just announced.

http://www.mat.com.tr/1070-render-1

On the face of it, looks like a nice boat. But it's not going to be cruised is it? So isn't it just another race boat that's at least a ton overweight?

And to me the slight shame of it is that if you go up a mere metre in length the same company will sell you something much more wizzy.

And that is a quick boat that's done well under IRC...

 

[lw395]

Design evolution of 21st century cruiser racer.
First we adopt plumb ends so we fit max lwl in a given marina berth.
Then we add fixed bowsprits so you need a bigger marina berth.

These outsize dinghies are never going to give good racing against actual cruisers.