Number of yachts on June 30, 2005 : 492
Number of IRC yachts below 10 meters : 47 (As at 31/8/05)
Number of yachts on August 31, 2005 : 294
NOTE that Australia has been operating on 1 July to 30 June validity year.
Number of new boats in 2004 and 2005 : 123 in 04-05.
05-06 year has just commenced so annual figure not available.
Number of IRC Yachts between 10 and 15 m : 211 (As at 31/8/05)
Evolution of the IRC fleet compare to the other rules (PHRF, IMS, ORC…): IRC is now the predominate handicap system in Australia and is being used in the vast majority of the offshore including club races.
ORC is not used and IMS numbers are decreasing.
Slide 6:Comments There has been concern expressed regarding some of the more subjective aspects of the rule and a perception of inconsistent application at times including a threat of legal action.
Slide 7:Australia 2005 IRC Report ENDORSED CERTIFICATES
That a standard procedure be introduced for each country to issue IRC endorsed certificates.
The advice received in Australia (and America apparently) is to use AUS endorsed, USA endorsed and so on and for each country to determine its own procedures for this.
Slide 8:Australia 2005 IRC Report BACKGROUND
The concept of endorsed certificates would appear to be for use at an event
where the organising authority wishes to ensure that entrants have been
measured to a satisfactory standard.
In our view, the ability of each MYA to determine its own procedures for
issuing endorsed certificates is defeating the purpose of endorsed certificates
which should be to ensure, to the extent that is possible, that all boats are on
an equal footing. That way where an organising authority wishes to include
the endorsed provision in its notice of race, it would have a reasonable
expectation that the purpose of endorsed certificates is being achieved.
To allow an MYA to determine what it will accept as a basis for issuing
endorsed certificates, does not achieve that aim where IRC is being used for
major international events. We note that this use is increasing and we should
be actively supporting that.
Slide 9:Australia 2005 IRC Report We now have an international rule and unless there is a uniform process to ensure consistency between countries on this issue, we will continue to have interpretation problems between countries.
For example, supposing that USA is prepared to accept an owner’s declaration for weight and still issue a USA endorsed certificate.
That could place at a disadvantage either any boat from another country, or indeed the boat itself, should it compete against any boat that has been accurately weighed to obtain endorsement and where endorsement has been called up in the notice of race.
Slide 10:Australia 2005 IRC Report
Owner’s expectations are that they wish to compete in these events expecting that all their opponents have been as equally scrutinised by way of measurement that they have been.
The present system of permitting each country to determine its own procedures for endorsed certificates does not achieve that expectation.
Slide 12:IRC report 2005 Belgium Our main problem for further development is ORC.
Belgium has a coastline of about 40 miles. In spite of several quite large marinas there is an obvious shortage of moorings . As a result of this situation, about 30 or 40% of our nationals are actually lodged in Holland.
Apart from about 50 IRC certificates at the most, the Dutch have a fleet of over a thousand ORC rated boats ( more than IRC in France). Even RORC have a special ORC class in the Harwich-Scheveningen race in order to draw sufficient boats from Holland. ORC races are well attended and well organised - winter and summer, so one can well imagine that our nationals are drawn into these events. Moving further North into Germany and Scandinavia, IRC is nowhere to be found and so we find ourselves on the outskirts of IRC Europe with strong competition breathing down our necks.
Nevertheless and in spite of this, we are satisfied with the season’s results and hope to improve next year.
As far as the IRC rule is concerned, I have a feeling that everyone was satisfied apart from those few who thought they had found a loophole with the furling-jib and it’s rating-credit ; art 26.8 ; only to be disappointed later on.
Slide 14:IRC report 2005 - Belgium Mainsail Upper Width MUW
As from 2005, MUW greater than 0.26E is required by 26.5.5 to be declared.
The certificates show this default value even when a measurement less than this is declared. Our admittedly limited experience with racing sails cut to the limits of MTW=0.38E and MHW=0.65E is that MUW is around 0.21E. Perhaps the technical committee could reconsider this limit on the basis of the wider data available to them. In any case the certificate should either show the declared value or state that MUW is less than the limiting value. As it is boat owners think the value is incorrect on the certificate and that they are being unfairly penalised.
