IOR to IMS

[101]

Originally Posted by water addict

OK back to the original post-
IMS was originally MHS (measurement handicap system) then changed it's name to IMS (international measurement system). The origination of MHS occured in 1976? with the Irving Pratt project at MIT to develop a VPP for a handicap rule, instead of a design rule which IOR was.
There was a period of co-existence with IOR in the mid 80s to around 1990. In 1985 ORC adopted IMS to co-exist with IOR as a rating rule. IOR started dwindling for the same reason IMS eventually did. The highest bidder almost always won, i.e. the newest boat with the latest exploitation of the rule that some very rich owner could afford would go pound the competition until a newer boat came along. When IOR died, the big dollar guys had to move the money game to IMS because there was nothing else. It was a harder rule to exploit, but sure enough as computer models and computing power increased, the designers started poking holes in the rule for the right price. The first IMS example of this was Collaboration, a purpose built IMS race boat. Then Farr got into it with Gaucho, Full Cry, etc. and it was deja vous all over again.
IOR was pretty much gone by 1990. The good of it is that IMS produced much better handling boats than IOR, and much faster for a given length. Collaboration I think was 44 or 45 feet, and would blow the doors off the hottest IOR 50 footer of 1990.
The bad is as always- nothing goes to weather like money, money always won.

Thanks for the attempt to get this thread back on track. Too bad HWSNBN won't let it and needs to talk about himself and his imagined enemies list.

So, back to the IOR, I'm under the impression that even with all their faults for downwind stability, IOR boats are rating O.K. in some of the newer rules. Thoughts anyone?

[Shife]

We're doing well with a 82 Dehler DB1 under PHRF. We'll see how it does next year in the bigger races under IRC. I have a feeling you'll see a resurgence of old IOR boats under IRC. Cheap, lots of them around, and they should rate pretty fair under IRC.

[yokebutt]

What idiot would pay this doofus enough money to buy even a MacGregor? Frank, what do you do for a living anyway? I'm dying to know.

Yoke.

[mighetto]

Originally Posted by yokebutt

What idiot would pay this doofus enough money to buy even a MacGregor? Frank, what do you do for a living anyway? I'm dying to know.

Yoke.

HWSNBN = He Who Should Not Be Named? For a living, I ferret out folks such as Tripp Gal. I am a management consultant who makes the big boys at the big companies cry. But I do not do so out of meaness. Another name for my kind is expert witness. Clients have included most US medical schools (Medicaid Fraud) and Microsoft as well as DSHS units in West Virginia, Michigan, California and Washington State. Tripp Gal has embarassed the sport of sailing by her "morbid fascination" with my ride. But again she is just the pimple of the disease, a symptom of the much greater problem which prevents this sport from growing in the US and in fact whithers it.

http://www.sailinganarchy.com/fringe...ss.jpg_sml.jpg
The photo posted here is sole property of Borrowed Light Images, www.borrowedlightimages.com. 15834 NE 67th Place Redmond, WA 98052 (425) 882-7317

See the above as an Internet and sailing bully. This is reality. Now continue with your normal broadcast. I will not be posting for a while. Just brings out the thugs a bit to much. Søren Flening, others who what answers. Try mighetto@eskimo.com or http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/murrelet.htm Oh, I wanted to point out that they are getting it wrong on air america regarding the term "mushroom". The term refers to novice sailors that are kept in the dark and fed S#*t. Father hear my libral confession...

[Shife]

"For a living, I ferret out folks such as Tripp Gal. I am a management consultant who makes the big boys at the big companies cry. But I do not do so out of meaness. Another name for my kind is expert witness. Clients have included most US medical schools (Medicaid Fraud) and Microsoft as well as DSHS units in West Virginia, Michigan, California and Washington State. Tripp Gal has embarassed the sport of sailing by her "morbid fascination" with my ride. But again she is just the pimple of the disease, a symptom of the much greater problem which prevents this sport from growing in the US and in fact whithers it."

What a load of complete and utter BULLSHIT. You have completely gone off the deep end now haven't you? Go back to your TP52 cage Frank. Stay out of the rest of the threads. You know nothing of the subject this thread was intended to discuss and you are ruining it for those who would like to intelligently disscuss it.

[sorenfdk]

Originally Posted by mighetto

I will not be posting for a while.

And we all go "ahhhhhh..."

BTW: Sorry for high-jacking this thread. I didn't mean to, but I guess I got carried away by the troll...

[yokebutt]

Expert witness? just the thought is enough to give me nightmares, so I think I'll quit now.

