IMOCA 60 Proposed Rule Changes

[Buckie Lugger]

I've just picked up the latest issue of Seahorse after a few weeks away from home, and there's a very interesting article by Merfyn Owen about the proposed rule changes that IMOCA are looking at bringing in.

No one's mentioned this, and I know that there are more than a few Open 60 geeks around here, so here's a précis of it.

It sounds like IMOCA has, in principle, agreed to three proposals to guide future rules and technical developments:

(1) Limit the power of the boats

There appears to be four areas under investigation:

• Limit rig height to 28 to 29 metres.
  
• Limit bulb weight to a figure that wouldn't affect the majority of the fleet. Merf doesn't give any exact numbers that are being considered, but suggests 3,200 kg as being in the ballpark.
  
• Limit water ballast to two centreline tanks: 2,000 kg forward of the mast, 1,000 kg aft.
  
• An increase in the worst case AVS.
  

(2) Limit the complexity of the boats

Suggestions include:

• Banning trim tabs and interceptors.
  
• Banning curved daggerboards.
  
• Banning halyard locks.
  
• Banning lifting rudders.
  
• Limits on outboard sheeting.
  
• Reducing the number of sails that can be carried.
  
• Limits on the grades of carbon used in the mast.
  

Merf acknowledges that classes with relatively simple rules (e.g. the Minis and IMOCA) have tended to flourish and adapt, so there is need for a balance.

(3) No Grandfathering

The new rules won't allow the existing fleet to be grandfathered. Furthermore, they're intended to be in place by the 2010 Barcelona World Race.

Merf says that most of the fleet, with the exception of two boats (Pindar is explicitly mentioned, and I'm guessing Artemis Ocean Racing 2 is the other) could be converted. He also suggests allowing existing boats to have until 2011 to become class compliant.

I can see why there was a bit of an upset in the class.

The class chairman (Jacques Guilbaud) and executive director (Gregoire Metz) have both resigned recently, and I'm guessing that this has got something to do with it. Dominique Wavre is currently the stand-in as the president.

Metz sounded like a fantastic choice to run the class (fluent in several European languages, and having a broader background than the French sailing scene), and I think that his loss is going to be keenly felt.

Given a major refit on an IMOCA is 750K euros and upwards, then that would eliminate all of the older boats at once as it wouldn't be cost effective to rework them. (Buy a boat for 300K, spend more than that on rebuilding it.) So a potential side-effect would be in the short term the fleet becomes smaller and more professional.

And, yeah, that's been a point of disagreement between myself and a couple of other posters. It looks like I might be on the losing side of that argument. But it does mean that the average team will have a bigger budget, which is a funny result for a cost cutting exercise.

It would also mean a massive increase in costs for teams looking at running their existing boats for 2012, or heavy depreciation for those who want a new one.

Either way, it doesn't look clever to be doing this at a time when the global financial system appears to be melting down, and most of the major sailing nations are in or heading into a recession.

Politically, banning newly constructed boats by two big sponsors strikes me as being completely brain dead. Pindar don't seem that wedded to an Open 60 campaign, and Artemis haven't had a good ride so far, so both could easily call it a day. And given comments by both Golding and Desjoyeaux that Pindar is the fastest of the 60s, it could be misconstrued that building a better mousetrap is no longer welcome in what is seen as a development class.

How do I think that this will affect the class? Without the changes, I would expect the 2012 Vendée to be more like 2004 than 2008, as there'll be less sponsorship money available during a recession. So a lot of boats from the previous race, with a few new ones, and probably a number of 2000 and 2004 designs for the smaller teams.

With the changes, the picture could be quite different.

For the biggest teams it'll be business as usual. I suspect that they'll be the only ones building new boats for the 2012 Vendée, so they'll lose on the resale of their 2008 model, but save on building the new ones.

The mid sized teams will be hit harder. If they can't afford a new boat then they'll have to spend a substantial amount upgrading their current one. I suspect that this will be the position for much of the fleet.

The small teams could be wiped out. The old Finots will need more spending on them to meet the new class rules, and there won't be any cheap, legal used boats.

I think that the class needs to keep a place for them. Allowing Clipper Ventures' Eco 60 class to run as an official B division in IMOCA races for the next cycle would allow smaller teams to take a run at the Vendée whilst a secondhand market develops. Alternatively a Class 60 (a bigger Class 40) could be developed for these teams.

Thoughts anyone?

 

[bclovisp]

I am no expert in IMOCA politics, but i know how business works... it does seem like a very strange move indeed, from an ROI standpoint, after everybody has just spent so much... I guess they should have amended the rules in that way two years ago rather than now!

Now that the damage is done (Pindar, AO2, etc), would it not be wiser to allow the current boats with no new rules until 2012 included, while publishing in the coming months the next rule (2013 et sq).

Such a rule could then be even more drastic and address all safety and cost concerns, after most of the current "middle class" boats are economically amortized for the sponsors.

In parallel, a vintage division for "adventurers" and "low class" sailors could emerge as you're suggesting, maybe with additional requirements such as fixed keel etc.

C.

 

[Kalumder]

I don't know what the problems are with sport as I have no inside knowledge on Imoca what so ever. How ever I wonder what the purpose of the class is. If they can increase exposure (outside France/Britian), then bigger budgets can be justified. How ever if they become too much like a class 40 (or start to compete with sol oceans), then they will loose part of the appeal which is, the pinnacle of ocean yacht racing an adventure/technical sport/arms race.