Slide 18:Number of yachts on December 31, 2004 : 830
Number of yachts on August 31, 2005 : 824
Number of IRC yachts below 10 meters : 410
Number of IRC Yachts between 10 and 15 m : 380
Number of new boats in 2004 and 2005 : 244 / 235
Rule definition : Rule 24.1 and IRC petition form « Hull and Keel material »
…To restore equity between bulb and modern no bulb keels
Comments and required evolutions : IRC French Committee is asking for bulbs being less penalized in comparison with new no bulb keels. In fact, boat having changed keel type from bulb to no bulb don’t loose any critical performances while TCC decreases.
Proposition for a new writing of the rule : IRC French Committee asks to the Technical Committee to take under consideration this technical evolution.
Rule definition : Rule 26.3.4 Downwind sails definition : SHW > 0.75 SF
Code O : To take under consideration the advantages given by this efficient and expensive sail.
Comments and required evolutions : The Code O has the minimum dimensions required to be a downwind sail. The evolution of the cuts of those sails allows to be used upwind in light airs. In second hand, this type of sails is very expensive with a very short lifetime. As IRC wants to discourage unnecessary expenses at all levels…
Proposition for a new writing of the rule : IRC French Committee asks to the Technical Committee for an appropriate IRC definition for Code O.
Rule definition : Rule 27.2 and IRC petition form « Accommodations ».
To improve interiors definition regarding to the quality of the materials. In fact, it is now possible to get the same apparent level of comfort with light modern materials (e.g : honeycomb).
Comments and required evolutions : For the same accommodation level, light materials shall be considered more severely than heavy materials (e.g : wood).
Proposition for a new writing of the rule : IRC French Committee is asking the Technical Committee for a better consideration of those light accommodations.
Rule definition : Rule 27.4, Crew number/weight : To print on the certificate Crew Number and/or Crew Weight for Race organizers beeing able to use it or not.
Comments and required evolutions : French IRC Committee is asking for the Crew Weight to be taken into account, for some events, in order to counterbalance a lightweight crew ; the weight is a very important factor in yachts’ performances.
Proposition for a new writing of the rule : IRC French Committee is asking the Technical Committee that IRC maximum crew weight shall be printed on the certificate in order to get an efficient use of the Rules 27.4, particularly Rule 27.4.5.
Slide 25:Number of boats on December 31, 2004: 1876
Number of boats on August 31, 2005: 1827
Number of new boats in 2004: 275
Number of new boats in 2005: 250
Number of IRC boats below 10 meters: 702
Number of IRC boats between 10 and 15 m: 1041
Number of IRC boats over 15m: 84
IRC (CHS) has been the dominant rating rule in GBR for 20 years. There has been no significant IMS racing in GBR for the last 10 years. Many clubs run racing under local handicap as well as IRC. GBR Statistics
Slide 26:GBR Comments Reports from GBR IRC Committee members indicate reasonable general satisfaction with IRC with a very wide range of boat types, sizes and ages competing and winning.
Consistently, it is reported that the better sailed and prepared boats win.
Concern has been expressed concerning the performance of new one-off boats, particularly large boats and those fitted with canting keels.
Concern has been expressed that the increasingly international use of IRC may discourage its use at a local level.
Reports indicate that both new and old boats are both winning races. Concern has however been expressed related to the performance of older boats, particularly when updated and modernised.
Slide 27:1. Dayboats
Reason for change: At the time that IRC Rule 29.1 was first written, ISAF Offshore Special
Regulations included only Categories 0 to 4. Category 5 did not exist. By
omission, IRC Rule 29.1 has never been amended to reflect also Category 5.
Appendix J of the ISAF Offshore Special Regulations states that: Category 5
Special Regulations are intended for use in short races, close to shore in
relatively warm and protected waters where adequate shelter and/or effective
rescue is available all along the course, held in daylight only. This has already
been recognised by IRC Notice #05/01 amending this rule.
Change: 29.1 A Dayboat is defined as a boat which cannot meet any of Categories
0 to 4 of the Offshore Special Regulations. The Rating Authority
reserves the right to re-classify any boat without stating a reason.