Yoke.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by water addict

OK back to the original post-
IMS was originally MHS (measurement handicap system) then changed it's name to IMS (international measurement system). The origination of MHS occured in 1976? with the Irving Pratt project at MIT to develop a VPP for a handicap rule, instead of a design rule which IOR was..

I believe you are correct. The first MHS meetings were in late '75 I think. Olin Stephens was involved, but none of the group of IOR designers (Peterson, Holland, Frers, Farr) who had dethroned him were invited.

Originally Posted by water addict

There was a period of co-existence with IOR in the mid 80s to around 1990. In 1985 ORC adopted IMS to co-exist with IOR as a rating rule.

As MHS teethed IOR remained the dominat rule. Admirals Cup (UK) remained IOR through the 1993 edition. Clipper/Kenwood Cup (Hawaii) ran both IOR and IMS classes in 1990 as the cross over. StFYC Big Boat Series (USA) also crossed over in 1990, with the first purpose-built IMS boats showing up in 1991. Sardinia Cup (Italy) ran the final IOR in 1990 and began IMS in 1994.

Originally Posted by water addict

IOR started dwindling for the same reason IMS eventually did. The highest bidder almost always won, i.e. the newest boat with the latest exploitation of the rule that some very rich owner could afford would go pound the competition until a newer boat came along.

As it always will be under any rule in racing. IOR, IMS, Formula One Motorsports, etc.

Originally Posted by water addict

It was a harder rule to exploit, but sure enough as computer models and computing power increased, the designers started poking holes in the rule for the right price. The first IMS example of this was Collaboration, a purpose built IMS race boat. Then Farr got into it with Gaucho, Full Cry, etc. and it was deja vous all over again.

Actually, it wasn't really more difficult after the first few serious attempts were made and data was collected.

Originally Posted by water addict

IOR was pretty much gone by 1990. The good of it is that IMS produced much better handling boats than IOR, and much faster for a given length. Collaboration I think was 44 or 45 feet, and would blow the doors off the hottest IOR 50 footer of 1990.
The bad is as always- nothing goes to weather like money, money always won.

The early IMS boats were very nice. High Five is still a pretty quick 39 footer. A bit more rig with MH Kites and she wouldn't be far off the pace of the best no-rule 40 footers today.

Actually, the IMS boats were not all that much quicker than the last of the IOR boats for a given dynamic waterline. A Mumm 36 (off the custom Farr 36) was about the same pace as a last generation Farr One Tonner (40 feet). Whack off the bow overhang and tweak the stern on the One Tonner and you would have similar length boats going not too different pace.

Later IMS boats, especially in the Med, became as much rating freaks as the earlier IOR pintails.

Money is what killed IOR, and then IMS, (also MORC) and will surely kill the next Grand Prix rule. The cost of "high tech" sails is really killing off the local racing scene, since a suit of competitive sails now costs more than the value of many of the boats a working man can afford.

[CT 249]

"So, back to the IOR, I'm under the impression that even with all their faults for downwind stability, IOR boats are rating O.K. in some of the newer rules."

A few years ago I interviewed some of the top UK designers and other guys about IRC. The consensus was that the "smooth" IOR boats, those with fewer bumps and wider sterns (ie mid '70s Farrs, probably many French boats) were competitive on IRC. The more heavily-bumped IOR boats (maybe Judel/Vrolijks, later boats ie 50s) would struggle. Half tonners of the '80-85 period seem to do well in Europe under IRC; Brittany Drizzle etc. I get the impression the Db1 would be similar. There have been fewer successes to the big IOR boats, like the 1983 vintage Farr 40 one tonners.

Last time I checked up, the Brits had tried taking the "bumps" off some of their IOR boats but the Hull Factor went down (IIRC) and therefore the speed increase wasn't as big as the rating increase.

Out here in Australia a few years ago, the national IRC titles went to a 1909 (IIRC) Fife "metre boat" type, sailed by a bunch of J/24 and Sharpie champs. A Farr 1104 (1975 design 36' IOR racer/cruiser), the 1974 heavyweight S&S 47 Love and War, a 1960's mastheader, a 1976 Adams 10 (like a lighter, lower Tartan 10), and various other IOR boats have done well in big events.




I know I shouldn't do this, but here goes.

Frank, about "The notions that vessels like Finisterre are sailed differently than IOR and IMS oriented vessels explains why copies, crewed by the experienced,were not succesful".

