Submission: ESP 1
Reporting committee: ITC MEASUREMENT COMMITTEE
DOUBLE BACKSTAY
PROPOSAL
Add a new IMS F9.4 (and re-number the following rules), with a definition as follows, to be mentioned as an exception to the ISAF ERS regarding rigging points.
F9.4 Double backstay – this definition is to be considered when the following conditions are met:
- The upper attachment point shall be above the upper point of the rig. - Contrary to ERS, it's the bearing point on the mast top that is considered, not the height where the rigging under load intersects the mast spar’s external surface. - If the boat is fitted with backstay deflectors, independently from their height, they will be considered as “running backstays.” - All the rules related to fixed backstays are intended to apply for double backstays.
RATIONALE
It is increasingly common nowadays on boats with square-top mainsails to adopt a double backstay configuration. In order to rate them accordingly, it is necessary to define and clarify what can be considered a double backstay and what will be considered a running backstay.
Because some of them have the upper attachment point just above the upper point, due to structural reasons, it is common to set the attachment inside the mast rather than outside, which is more expensive and less effective for windage.
If the backstay goes straight to the attachment point, without any angle, it does not make any difference if the rigging goes through the external side of the mast or if it goes through the internal part of the mast. There is a clarification of this pending in the ERS, since the rigging point is intended for side rigging as shrouds rather than fore and aft as stays.
Submission: ESP 2
Reporting committee: RATING OFFICERS COMMITTEE
HULL PROFILE ON THE CERTIFICATE
PROPOSAL
To display a simplified but scaled profile of the boat, including the appendages, obtained from its offset file, and include it in the picture on the rating certificate.
www.orc.org
RATIONALE
Boats of the same Series or having made modifications have different appendages or overhang shapes, and sometimes it is very difficult for the ratting officer to detect these differences only from the ORC database. It would be much more helpful, not only for the office, but also for the owner, if a profile drawing of the offset could be displayed on the measurement certificate of the boat.
Submission: ESP 3
Reporting committee: ITC MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
IMS APPENDIX 1 – CRUISER/RACER REGULATIONS
PROPOSAL
The cruiser/racer yachts should not degrade comfort and safety of standard series production boats, and if they do, remove C/R and assign Performance status.
- Cruiser/racer = No degradation of accommodation from the series production features. - Performance = Accommodation degradation but following the Part 2 requirements. - Cruiser/racer division: C/R bonus and DA - Performance or racing division= NO bonus and DA=0
RATIONALE
We should protect the Cruiser/racer yachts against comfort degradation of features in the standard production series.
www.orc.org
Submission: ESP 4
Reporting committee: ITC MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
DYNAMIC ALLOWANCE
PROPOSAL
The Dynamic Allowance should be an independent bonus of the C/R and Performance division and any modification of appendages shall change the Age Date. There should be an increased bonus for the cruiser/racer division.
RATIONALE
The DA is a bonus that links to the Age Allowance at the division under Rule 103 of ORC rules, but there is no bonus for Cruiser/racer division.
Examples:
Sinergia 40 – 2000: 15 years (max bonus AA).
GPH DA AA ACTUAL GPH 600.7 0,159 0,488 WITHOUT AA WITH CR 597.8 0,159 0 WITHOUT AA WITHOUT CR 596.5 0 0 WITH AA WITHOUT CR 600.4 0.159 0.488
GRAND SOLEIL 37 – 2005: 10 years
GPH DA AA ACTUAL GPH 618.8 0,186 0,325 WITHOUT AA WITH CR 616,8 0,186 0 WITHOUT AA WITHOUT CR 615.3 0 0 WITH AA WITHOUT CR 618.4 0.186 0.325
Submission: ESP 5
Reporting committee: MEASUREMENT COMMITTEE RATING OFFICERS COMMITTEE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
SAIL SERIAL NUMBER
PROPOSAL
All sails should have a serial number from the beginning of their life, from which to identify the Country, Date, Sailmaker and type of sail. We propose: .
www.orc.org
COUNTRY or DAY/YEAR MARK SAIL TYPE digital telephone (4 dígits) (2 dígits) NUMBER (2 dígits) country code (2 (4 0 5 dígits) dígits) SPAIN - 34 07/2015 NORTH 6709 GENOA LIGHT SAILS SP0715NS6709GL 14 DIGITS 340715NS6709GL
RATIONALE
This will enable to transfer data from one system to another, without the need of new measurements or complex searches.