Effect of change: Update to reflect change in ISAF regulations. GBR Proposals
Slide 28:2. Crew Number
Reason for change: Rule 27.4.6 was introduced some years ago when Race Committees on
occasion required boats to race with their actual crew number aboard the boat.
In practice, we are not aware of it ever having been used. Additionally race
committee practice has since changed making the rule redundant. In the
interests of simplicity it should therefore be removed. It should also be noted
that race Committees may amend Rule 27.4 and therefore have considerable
Change: Delete Rule 27.4.6 entirely.:
27.4.6 For the purpose of a race or series of races in which a race
committee has imposed crew limitations invoking IRC Crew
Number, a boat may declare a lower maximum crew
number. Any such declaration shall be made a minimum of
seven days before the race (or first race if a series of races)
and shall then not be further amended for the race or
Effect of change: None. Reduction in IRC Rule content. GBR Proposals
Slide 29:3. Water Ballast Outlets
Reason for change: Current Rule 27.3.4 requires that: Water ballast outlets shall be normal to the
hull surface. In practice, many water ballasted boats use venturi type valves to
fill and empty their tanks using the force of water flowing past the boat. These
systems are well developed, reliable, and do not require a power source of any
sort. There is thus no reason why they should be prohibited.
Change: 27.3.4 Any water ballast tanks shall be securely fixed to the boat's
structure and shall be cross connected through a system of
isolating valves and pumps capable of manual operation.
Water ballast outlets shall be normal to the hull surface.
Stored power may be used for the operation of movable
Effect of change: None. Recognition of current practice. GBR Proposals
Slide 30:4. STIX, AVS, Category
Reason for change: Rule 28.2 refers to SSSN but currently makes no reference to STIX, AVS or
Change: 28.2 Race committees may impose limits for race entry on
safety grounds at their discretion. An SSS number,
specific to the boat, and when data is available RORC/ISO
STIX, AVS, and RORC/ISO Design Category will be printed
on each boat's certificate for the guidance of owners and
Effect of change: None. Inclusion of an omission and recognition of current practice. GBR Proposals
Slide 31:5. Data Protection
Reason for change: Currently we ask owners to tick a box if they do not wish to have their names
and addresses included on listings to eg clubs and sailmakers. However, valid
certificates are (in common with all other known past and present rating rules)
in effect treated as public property and anybody may request a copy certificate.
That copy certificate has in the past included the owners name and address.
To comply with UK data protection law, we should not in future include owners
addresses on copy certificates issued to third parties. Additionally, we should
overtly include a rule telling owners that copy certificates will be supplied.
Change: 9.11 On request and payment of a fee, and in accordance with
any administrative rules published by the Rating Authority,
the Rating Authority may supply a copy of a boat’s valid or
immediately expired IRC certificate, including owner name,
to any interested party.
Effect of new Rule: To clarify that copy certificates, including owners’ names, may be supplied to
interested parties. GBR Proposals
Slide 32:1. US Sailing Proposal for a ‘Short Handed’ IRC certificate.
GBR supports this proposal with the caveat that a short handed certificate may vary from a boats normal certificate only to the extent of changes to the headsail, single furling headsail allowance, spinnaker, STL and pole type.
2. Yachting Australia Proposal to Standardise Endorsement Requirements
GBR supports this proposal with the caveat that measurement of boats remains the responsibility of each MNA.
Slide 34:Number of yachts on December 31, 2004 : 3
Number of IRC yachts below 10 meters : NONE
Number of yachts on August 31, 2005 : 17
Number of new boats in 2004 and 2005 : 17
Number of IRC Yachts between 10 and 15 m :17
Evolution of the IRC fleet compared to the other rules (PHRF, IMS, ORC…): About 80 / 17. IRC started in April 2004
Slide 35:Comments IRC is not recognized by the National Authority
IMS / ORC is run by the NA
Necessity for pressure from «above» to the NA
It is too early to make propositions on rule changes.
There has been a small number or races with not many boats so far.
Slide 38:Hong-Kong 2005 IRC Report
IRC has over the years has become so fine tuned that it has become a mature handicap system with the majority’s general acceptance of the system to provide good handicapping in mixed fleets.