Absolute rubbish. The modified Finnisterre type "Sunstone" was British offshore racing "Yacht of the Year" about four times in the '80s and '90s - on IOR, AND on IMS, AND on IRC. She won the Commodore's Cup (IMS), Channel Race (IOR), Sydney-Hobart Div 3 (IMS) and her class in the Fastnet several times (various rules). She was measured at the expense of the ORC to see why she was so succesful under IMS and her success under various rules caused a fair bit of ruckus in the UK. There was NOTHING in the rules that prevented Finnisterre types from being succesful. Mind you, they are not fast, they just rate low.

"Larry was a newbe to the sport when he did his Hobart race. The vessel he sailed did not weather the storm - it flew ahead of it and it was speed, not size, that saved his life."

Bullshit, there were hundreds of sailors in smaller, slower boats who didn't die. If it was only Sayonara's speed that saved Larry's life, the sailors on smaller boats wouldn't have survived. The race was won by a 35' IMS boat....a small, non-planing type.

"Not many designers can race".

Let's see. Bruce Farr - New Zealand national Moth champ as a teenager. Interdominion 12' skiff champ. 3rd (IIRC), 18' skiff "worlds". South Pacific 1/2 ton champ.

Russell Bowler. World Cherub champ. Interdominion 12' skiff champ. 3rd (IIRC) world 18' skiff champs.

Iain Murray (Murray/Burns/Dovell). America's Cup skipper. 7 time "world" 18' skiff champ. Two-time Etchells world champ.

Grant Simmer (Alinghi design director). Winner, America's Cup as navigator. Lightweight Sharpie national champ when young.

Laurie Davidson. Almost won the "world" 18' skiff titles as skipper.

Ron Holland. World champion owner/skipper.

Pete Marvin, M&M multihulls. World A Class cat champ.

Faroux. Several time World International Moth champ.

[CT 249]

"Actually, the IMS boats were not all that much quicker than the last of the IOR boats for a given dynamic waterline. A Mumm 36 (off the custom Farr 36) was about the same pace as a last generation Farr One Tonner (40 feet). Whack off the bow overhang and tweak the stern on the One Tonner and you would have similar length boats going not too different pace."

That reminds me of a conversation I had with a sailmaker years ago, on all Elliott 10.5 - beamy, light, non-IOR race machine with twin trench cockpits and a masthead kite. "Look at that main" he said proudly. "With that big roach and full battens, that sail is as big as a one-tonner main". So we went around the top mark, and popped the masthead kite. "Great sail" he said; "as big as a one tonner's kite". So I asked how big the boat was, and he said "as long on the water and as beamy as a one tonner". And I saw how many guys we had on board, and it was as many as a one tonner. And the boat went - about as fast as a one tonner.

So we had no rule to race under, and we had gained - exactly what? We had cut the cheap, pretty bits off each end, and ended up with a boat about the same size as an IOR 40 in every respect but LOA, and about the same speed. But for some reason, everyone thought a 35 footer that was in some ways a sawn-off 40 was special.

I think I started losing interest in non-rule boats about then. It's like a Laser - sure you can modify it to make it go faster, but what's the point if it takes it outside the class?

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by CT 249

"So, back to the IOR, I'm under the impression that even with all their faults for downwind stability, IOR boats are rating O.K. in some of the newer rules."

A few years ago I interviewed some of the top UK designers and other guys about IRC. The consensus was that the "smooth" IOR boats, those with fewer bumps and wider sterns (ie mid '70s Farrs, probably many French boats) were competitive on IRC. The more heavily-bumped IOR boats (maybe Judel/Vrolijks, later boats ie 50s) would struggle. Half tonners of the '80-85 period seem to do well in Europe under IRC; Brittany Drizzle etc. I get the impression the Db1 would be similar. There have been fewer successes to the big IOR boats, like the 1983 vintage Farr 40 one tonners..

In fact, the competitive IOR boats after about 1983 were not so unstable downhill. People always seem to equate IOR with 1975 Peterson and Holland Pintails. The later boats, especially the 30.5 raters, surfed and even planed along. I have some photos of one of the last IOR boats in the USA, a Reichel 44, and there is virtually no distortion in the aft sections.

No boats struggle under under IRC, do they? Isn't it the "most fair" system of handicapping? (sarcasm here)

Originally Posted by CT 249

"Let's see. Bruce Farr - New Zealand national Moth champ as a teenager. Interdominion 12' skiff champ. 3rd (IIRC), 18' skiff "worlds". South Pacific 1/2 ton champ.

Russell Bowler. World Cherub champ. Interdominion 12' skiff champ. 3rd (IIRC) world 18' skiff champs.