Submission: ESP 6
Reporting committee: ITC MEASUREMENT COMMITTEE
INCLINING TEST WITH BOOM
PROPOSAL
1. Add to the ORC Manager software a dedicated type of inclining using the boom.
2. When the inclining test is performed with the boom, apply a VCG correction taking into account the fact that the weights are suspended higher than the position used normally when the 2 poles are used, using the formula: VCGcorr = (W4*(BAS-0.60))/Displacement.
3. Change IMS rule E2.2
b) "The boom shall be placed outboard and fixed with its end in the longitudinal position of..."
Should say:
b) "The boom shall be perpendicular to the mast and horizontal when on centerline, and placed outboard..."
RATIONALE
IMS Rule 2.2, where the procedure of performing the inclining test using the boom is described, does not take into account the fact that a more favorable RM is obtained because the weights are suspended at a substantially higher position compared to where they are placed when the 2 poles method is used. The "-0.60" in the formula represents the height of upper lifelines, which is typically the vertical position where the weights are suspended using the poles on both sides.
www.orc.org
Submission: FIN 1 (combined with ITA 2)
Reporting committee: ITC RACE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
USE OF IMPLIED WIND ON W/L COURSES
PROPOSAL
The recommendation should be to use fixed wind speed or at least change to fixed wind speed when Implied Wind is clearly different from the real wind speed.
RATIONALE
Quite often the top of the fleet clearly exceeds the speed predicted by the VPP due to small waves or shifty wind. This leads to too high IW and somewhat skewed results. The reverse can happen, if the waves are higher than assumed by the VPP, or there is current, or the standard of the fleet is not very high.
Submission: ITA 2 (combined with FIN 1)
Reporting committee: ITC RACE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
IMPLIED AND FIXED WIND
PROPOSAL
Remove ORC Rule 402.9, rename the current Rule 402.10 as 402.9, amending the text as follows:
"The “Implied Wind” of the winning boat usually approximates the predominant wind strength observed in a race. However, in cases where the “Implied Wind” does not represent fairly the actual wind strength during a race, a fixed wind speed can be selected by the Race Committee. The highest implied wind - or the average of the top 10% in a fleet - or an average wind speed entered by the RC upon its observations for the entire fleet remains as an option to score ORC races."
RATIONALE
The decision made last year of using the Implied Wind speed determined by the winner as a fixed one for the rest of the fleet has caused some complaints, and has not been used in some important races. Furthermore, it is subject to some anomalies when the first boat, the one determining the fixed wind for the rest of the fleet, is disqualified or penalized, or its handicaps are modified as the result of a measurement check.
Another side-effect of this method is that the appearance of ties in corrected time becomes more frequent. At one end this seems a good thing, but in reality this becomes the reason to win or lose a championship, which is not good either. The proposal leaves this method as an option for those who prefer, but is no longer mandatory for everyone to score ORC races.
www.orc.org
Submission: FIN 2 (combined with USA 1)
Reporting committee: ITC
P AND MAINSAIL AREA OPTIMIZATION
PROPOSAL
Check that the VPP handles accurately P and mainsail area.
RATIONALE
Quite a few boats race with reduced P and sometimes also with reduced mainsail roach. E.g. all the X-41’s in the Europeans used clearly smaller mainsails than the OD rule allows.
Submission: USA 1 (combined with FIN 2)
Reporting committee: ITC
RATING COST OF MAINSAIL AND SPINNAKER AREAS
PROPOSAL
To better balance the rating cost of mainsail and spinnaker areas, and to rate more fairly a variety of boat types, we ask for an examination of how P, E and mainsail area are affecting the type-forming tendency towards mainsails that are low-aspect ratio and are even short on the mast height in ORCi-optimized boats. There is also seems to be a tendency for ORCi to favor small, non-masthead spinnakers, and we ask for an examination to find ways to reduce this type forming effect too.
RATIONALE
It is in the interest of ORC to have as little type-forming as possible, and rate all boat types fairly. Recent observations from the ORC Worlds in Barcelona, the Italian National Championship, and other events is showing a tendency for boats to be reducing their performance for rating purposes, and for there to be potentially large inequities in actual and rated performance.