Attached to this document are the race results for one of Hong Kong’s major regattas where a good mix of boats race in 4 divisions. From that the often used saying “the best sailors win” is evident.
There are however, a few areas that we feel need to be looked at.
Slide 39:Hong-Kong 2005 IRC Report
Impalas: It would seem that their handicap is very favorable. Generally we see that large boats cannot race sensibly with smaller boats hence the need for divisions. However if the Impala results are compared to the boats in the higher divisions then Impalas would likely come out at the top.
Could this be a function of the HK Impalas being fitted with outboard engines where in the UK they tend to have inboards and we have UK ratings?
Slide 40:Hong-Kong 2005 IRC Report
SBR: The Etchell handicap versus the Magic 25 appears to be incorrect. The Magic 25 number is quite hard to sail with other boats in the SB fleet anyway but the Etchell stands out significantly. Although this Etchell was being sailed by one of HK’s top sailors its overwhelming dominance was noticed not least by the Etchell sailors themselves. It is possible the Magic 25 number needs adjusting compared to others in the SB fleet
The difference in rating between the Magic 25s to the Etchell is just over 15% whereas using the RYA method of calculating PN numbers used by HK, the difference in rating (comparing the top most competent Magic 25s with the Etchell) comes out just under 3%
Slide 41:Hong-Kong 2005 IRC Report
Swing keels: We have a new 30 ft boat with canting keel whose rating they cannot race competitively under IRC. Through out the series their performance through the water was very close to boats rating 1.115 whilst they are currently rating at 1.158. They have sailed 12 races to date 8 of them during this year’s Typhoon series. Under SBR they are certainly more competitive.
The IRC revalidation date has been moved to June 1st 2006 for Asian areas. Will SBR also change at that time?
Slide 43:Israël 2005 IRC « report » Ronnie Barmatz says :
« We are working very hard to implement the system in Israël.
We are not forcing anyone to change his rating system from our club rating to IRC. We try to show the benefit from using IRC.
We have problem with cruising boats like Bénéteau 47.3 and Sun Odissey 45.2 ; their rating is not reflecting their ability at all. »
Slide 45:Italy 2005 IRC report En Italie la tendance est positive pour l’activité des habitables, donc le nombre des certificats IRC distribués par la Fédération Italienne de Voile - FIV, au soin de l’association des Armateurs - UVAI, continue son essor.
L’année dernière, au Salon Nautique de Paris, nos entretiens au cours de la rencontre avec les Responsables de l’UNCL ont permis une plus grande flexibilité de la distribution des certificats, c’est pourquoi nous avons enregistré une meilleur introduction du système IRC surtout pour les zones où la valeur de rating est élaborée directement par les Clubs organisateurs avec formules «locaux» et pour les zones où les régates sont faites simplement en considérant la LOA. Par conséquence nous pouvons estimer la distribution des sept cents certificats IRC à la fin de la saison en Italie.
Slide 46:Italy 2005 IRC report Une série de stratégies et d'initiatives équilibrées, grâce à la gestion commune des rating, rend possible la coexistence entre une nombreuse flotte IMS et une importante flotte IRC ainsi que sa diffusion. Ces stratégies sont rendues possible grâce à la FIV (autorité nationale) qui a délégué l’UVAI (association des Propriétaires) à la distribution des certificats officielles de rating; ces deux Institutions ne sont pas en concurrence entre elles.
Le succès des importantes manifestations tel que le Trofeo Accademia Navale, la Coppa Carnevale, Pasquavela et le Trofeo Punta Stendardo, a assuré une large diffusion du système en mer tyrrhénienne, où est enregistré la majorité des bateaux avec un certificat IRC. De même, en Adriatique nous trouvons de nombreux bateaux IRC surtout du coté septentrional avec son épicentre le club nautique de S. Margherita di Caorle (Venise).
Slide 47:Italy 2005 IRC report Nous notons que avant les plus importantes manifestations ou bien avant les nombreux «Championnat d’Hiver», courus en grand partie avec un rating officiel, nous avons une plus forte demande de rénovations, de modifications ou de nouvelles émissions de certificats.