Iain Murray (Murray/Burns/Dovell). America's Cup skipper. 7 time "world" 18' skiff champ. Two-time Etchells world champ.

Grant Simmer (Alinghi design director). Winner, America's Cup as navigator. Lightweight Sharpie national champ when young.

Laurie Davidson. Almost won the "world" 18' skiff titles as skipper.

Ron Holland. World champion owner/skipper.

Pete Marvin, M&M multihulls. World A Class cat champ.

Faroux. Several time World International Moth champ.

It is my experience that most good designers are top rated sailors as well. That's how they get their early boats to the top of the heap. These people get into racing boat design as a living because they enjoy it and are good at it. Most grew up racing all sorts of boats with great success. If you don't have a good feel for what feels fast when you are sailing then your next iteration won't have as much chance of being an improvement.

Alan Andrews and Bruce Nelson are two of the very best sailors I've ever sailed with. Alan won the Congressional Cup match racing as tactician before he became a "name" designer and was a collegiate All American. Nelson was also an All America sailor.

Philippe Briand helmed to a One Ton Cup victory, and I believe two Quarter Ton Cups. I'm sure the other designers from that era, Andrieu, Humphreys, etc could also get a boat around the course.

Olin Stephens and his brother Rod were outstanding sailors in their day.

I've sailed with Doug Peterson when he was ON, and he was very good. As a youth he sailed a Tahiti race with a crew that included Ron Holland and Tom Wylie, and sailed his first design to a win at the One Ton NAs.

I believe any development class dinghy designer is also a very good sailor in that class. In the museum in Auckland sits a dinghy that a kid named Bruce Farr designed and built when he was 14 years old, then raced and won the national title with it.

[mighetto]

CT 249

I know I shouldn't do this, but here goes.

CT 249! have you been banned from Sailing Anarchy I had no idea that the topic of designers was taking place on SA. I suppose that comment by Sail about the Flying Tigers being dribbly hulled like a Mac 26x - Let Fly sent the editor looking for photos of Tasars. Good to see Frank Bethewaite alive and kicking with new mylar sails on the vessel that should be standard Olympic equipment. Tasars are sailed differently. Falling off in the puffs instead of heading up and 4th mode sailing, all of that - is different from training at the US Sailing Acredited Basic Keel boat schools.

I had posted: "The notions that vessels like Finisterre are sailed differently than IOR and IMS oriented vessels explains why copies, crewed by the experienced,were not succesful".

Absolute rubbish. The modified Finnisterre type "Sunstone" was British offshore racing "Yacht of the Year" about four times in the '80s and '90s - on IOR, AND on IMS, AND on IRC. She won the Commodore's Cup (IMS), Channel Race (IOR), Sydney-Hobart Div 3 (IMS) and her class in the Fastnet several times (various rules). She was measured at the expense of the ORC to see why she was so succesful under IMS and her success under various rules caused a fair bit of ruckus in the UK. There was NOTHING in the rules that prevented Finnisterre types from being succesful. Mind you, they are not fast, they just rate low.

Behold - the power of the wind we call not Mariah but Progressive Internet Talk. I had no idea. But then CT 249, you have little idea of the closed minded society that those of us who choose to live in the United states put up with daily. The notion of retracting a centerboard during a race just is not tollerated. Sure, you can take a punative penulty rating and do it, so technically it is not prohibited but very few bother. I can add to the knowledge base.

Finnisterre type vessels are likely just as fast on reaches and down wind runs as those of a fixed keel type at least according to the bad boy of designers Boldger who is featured on the .com version of this .net url. It would only be on close hauled and in heavy weather where centerboarders would be bettered by heavy fixed keeled vessels. I could argue that sailing upwind in an ocean race isn't necessary. Finisteer selected courses where she could benefit from riding the edge of a high and need not head into the wind. The distance traveled was further but the speed of the reach more than make up for it. However, with water ballast you get the same features as a heavy fixed keeled vessel just by flooding the tanks.

"Larry was a newbe to the sport when he did his Hobart race. The vessel he sailed did not weather the storm - it flew ahead of it and it was speed, not size, that saved his life."

Bullshit, there were hundreds of sailors in smaller, slower boats who didn't die. If it was only Sayonara's speed that saved Larry's life, the sailors on smaller boats wouldn't have survived. The race was won by a 35' IMS boat....a small, non-planing type.

