Tangent had a gift PHRF rating so I am sure it's ORC number was similar. Although I hoped for more a accurate rating. Like Clean said I've seen them sail terrible and still win. I know all the ORC boats they beat and most of them are very well sailed most of the time.
It's hard to handicap a one one-off type boat.
It shouldn't be, according to all the ORC talking. "Science-based, transparent, etc."
Serious question: How do you game a system like this? We know the guy who won the Euros had an actual cheater boat now that that protest has been heard. Is Tangent doing the same thing, or simply lucky they have a boat that rates so well across so many rules?
Having watched it all, the dominant boats dominated because they were sailed well, with one exception - a boat that seems to crush under PHRF, IRC, and now ORC. They won one race despite being OCS and even sailing bare headed for a while, and are fully measured and, I presume, quite optimized. Tangent is generally well sailed, but not during the two races we watched that they won. In contrast, the one race we saw Gladiator fuck up (and the video of that start is on the CRW facebook page from Saturday), they got a 4th and deserved it. The rest of the races we watched, they were bang on the laylines with launched starts and deserved the win. The D class was so small and the skill level so disparate it is hard to generalize anything about it from the week.
Inshore C was pretty crazy and awesome, and considering the .8 NM legs, very few of the bigger sporties were ever sailing at maximum speed. In those condiitons, a well sussed out GP26 can be around the mark with guys hiking far quicker than a Hendo or Melges 32, and slick maneuvers made the difference more than outright boat speed. All things being equal the Melges 32 - crewed by longtime Charleston sailmakers who know the harbor like the back of their hands - should have been over the line first in all races, but that rarely happened. Beasley's crew on the GP couldn't get off the line well, but they were damned slick at the corners and on top of most of the shifts. The other Fareast 28 would have podiumed too (or won) had they not lost 4 races to the blown out OEM (chinese) mainsail. I took my baby girl and some friends out on it last week and it is a surprisingly well turned-out boat for 50k. Also pretty damned waterproof, and coming from Melges land, that's a bit of a shocker. I think they benefitted from the same thing as the good GP guys - simpler, smaller stuff, quicker to get up to speed with bodies on the rail.
In a podcast from last summer i think, Bora talked all about Z vs. T vs. L/J/C foils and specifically how much more stable the Z foils are in the N17v2. His point was that even for the best Olympic sailors, L/J/C foils are simply too much work. As for wand-controlled, the big issue there is, as explained above, the added expense and significantly more complexity of the linkage and adjustments. For a Z, you put them down and leave them there. With a J, you have to pick up a board on every maneuver, and timing is critical. With a T/wand, you have wand length, gear ratio and height adjustment, all of which need to be adjusted when changing upwind/reach/downwind.
Finally, the directness of the linkage between wand and foil is extremely important, especially when the wand is bow-located, as all experienced foiling designers and sailors will tell you is essential for pitch stability in chop. If you can't keep the slop out of the linkage - even a few mm here and there - ride stability is massively reduced. The tolerances are extreme and as any engineer will tell you, extreme tolerances are expensive to produce in a factory.
Search the Sailing Anarchy Podcast on stitcher or itunes to find the discussion. I think we talked about it in the VPLP interview as well, but it's all a blur.