Parfois la réponse du Centre de Calcul n’est pas ponctuelle comme toujours et nous comprenons bien que ce peut être à cause des festivités en France ou bien de la concomitance des régates et des rencontres institutionnelles de l’UNCL.
Slide 48:Italy 2005 IRC report Il faut aussi tenir compte que le certificat reçu du Centre de Calcul n’est pas viré directement à l’Armateur mais l’UVAI doit l’enregistrer, contrôler le dossier et vérifier les données afin d’éviter éventuelles et ennuyeuses erreurs; tout ceci provoque un retard de la remise du document de jauge à l’Armateur qui, malheureusement, nous le réclame avec urgence au dernier moment.
L’introduction, à partir de Janvier 2005, de la transmission des certificats par système informatique a déjà amélioré la situation: peut-on faire mieux?
Nous ne savons pas si ce problème est ressenti par d’autre «client» IRC; de toute manière nous sommes persuadés que le Centre de Calcul à Paris nous donnera une réponse satisfaisante
Slide 49:Italy 2005 IRC report Pour les saisons à venir, avec la collaboration et la disponibilité de l’UNCL, nous travaillerons toujours dans l’intérêt commun à améliorer la performance du rating IRC en Italie
Slide 52:Number of IRC yachts on December 31, 2004 ? 46
Number of IRC yachts on August 31, 2005 ? 45
Number of new boats in 2004 and 2005
2004 : 13 boats
2005 : 10 boats
Number of yachts below 10 meters ? 8
Number of IRC Yachts between 10 and 15 m ? 37
Slide 53:Number of IRC yachts on December 31, 2004 : 46
Number of IRC yachts on August 31, 2005 : 45
Number of new boats in 2004 and 2005 : 2004 – 13; 2005 - 10
Number of yachts below 10 meters : 8
Number of IRC Yachts between 10 and 15 m :37
Evolution of the IRC fleet compare to the other rules (PHRF, IMS, ORC…): The RMYC fleet races primarily under IRC. No other handicapping is used locally except that occasionally a non IRC cruiser division using an approximate club handicapping system is included intended for boats new to racing. Being in the Mediterranean where IMS is widely used, the two international races, the Malta-Syracuse Race and the Rolex Middle Sea Race are dual scored under both IRC and IMS/ORC(Club).
Slide 54:Comments The general perception is that IRC is a fairly equitable rule except for the often inevitable problem of having to include widely different boat types in the same class when numbers are limited.
Our fleet numbers have been fairly constant over the last few years. However the boats themselves have changed considerably as owners change to newer boats. The new owners of the older boats do not always join in the racing.
A non IRC cruising division for people new to racing was introduced in some races to entice new sailors to join in the racing but so far with limited success.
The effect of dual scoring the international races in both IRC and IMS/ORC(Club) is that boats from areas where they normally race under IMS are obtaining IRC certificates to enter both divisions.
Slide 55:Comments In the international events we have encountered a certain lack of awareness about certain aspects of the rule among competitors from areas where they do not normally sail under IRC. In particular the rule about rating with a single furling headsail was not well understood. Neither was there sufficient awareness of need to declare modifications to a standard boat other than to declare the new weight.
Slide 56:Proposition 1
Factors displayed on IRC Certificates
IRC certificates display values for Hull, Rig, and Overhang factors. A generic explanation of Rig Factor is given in 26.2 of the rule. I suggest that a similar explanation of Hull and Overall factors should be included in the rule. Once they also appear in the certificate a brief explanation of IRC displacement and DLR could be included as well. This would not in any way compromise the secrecy of the rule while satisfying the curiosity of the sailors.
Slide 57:Proposition 2 Rating with a Single Furling Headsail
Under Rule 26.8 it is possible to rate with a single furling headsail with either a storm jib or a heavy weather jib as defined by ISAF Offshore Special Regulations 4.26 (not 4.24 as printed in rule text).
It is required that the full furling system be installed and the sail set on the system. However it is not clear whether the heavy weather jib is also required to be set on the furler. With some newer boats with tall rigs a full length 100% blade jib would be just within the area limit for a heavy weather jib and could be tacked on deck while still leaving the furling system in place. OSR 4.26 only recommends that the heavy weather jib does not contain high modulus fibres so by declaring the higher LLmax it would still be possible to use a kevlar racing #3 jib. In view of the significant rating benefit this option gives, I suggest that the rule specify that the heavy weather jib should also be set on the furling system and that it should not contain high modulus fibres stronger than say Pentex.