Ellison is quoted in Proving Ground that he believed the size of the vessel is what made her safe. You and I disagree perhaps. But perhaps we are but two sides of the same coin and mostly agree. Sayonara suffered some delamination on the centerline during the race. The seriousness of this defect has to be tempered with the notion that 66 sailors went into the water during that race and Sayonara was meant to be both a lake and an ocean sailer, not unlike a TP52. Her build may have been compromised somewhat to make her a fast buoy racer. Is she back in the water?

"Not many designers can race".

Let me restate. Those that can sail do; those that cant sail teach; those that can not teach design Please note the smiley. But do see some kernal of truth - we be truth seakers here.

Let's see. Bruce Farr - New Zealand national Moth champ as a teenager. Interdominion 12' skiff champ. 3rd (IIRC), 18' skiff "worlds". South Pacific 1/2 ton champ.
Russell Bowler. World Cherub champ. Interdominion 12' skiff champ. 3rd (IIRC) world 18' skiff champs. Iain Murray (Murray/Burns/Dovell). America's Cup skipper. 7 time "world" 18' skiff champ. Two-time Etchells world champ. Grant Simmer (Alinghi design director). Winner, America's Cup as navigator. Lightweight Sharpie national champ when young. Laurie Davidson. Almost won the "world" 18' skiff titles as skipper. Ron Holland. World champion owner/skipper. Pete Marvin, M&M multihulls. World A Class cat champ. Faroux. Several time World International Moth champ.

Lets not see the Johnstons and the J-Boats or the Melges

Lets not forget Pierre Rolland and the Pogo. What is with that Pogo 40? Water ballast makes the world go round. Anyway a rich area of research has now been opened up. Just from knowlege of Olin Stephines and Roger MacGegor, I do still think that IOR and IMS is what turned novice sailors from the open sea, where prior to that sailing across an ocean in a 19 footer in season was considered natural. It also made it easier for the less qualified to sell themselves as designers.

Frank Mighetto
SSSS Murrelet
Mac26x out of Olympia Washington
Sail 79020

[usa2]

Eliison is an idiot in many cases, so what he says is not to be regarded as words of an expert. Neither is anything said on this website unless someone can prove that they have the credentials. The smaller boats in the race were generally safer than the maxi boats, because their length would ensure that they were only dealing with one wave at a time. an 80+ foot maxi has to go through 2 or 3 waves at a time, seriously stressing the hull structure. Sayonara is not back in the water, nor will she ever be, because ellison was scared of ocean racing and has now concentrated on expensive competitive daysailing (America's Cup).
Sayonara didnt have to weather the worse part of the storm, but she was forced to keep going because she had left Syndey heads sailing at an average speed of 26 knots so when the storm went off she couldnt turn back without running through the worse part. Based on what is known of the damage to Sayonara, it is conceivable that she would not have survived the worse part of thestorm based on her structural integrity.

Why are you critizing the TP 52's and not say a modern IRC racer such as Aera? Aera was designed to the IRC rule, she is very seaworthy, and a fast boat. The TP 52's were not initially designed to IRC, but rather just for the TransPac. They happen to rate well under IRC and their overall good performance has made them an attractive boat to people joining to the class.

[sharpii2]

Originally Posted by Paul B

Money is what killed IOR, and then IMS, (also MORC) and will surely kill the next Grand Prix rule. The cost of "high tech" sails is really killing off the local racing scene, since a suit of competitive sails now costs more than the value of many of the boats a working man can afford.

Dear Paul:

Thanks for the imfo. Perhaps these Hi Tech sails should be penalized under any new rating rule. Ideally their actual performance improvement over conventional sails should be exaggerated a tad. Perhaps by as much as 5%. That would create the slightest disadvantage for using them. That way, those who simply wish to go faster may be willing to pay the price knowing full well that it is no longer a plutofix for victory.

It has been said that money can buy just about anything but contentment.
But I imagine (not having much of it myself) that, even on that, it makes a damn good down payment.

Bob

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by sharpii2

Dear Paul:

Thanks for the imfo. Perhaps these Hi Tech sails should be penalized under any new rating rule...

Bob

Sadly, measures like this have been attempted and it simply doesn't work. Alternatives come forward that cost as much or more for less performance.

For example, the J24 class did not allow Mylar sails for a long time. So everyone started using a special dacron material with a very high resin content. It made for nice, stiff sails. The material broke down very quickly and people were replacing sails more often to keep 'em crispy.

Then people would buy high tech sails anyway for handicap racing. More and more cost.

Similarly, IMS originally had stipulations about carbon fiber in the build laminates. So more uni had to be used, and lots of kevlar (which is harder to work than carbon). Ultimately the cost of the boats were not measureably less than boats that used carbon reinforcement.