Submission: FRA 1 (combined with ITA 1 and RUS 6)
Reporting committee: MEASUREMENT COMMITTEE ITC
ROACH IN MAINSAIL LEECH
PROPOSAL
Delete the last paragraph of IMS Rule G2.1
www.orc.org
G2 Mainsail
G2.1 The following measurements shall be taken:
HB shall be the top width except as defined in G2.2 MGT shall be the upper width. MGU shall be the three-quarter width. MGM shall be the half width. MGL shall be the quarter width.
Measurements of HB, MGT, MGU, MGM and MGL shall increase in value in that order.
For sails measured after 01/01/2015, if there is any excess of the leech from the straight line joining two adjacent leech points, widths at these points shall be increased for the half of maximum excess.
RATIONALE
The way for measuring mainsails introduced last year does not respect:
• the International regulations set by ISAF through its ERS • the already widely-advertised intention for implementing an UMS.
Submission: ITA 1 (combined with FRA 1 and RUS 6)
Reporting committee: MEASUREMENT COMMITTEE ITC
MAINSAIL WIDTH MASUREMENTS
PROPOSAL
Modify the current IMS Rule G.2.1 that states:
“For sails measured after 01/01/2015, if there is any excess of the leech from the straight line joining two adjacent leech points, widths at these points shall be increased for the half of maximum excess.”
With:
“For sails measured after 01/01/2015, if any excess is found in the leech from the straight line joining two adjacent leech measurement points, widths at these points shall be increased by half of the maximum excess found only if two batten pockets are found between those points.” . RATIONALE
With the Rule as written a measurer may misunderstand what to do. In fact, after having measured the shortest distance between a leech point and the luff, possibly adding the shortest distance from the measurement point and a straight line as per the Equipment Rules of Sailing article H.5.2, it seems that a straight line has to be drawn to unite two adjacent leech points and that the excess found, divided by two has to be added to the previous values found.
This situation is often found when there is a batten pocket between two adjacent leech measurement points. The spirit of the rule is to avoid abnormal leech extensions by the use of stiffening systems set very close between two measurement points, and the proposal should better address this.
www.orc.org
Submission: RUS 6 (combined with FRA 1 and ITA 1)
Reporting committee: MEASUREMENT COMMITTEE ITC
MAINSAIL GIRTH
PROPOSAL
To delete the last sentence of IMS Rule G2.1.
RATIONALE
1) There is a discrepancy between the definition of mainsail girth in the IMS rule and ERS and other rules, not only OD rules, but also rules of other rating systems. For many years ORC tried to align measurement protocols with other rating system and classes. Now G2.1 is a step in the contrary direction. It means that measurements made using One Design or IRC rules could not be used for an ORC certificate, and vice versa.
2) The wording of this sentence is unclear without additional explanation. This results in a lot of mistakes.
3) Measurements are especially complicated for a main with hollows and roach (see picture below). The Measurer should first bridge the hollows (according to ERS), then find virtual points on the leech bridge, and after that measure the excesses and calculate them.
4) For common sails with 4 battens and a moderate roach (see picture below) of area of 22 sq.m the measured area according to the 2014 Rules was 0,15 sq.m (0,7%) less than exact sail area, and the measured area according to the 2015 Rules is 0,3 m (1,5%) greater than the exact sail area, resulting in a GPH difference of about 0,4 sec/mile. So the error of a new formula is twice more than the former one, and a new formula should be considered as a penalty for the shape of the sail.
If the Technical Committee wants to take into account these excesses it may be done by another method in order to avoid mistakes in measurement (see picture below). Max excess could be found from adjacent girth by simple linear formula, and then added to the sail area. In this case no additional measurement is needed, and it is possible to use common sail measurements according to the ERS.
Submission: GER 1
Reporting committee: MEASUREMENT COMMITTEE ITC
ADJUSTABLE INNER FORESTAY
PROPOSAL
Remove ORC Rule 108.4
108.4 Adjustable inner forestays, when fitted, shall be attached to the foremost mast between 0.225*IG and 0.75*IG above the sheerline.
RATIONALE
Not necessary anymore.
www.orc.org
Submission: GER 2
Reporting committee: MEASUREMENT COMMITTEE ITC
BILGEBOARDS
PROPOSAL
Add: IMS C 4.10: “Bilgeboard measurements can also be applied for double keels with or without bulb. The presence of bulbs shall be recorded.”