26.8.3 is not very clear in its meaning and could be better worded.
Slide 58:Proposition 3 Mainsail Upper Width MUW
As from 2005 MUW greater than 0.26E is required by 26.5.5 to be declared.
The certificates show this default value even when a measurement less than this is declared.
Our admittedly limited experience with racing sails cut to the limits of MTW=0.38E and MHW=0.65E is that MUW is around 0.21E. Perhaps the technical committee could reconsider this limit on the basis of the wider data available to them. In any case the certificate should either show the declared value or state that MUW is less than the limiting value. As it is boat owners think the value is incorrect on the certificate and that they are being unfairly penalised.
Slide 59:Proposition 4 Limitation on sails carried.
A race committee may wish not to allow boats to carry sails which they not rated for or that they may not use while racing. This may be done by a sailing instruction changing IRC rule 26.1.5.
However Rule 26.8.1 regarding furling headsails states that ‘Any other headsail may be carried aboard’. Rule 26.8 may not be changed and an SI disallowing the carriage of additional headsails could be considered in conflict with 26.8.1 and possibly contested.
I propose that this sentence be removed from Rule 26.8 and if it is considered desirable to include a clause to that effect in 26.1.5.
Slide 62:Number of yachts on December 31, 2004 : between 40 and 50 (46)
Number of yachts on August 31, 2005 : 54
Number of new boats in 2004 and 2005 : constant
Number of IRC yachts below 10 meters : less than 10
Number of IRC Yachts between 10 and 15 m : between 10 and 40
Evolution of the IRC fleet compare to the other rules (PHRF, IMS, ORC…) ? Constant.
The Netherlands primary IMS/ ORC club (1400 certificates). IRC certificates used for racing in England and France
Slide 63:Comments The single number scoring make results dependant on wind conditions in a mixed fleet (heavy and light boats).
A triple number system will bring a more reliable result in dayracing and short events.
Consider this option in IRC.
Rule definition (reference of the rule) : Rule N° 2
Comments and required evolutions :
Consider the possibility of triple number scoring.
Proposition for a new writing of the rule : Next to the used single number.
Triple number scoring for inshore racing.
Slide 68:Number of yachts on December 31, 2004 : 397
Number of yachts on August 31, 2005 : 371
Number of yachts in ECHO : 584
Slide 69: IRC is a long established and stable system in Ireland.
The key feature of the year was the transfer of some of the administration from Lymington to ISA HQ in Dublin. This was not without some glitches mainly in the form of delays in the issue of certificates but we have some ideas to address this problem next year.
One of these is to issue renewal forms for 2006 VERY EARLY i.e we intend to have renewal forms available at our annual conference in Kilkenny on the 19th November.
This will mean that at the beginning of the new year we will be in a position to process a [hopefully] large bundle of certificates.
That is the plan !
Slide 70: The main gripe [as before - but people are more vehement this year] is the [perceived??] treatment of 'racers' vis-a-vis 'cruiser racers'
i.e. the one-off Kers and Corbys as compared with the production cruiser-racers, X 332S, First 36.7s, etc.
The view here is that the racers are more favourably treated than the cruisers and while I am aware of the arguments that say that this is not so [that the racers are more keenly raced and this explains why they win [all the time]], when I see ALL the serious Irish owners moving to one-offs from cruisers then I believe that there is some validity in the criticism.
Slide 71: It would be tempting fate to say that all is well with Irish cruiser racing - at national level it has never been stronger.
We may have three teams in the 2006 Commodore's Cup and 150 boats at national championships, but at club level there has been a marked downturn in participation, particularly in some clubs.
The reasons are many and varied - unknown!! certainly no single cause stands out.
It may be pressure of time - work [ the curse of the sailing classes!! ] and also poorly organised/administered programs - too many races scheduled.
Slide 72:The only point of possible contention I intend to raise at the meeting is to ask that the policy of secrecy for the IRC formula would be explained and examined to see if it meets its original objectives or whether a more transparent approach would be possible while still achieving the aim of secrecy as originally conceived.
I would ask that this point be noted with a view to dealing with it at some point in the meeting.
If any queries or points of clarification arise from the above please ask or I can deal with them at the meeting.
Slide 75: Since the year 2004 The Regional Social Organization "Sport club "UTS"proceeded to the application of the IRC Measurement System in RussianFederation.
Since the times of IOR Measurement system domination, the modernmeasurement system didn't exist at all in Russia in any form.
The market of cruisers in Russia is traditionally and substantially smallerthan in Europe as the Russian Federation maintained principallythe Olympic Classes in sailing at the Soviet times whereas the Cruiser’s fleetof keel yachts couldn't develop itself because of the lack of enterprise class.
Thus the Cruiser’s class had fallen within the situation of the underdeveloped keel yachts market and practical absence of measurement system in country.
Slide 76: In spite of such close starting conditions, our organization could inform Russian sport people about the necessity and benefits of the measurement system IRC for the Cruisers' fleet.
Today the level of publications concerning the IRC measurement system in Russian language on our web-site can be comparable with the IRC publications in leading sailing countries
Slide 77: Of course, we can't compare the number of issued certificates here in Russia with the number of issued certificates in United States, where IRC is making a good progress.
But as for the percentage of a "real" number of keel yachts, I think this number is almost the same nevertheless the USA yacht market is a 10 times bigger than Russian market.
Slide 80:South Africa IRC Report 2005 IRC SA - P.O. Box 2224, Durban 4000
Tel: 031 3013087 Fax: 031 3073902
The administration of the IRC in SA falls under the SA IRC class association which is administered by Sailing KZN in Durban South Africa.
All the administration is handled through this office by the secretary Sandy Ostendorf.
The class association Chairman is Don Voysey who took over from Chris Frost in 2004.
Slide 81:South Africa IRC Report 2005 2) IRC rated boats in SA:
Last year we had 92 rated yachts in SA. This was made up of 33 new ratings and the balance was revalidations.
To date this year we have 6 new ratings and 45 revalidations totaling 51 rated boats.
We find that every year towards November and December that a lot of revalidations are done before the National championships at Table Bay week in Cape Town and more so this time around with the South Atlantic race taking place early January 2005.
Slide 82:South Africa IRC Report 2005 There is still a lot of resistance among local club boat owners to IRC as the IRC rating and changes is an additional cost where the club ratings do not cost and therefore the preferred club rating is PHRF rating which we all know is very controversial when not managed properly.
Another factor is that every change in rating has an additional cost so members will make changes for the club races where the changes will not be reflected on their club handicap and will not have an added cost but will not make the IRC change or revalidation before it is necessary, which is normally at the last minute before entering into an IRC event.
Slide 83:South Africa IRC Report 2005 3) SA IRC Class association:
As the SA IRC must be an endorsed certificate we have formed an IRC class association which has appointed regional measurers and with our certified load cell they carry out the weighting and measurement of the IRC rated yachts.
As a result to have a SA IRC rated yacht the owner must be a member of the SA IRC association for a nominal fee.
At present we have 125 SA IRC members.
The difference in the member numbers from the rated boats is that there are certain boats that members have not revalidated to date.
Slide 84:South Africa IRC Report 2005 4) Races and Regattas sailed under the IRC rating:
January 2005: KZN provincial championships sailed in Richards Bay KZN.
March 2005: Inhaca race from Mozambique to Richards Bay KZN SA.
July 2005: Vasco race from Mozambique to Durban KZN SA.
September 2005: Mauritius to Durban race.
June: 2005: Nelson Mandela week sailed in Port Elizabeth.
December 2004: Table Bay week: SA IRC National championships.
December 2004: Governors Cup: Cape Town to St Helena.
2005: Double Cape sailed in and around Table Bay and False Bay in Cape Town
Slide 85:South Africa IRC Report 2005 5) Forthcoming events:
December 2005 : Table Bay week - SA IRC National championships.
January 2006 : South Atlantic race - Salvador to Cape Town SA.