RATIONALE
The rule needs measurement advice for double keels.
Submission: GER 3
Reporting committee: MEASUREMENT COMMITTEE
BILGEBOARDS IN MEASUREMENT TRIM
PROPOSAL
Add: IMS B4(s): “Bilgeboards shall be fully-raised in measurement trim.”
RATIONALE
Bilgeboards should be raised for measurement.
Submission: GER 4
Reporting committee: MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
LIFELINES
PROPOSAL
Add in a new ORC Rating Rule that refers to ISAF Q&A 2014.013: “The first sentence of RRS 49.2 is deleted and replaced with: 'Lifelines shall comply with the deflection requirements of OSR Regulation 3.14.2 and competitors shall not position any part of their torsos outside them, except briefly to perform a necessary task.'
RATIONALE
RRS 49.2 still requires lifelines to be “taught.”
www.orc.org
Submission: GER 5 (combined with POL 3 and RUS 5)
Reporting committee: PROMOTION & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE RACE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
SCORING
PROPOSAL
Describe precise formulations/mathematical ways to score races, and show an example of a three-boat race as a step-by-step instruction (based on a virtual course).
RATIONALE
Organizers, software programmers and sailors are lost in the number of different scoring options possible. They need clear advice.
Submission: POL 3 (combined with GER 5 and RUS 5)
Reporting committee: PROMOTION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE RACE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR RACE MANAGERS
PROPOSAL
To add practical information for Race managers and scorers on the ORC website. In our opinion the current content is too laconic for newcomers.
RATIONALE
There is a huge amount of knowledge at ORC about good practices at ORC events. The access is limited to newcomers: one can read descriptions of different scoring options, however there are no suggestions when such a scoring system works best.
Next of course we would all welcome more widespread use of PCS. But as there are some traps using this system there should be a guideline on how to use it and how to get prepared, what kind of equipment should be used, etc. For eg, if in mixed fleets when a major shift comes, when is there is a need to split the leg and where should the split be made? Where is there a limit of selected course usage, etc.
Submission: RUS 5 (combined with GER 5 and POL 3)
Reporting committee: PROMOTION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE RACE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
ORC HANDICAP EXPLANATION
PROPOSAL
To add to the Introduction to the ORC Rating System the warning that the ORC Scoring system gives correct results only if used correctly, in the right wind conditions and with the proper scoring system, and give a reference to the corresponding rules.
www.orc.org
Also, to introduce to the text of Part 4 Scoring clear recommendations for use of different scoring systems, especially simplified scoring, as follows (for example):
1) ToT and ToD handicaps presume that all wind directions and wind forces are equally probable. Use Offshore ToT and Offshore ToD handicap if the course is similar to the above described, or set the course in a proper manner. Try not to use Offshore handicaps if the wind angles for the course is mostly beating or broad reaching.
2) Use Inshore handicaps if the course looks like a loop with one windward leg and another downwind. This could be used also in offshore races if the wind conditions are similar to such a loop.
3) Use ToT in steady winds when the exact length of the distance is unknown. Remember that handicaps in unsteady winds will greatly depend on the wind: if the wind increases to the end of the race, than slower yachts gets an advantage, and vice versa - if the wind goes down, then the faster yachts gets an advantage.
4) Use ToD in unsteady winds but remember that the length of distance must be known exactly, with an accuracy of 0,25%
5) Use PL scoring in steady winds where there is significantly differences in performance within a group, BUT NEVER USE the PL scoring in light winda (less than 5-6 knots average)!
RATIONALE Explanations of the use of simplified handicaps is not clear enough, and partially contained in the VPP documentation (not in the Rules). Many race organizers and race officers do not read these documents carefully and use handicaps in an incorrect manner, which results in unfair handicaps. Use of PL handicap in light wind is an example - see picture below
www.orc.org
Submission: GER 6
Reporting committee: MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
FIX VPP IF POSSIBLE
PROPOSAL
Fix the ORC VPP for 2 or 3 years if possible. It seems stable enough at present. Needed changes can still be done at the discretion of ManCom after advice from ITC.
RATIONALE
This would reduce development costs, since there is a very good working VPP at present (brilliant job from ITC – many Thanks!), allow for more time for ITC testing. Also, fixed class borders for the World and European championships for several years would signal to the investors/sailors worldwide – “go and buy/design/commission a boat” – and start a design boom of fast boats.
Submission: ITA 3
Reporting committee: ITC MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
DACRON SAILS
PROPOSAL
Reduce the allowance provided for Dacron sails, or restrict it to C/R boats, and not allow this for Performance boats.
RATIONALE
The allowance provided for woven Dacron sails, primarily intended to encourage participation for cruising boats, and not as an "optimizing" tool, has been used by a Farr 30 in the recent Italian Championship to easily win in Group B, showing this to be faster than other similar boats, while having a much better rating.
Submission: ITA 4
Reporting committee: OFFSHORE CLASSES AND EVENTS COMMITTEE
SPORTBOAT DIVISIONS
PROPOSAL
Amend the Sportboat rule within the Green Book and separate those not complying with OSR Cat. 4 (i.e. using Crew Extension outboard) from those having the crew sitting on the sheer.
www.orc.org
RATIONALE
The ORC Sportboat Rule currently allows the use of hiking devices, but the boats with these features are not eligible for any race where OSR Cat. 4 or above is invoked, and this has created some confusion. The "hiking" boats should therefore be clearly identified, so they can be rationally included - or excluded - by race organizers of Sportboat events around the world.
Submission: ITA 5
Reporting committee: ITC
DEFAULT CREW WEIGHT
PROPOSAL
Review the Default Crew Weight formula.
RATIONALE
The formula for default crew weight, that has been revised a few years ago, produces numbers that are very close to what sailors use in the majority of the fleet, but gives an excessive weight for very small and light sportboats. The winner of the Sportboat championship in Balaton this year had a crew of 2, and a default weight of 450, on a boat weighing 1000lbs in measurement trim. This suggests some corrections are needed to the rule.
Submission: MANCOM 1
Reporting committee: OFFSHORE CLASSES AND EVENTS COMMITEE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
ORC SY RULE
PROPOSAL
To set up ORC Superyacht as a new rule according the ORC Memorandum of Association art. 3(2)(f) and ISAF Regulation 13.1(e).
RATIONALE
After a lot of work on the ORCsy VPP and 7 successful events in 2015, the rule will continued to develop and require administration into the future. There is clear background now to set up ORCsy as a new rule as prescribed by the relevant ORC and ISAF regulations..
www.orc.org
Submission: MANCOM 2
Reporting committee: MEASUREMENT COMMITTEE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
SAIL MEASUREMENTS ABBREVIATIONS
PROPOSAL
Change sail measurement abbreviations to follow the proposal presented by IRC and ORC to ISAF in Submission 090-15, starting in 2016.
Adopt a common IRC+ORC (UMS) stamp, mandatory for ORCi and Endorsed IRC, and a common format for data exchange.
New Old ERS Dimension Abbreviation Abbreviation Mainsail G.7.4 (a) Mainsail Quarter Width MQW MGL G.7.5 (a) Mainsail Half Width MHW MGM G.7.6 (a) Mainsail Three Quarter Width MTW MGU G.7.7 (a) Mainsail Upper Width MUW MGT G.7.8 (a) Mainsail Top Width MHB HB Headsail G.7.3 Headsail Luff Length HLU JL G.7.4 (a) Headsail Quarter Width HQW JGL G.7.5 (a) Headsail Half Width HHW JGM G.7.6 (a) Headsail Three Quarter Width HTW JGU G.7.7 (a) Headsail Upper Width HUW JGT G.7.8 (a) Headsail Top Width HHB JH G.7.11 Headsail Luff Perpendicular HLP LPG Spinnaker G.7.1 Spinnaker Luff Length SLU SL (SLU) G.7.2 Spinnaker Leech Length SLE SL (SLE) G.7.3 Spinnaker Foot Length SFL SF (ASF) G.7.5 (b) Spinnaker Half Width SHW SMG (AMG)
RATIONALE
Make a step towards UMS and establish a common platform for sails measurement, for the initial stages limited to IRC+ORC, but intended to expand to whichever OD Class or other system intending to use the data, and the UMS stamp for any sail of their fleets.
www.orc.org
Submission: NOR 1
Reporting committee: ITC
HULL FORMS NOT CORRECTLY RATED
PROPOSAL
Check the ORC VPP ratings for boats like the NEXT 37 and HH42 with max beam positions completely aft. RATIONALE
After observing the HH42 in several races the last years and getting almost the same information at the ORC Europeans 2015 from the Audi Quattro team it seems that these hull types should be checked by the ITC. Especially at the 6-12 knot range of wind speed, the speed of the yachts seems to be overestimated. Performance data from the HH42 will be made available for the ITC.