Slide 88:Number of yachts on December 31, 2004 : 830
Number of yachts on August 31, 2005 : 890
Number of new boats in 2004 and 2005
in 2004, 184 boats
in 2005, 201 boats
Number of IRC yachts below 10 meters : 312 (2005)
Number of IRC Yachts between 10 and 15 m : 531 (2005)
Slide 89: Evolution of the IRC fleet compare to the other rules (PHRF, IMS, ORC…)
In Spain, finally, it seems that IRC is getting stronger in front of IMS during 2005.
Many fleet (Canary Island and Basc Country) moved last year from IMS to IRC. It was a difficult decision to take because all work, measurers and owners, had to do. But biggest difficulty for 2005, was to maintain IRC expectation to all new users to convince themselves that IRC was easier than IMS and we have succeed also.
So that’s the reason why IRC is getting stronger.
Slide 90:Comments Farther of decreasing, in Spain the number of IRC certificates continues increasing. Of course, we could say that IRC is wonderful, is simple, etc… compared to others compensating systems, but in Spain, IMS management hasn’t been as much succeed and fortunate as IRC
Rule definition : No propositions
Comments and required evolutions
In Spain since RANC established Verified IRC Certificates, IRC system have required more precision. In 2003 and 2004 to have a Verified IRC certificate, boat had to be weighted and sails and rig measured by an official measurer.
But when the boats were weighted some questions came out. If one boat was lighter than another (same series) overhangs and waterline length should have been different also. We couldn’t answer satisfactorily this questions to ours memberships because IRC system wasn’t ready for that.
In 2005 UNCL and RORC accepted to modify overhangs but…. some other questions came out. If boat is lighter, and has a shorter waterline length , she should have a shorter draft !!!!
IRC system is ready to absorb the evolution caused by more precision measurements? Not in 2005. It will in 2006 ?
RANC has been requested to owners to weight boats (weight was standardized), to measure overhangs (standardized also), and now the same owners are requesting RANC that, for having a more fair system, to measure draft.
So the question would be is IRC System ready to process dates that since now were standardized and they may become personalized for each boat?
Slide 96:Number of yachts on December 31, 2004 ? 261
Number of IRC yachts below 10 meters ? 59
Number of yachts on August 31, 2005 ? 268
Number of new boats in 2004 and 2005
2004 ? 57
2005 ? 60
Number of IRC Yachts between 10 and 15 m ? 194
Evolution of the IRC fleet compare to the other rules (PHRF, IMS, ORC…) ? NO OTHER RULES
Slide 97:Comments IN TURKIYE, OFFSHORE YACHT RACES ARE HELD IN ISTANBUL, IZMIR, BODRUM, MARMARIS AND GOCEK.
AT EACH REGION, APPROXIMATELY 50 YACHTS JOIN IN THE RACES. BY THE REQUEST OF TURKISH OFFSHORE RACING CLUB, UNCL CLASSED YACHTS AS RACER, RACER CRUISER AND CRUISER SINCE 1997 AND MOST RACE ORGANIZING CLUBS USE THIS CLASSIFICATION NOT DONE BY TCC VALUES.
EACH CLASS RACED INDEPENDENTLY FROM EACH OTHER IN THEIR OWN CLASS AND RANKED ACCORDING TO THE POINT THEY GET.
Rule definition : NONE
Comments and required evolutions : NONE
Proposition for a new writing of the rule : NONE
Slide 101:FLEET CHARACTERISTICS Number of yachts on December 31, 2004 : 44
Number of yachts on August 31, 2005 : 485
Number of new boats in 2004 and 2005
44 (2004) and 441 (2005)
Number of IRC yachts below 10 meters : 21
Number of IRC Yachts between 10 and 15 m : 322
Slide 102:FLEET COMPARISONS
Change IRC rule 9.2 to permit a yacht to have two concurrent valid certificates, one for "Normal Full Crew" racing and one for “Short-Handed" (single or double) Racing.
Boat owners often race a selected number of short-handed events during a season largely dedicated to full crew racing.
It is expensive and inconvenient, often impractical, to change ratings between events through the course of a season. Consequently, many owners pick only one style of racing.
Proposition for a new writing of the rule : none