Submission: POL 1
Reporting committee: MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
PROMOTIONAL CERTIFICATES
PROPOSAL
To continue with promotional certificates for newcomers. The boats that never had an ORC certificate should encouraged by a one time, one year waiver of the ORC levy.
RATIONALE
We have seen great success using promotional certificates in 2015. We all know that we cannot giveaway certificates. But the boats that hesitate and never tried ORC racing could be encouraged by this sort of promotion. We also believe that existing boats understand and will support this policy as we all want to see more boats racing under ORC.
Submission: POL 2
Reporting committee: ITC
BOW THRUSTER
PROPOSAL
To introduce a Bow Thruster correction for ORC Club certificates.
RATIONALE
Bow Thrusters have an influence on a boat's performance and should be reflected by its handicap.
www.orc.org
Submission: POL 4
Reporting committee: ITC
EXTENTION OF TRUE WIND SPEEDS IN THE VPP
PROPOSAL
To extend the range of true wind speeds to the value of 24 knots (maybe even 26 knots?) in the tables of time allowances.
RATIONALE
We see growing popularity of offshore, long distance races. The races for offshore yachts, especially over long distances, may be carried out in wind speeds higher than 20 knots. The ORC formula is dedicated mainly to offshore yachts and offshore regattas. It would be reasonable to extend the range of the wind speeds of the value of 24 knots, maybe even 26 knots, to improve accuracy of the results of the regatta that were performed in the suggested wind speeds.
Submission: POL 5 (combined with SWE 1)
Reporting committee: ITC
REDUCTION OF SAIL AREA (REEFING)
PROPOSAL
To check the VPP’s algorithm for reduction of sail area and to verify it.
RATIONALE
The boat Czarodziejka, with a large genoa (certificate czarodziejka_02) is faster than the boat Czarodziejka with a small genoa (certificate czarodziejka_01). But not in all winds!
Note: a small genoa is included in the sail inventory in both certificates. In 20 knots we see that the boat with a large genoa is slower than the boat with a small genoa. In 16 knots Beat Angles and Beat VMG are worse for the faster boat, so the calculation of reduced sail area (eg. change of genoas) is not correct for strong winds.
Submission: SWE 1 (combined with POL 5)
Reporting committee: ITC
VPP ADJUSTMENTS FOR JIB/GENOA AT 14 – 20 KTS
PROPOSAL
To modify the VPP regarding performance with jib and genoa in winds of 14-20 knots.
www.orc.org
RATIONALE
There seems to be an obvious and illogical error for a typical Class C boat carrying a 147% genoa and jib setup, compared with the max area for non-overlapping jib only. These boats commonly change from genoa to jib in 14-16 knots on a W/L course, yet this is not showing in the VPP, because the VPP shows the boat is carrying a genoa through 20 knots.
Also note there is an increase cost for using a genoa from 14-16 knots, instead of the expected decrease. An excel file for the First 36,7 MOD SWE 88 is attached separately.
Submission: RUS 1
Reporting committee: ITC
ADDED RESISTANCE IN WAVES
PROPOSAL
To check the method of calculation of added resistance in waves, wave spectrum and the influence of the dimensions of the yacht to wave resistance.
RATIONALE
The maximum difference between the calculated and real speeds of small light yachts, and between heavy and light yachts, is observed at moderate wind in coastal races. In light wind and without waves the difference between the calculated and the real speed is small. In strong wind and heavy seas the difference between the calculated and real speeds is significant, but the difference between small light yachts and large yachts is less than in moderate wind: for Sportboats the real speed is about 0,7-1,0 knots less than calculated, for quarter ton yachts - 0,3-0,5 knots less than the calculated one.
This suggests that the main reason for overestimation of the speed of small yacht is an incorrect calculation of their added resistance in waves. It seems that the added resistance of small light yachts is much greater than the calculated ones, especially in moderate wind.
ORC Minutes 2014, item 6.2.19, states that "the majority of races are held in flat water, reducing the energy at low wind speed." That is correct, and this is the main issue for the advantage of large yachts.
For example, for a TP 52 yacht wave of a significant height of 0,5 m will be in calm water, because she pierces these waves easily, while for an 8 m Sportboat this is a heavy wave that stops the yacht almost completely. Division of classes by CDL helps, but it is not a complete solution because in any class there could be lighter and heavier yachts. See also the attached file Handicap analysis of EURO Sportboat and Muhu Vain Regatta.doc
Submission: RUS 3
Reporting committee: ITC
CORRECTION OF GYRADIUS
PROPOSAL
To delete in the VPP and the VPP Documentation ORC VPP 6.5.2.1.6.
www.orc.org
RATIONALE
For yachts that are 30 years old such small differences does not matter. But when we calculate the rating for one-design yachts with different ages, the differences in rating appears, and this is a cause for concern.
Submission: RUS 4
Reporting committee: ITC RACE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
OFFSHORE PERFORMANCE LINE
PROPOSAL
To use for Offshore Performance Line handicaps the same wind distribution that is used for Offshore Time on Distance, Time on Time or Offshore Single Number.
RATIONALE
This clause was not changed since at least year 2009, while time allowances for OSN handicap were reviewed at least twice since that time. The OSN handicap is based on different courses and wind speeds to more accurately reflect the offshore race course geometries used, while Offshore PL uses wind distributions that are specific for ocean races.
For example, for OSN the share of a windward course varies from 20% in strong winds to 40% in light winds, ToT and ToD - 25%, and for Ocean - from 5% to 32% respectively. It means that windward performances of the yacht in strong wind is considered in Ocean and Offshore PL handicaps, and this is incorrect for Offshore races.
Submission: RUS 7
Reporting committee: OFFSHORE CLASSES AND EVENTS COMMITTEE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
ORC SPORTBOAT CLASS CERTIFICATE
PROPOSAL
Rules concerned: ORC Classes, 3.3 General class limits In the line "Mandatory class certificate" after words "Int or Club" add: except than for ORC championships the ORC Int certificates as stated in ORC Championship Rules, clause 6.6.
RATIONALE
ORC Club certificates allows to use incomplete and sometimes doubtful information that is difficult to verify. That is incorrect for high-grade international events such as ORC Championships.
www.orc.org
Submission: RUS 8
Reporting committee: OFFSHORE CLASSES AND EVENTS COMMITTEE MEASUREMENT COMMITTEE
ORC SPORTBOAT CLASS RULES, BOAT WEIGHT
PROPOSAL
Rules concerned: ORC Classes, 4 Additional class requirements, clause a) ORC Sportboat Displacement. Add: Yacht should be weighed in measurement condition by calibrated cells (scales) with accuracy of 1% or 10 kg (whatever is less). Freeboards recorded from the measurement afloat should be adjusted so as to obtain a displacement equal to the measured weight.
RATIONALE
Weighing of Sportboats is not a problem, these yachts are usually kept ashore and launched before competitions. Many Sportboats belong to one-design classes that prescribe weighing of the yachts.
Submission: SWE 2
Reporting committee: RATING OFFICERS COMMITTEE
SIMPLIFIED CERTIFICATE HANDLING FOR ISAF OD CLASSES
PROPOSAL
The ISAF-recognized OD Keel Boat classes that can fulfil the ISAF Spec Regs Cat 3 and Cat 4 should be offered facilitated procedures and costs for issuing ORC certificates when a recognized One Design Certificate exists. A joint campaign to expand this service should be initiated between the ORC and the appropriate Class Associations. Boats that typically should be included are boats like the Farr 30, X-35, X-39 and Farr 40.
RATIONALE
There are in many countries in smaller fleets of One Design boats that have problems to raise enough boats to form a one design class at various races. An ORCi certificate gives substantially wider possibilities and increases the total ORC fleet. The procedures to produce an ORCi certificate out of an OD class certificate exists in ORC framework already today. Today however, an owner has to pay the full certificate fee, while the work at the Rating Office is marginal, in reality only to change the sail number, name and address of the owner of an existing OD certificate.
www.orc.org