In my opinion they should drastically change the format (racing calender), and bring it to the 21st century. I think they are better off sailing around the world like the volvo ocean race, with many stops in different regions. I don't understand why they do not race around the world over 8-9 months (with 8-12 stops), with a stop every 2 weeks (with 2 week break). The fact is the class deserves its own regatta series (like TP52 Med cup). In the 4th year they can shorten the calender and run the Vendee nonstop around the world as a special highlight that takes place once every 4 years. The current format is a joke imo. Far too few races, and it sucks that the races are not mandatory, which results in only 50% or less of the boats participating. The only reason I am interested in the race, is because of my interest in singlehanded sailing. How ever with the sporadic Imoca events, I find it hard to follow and stay up to date.

The Barcelona world race is a joke in its current format. You either have no stops, or many stops (to build a larger audience). But the current format is disappointing with allowed pit stops. Lets not foreget that dual handling just does not sell as well as sailing solo in 60 foot beasts around the world. The only good thing about Barcelona was the way they had the fanfare at the docks and around the boats. The way Imoca presented themselves to the locals was brilliant, imo.

I want to see Riou, Josse, Loick, Desjoyeaux and all the rest battle it out frequently in the Imoca class. They spend all this money on the boats and it seems like 80% of a year these things are on the drydock in the middle of nowhere.

Right now the boats are practically built specifically for the Vendee, and all races are just preparation races for the Vendee or qualifiers. That is the problem with Imoca. They need to build something outside the Vendee globe. Or have the race once a year, than the boats would see more use, and questions like budget and resale value will become secondary.

As for the changes proposed. I think big teams will still find loop holes to out invest smaller teams in critical areas. I am for a overall weight minimum, and agree with a keel maximum weight. How ever I just think that they are fixing the wrong end. An Imoca campaign is becoming too expensive to be just about the Vendee globe. Hit a container and you are out of the race, and get to wait 4 years to do it again. All the money wasted for nothing.

 

[LeoV]

Non stop is the attraction for the French, stopping is pussies... part of the legend.

 

[Chimp]

I heard all the propsed changes were rejected at an EGM last month.

 

[RedFlag]

I heard all the propsed changes were rejected at an EGM last month.

You are correct.

Only one rule has made it : number of sails has been limited to 9 (IIRC).

The president has resigned because the proposals were rejected.

One has to understand that there's a lot of politics going on within the class, because it is actually managed by the skippers.. No one has shown the ability to see the big picture, yet. Instead, each team (of group of teams with converging interests) is trying to make sure that the boats they're scared of gets struck hard by the rules change.

That should explain why the guys with the older, less powerfull recent boats are trying to cut the other guys' wings...

 

[Haji]

I don't know why they are so worried about Pindar & AOR. Even if they are faster in some conditions, they will either give it away in other conditions or simply break.

Those that push the envelope too far will discover on their own where they overshot. The current rules keep the boats quite safe (albiet expensive), so "let the market correct itself"....

Just for the heck of it, check out how wide Pindar is compared to the new Ecover:



Lets see if Brian can keep the rig up! While I wish him the best, I have my doubts...

 

[STYacht.com]

I don't know why they are so worried about Pindar & AOR. Even if they are faster in some conditions, they will either give it away in other conditions or simply break.
Those that push the envelope too far will discover on their own where they overshot. The current rules keep the boats quite safe (albiet expensive), so "let the market correct itself"....

Just for the heck of it, check out how wide Pindar is compared to the new Ecover:

View attachment 84290

Lets see if Brian can keep the rig up! While I wish him the best, I have my doubts...

Controlling costs by constraining the boat design rules almost never works. Using building rules (process and materials) works some of the time and operation rules (number of sails, other operational bounds) work better. But, wherever racing competition heats up, mini, class 40, IRC, IMOCA, Farr 40, or TP 52, money always follows. Yes, even one design. It just means the money that is spent makes a smaller difference in terms of real or relative performance.

Safety is another matter. There will always be those who are prepared to take greater risk to win. I think the IMOCA rules have addressed this exceptionally.

 

[RedFlag]

Controlling costs by constraining the boat design rules almost never works. Using building rules (process and materials) works some of the time and operation rules (number of sails, other operational bounds) work better. But, wherever racing competition heats up, mini, class 40, IRC, IMOCA, Farr 40, or TP 52, money always follows. Yes, even one design. It just means the money that is spent makes a smaller difference in terms of real or relative performance.
Safety is another matter. There will always be those who are prepared to take greater risk to win. I think the IMOCA rules have addressed this exceptionally.

Couldn't agree more.

IMOCA has always set safety goals, and never imposed the means to comply to them. That is definitely the way to go, and shouldn't be changed : You want more safety ? Set the goals higher, and let each team/designer choose how to do it.

 

[Buckie Lugger]

Chimp and RedFlag - thanks for the update on the politics of the IMOCA situation. There's not been much news about what's been happening behind the scenes.

If Golding and Desjoyeaux are right about Pindar, then they really should be scared of Safran. Both claim that their boats are more focused on weight saving and ease of use than the average 60, but Safran is a further step down that evolutionary scale.

But having seen VPP results for a round the world course, I agree with Haji that these things even out around the globe.

I agree with SYDE that safety is good in the class. The old Hugo Boss is the only boat to have been lost at sea in recent years, and serious accidents are thankfully rare.

Something that no-one's mentioned is that several ORMA teams have moved into the IMOCA class. If they're still running at ORMA levels of cost, then it's not surprising that the game's become more expensive.

 

[RedFlag]

Something that no-one's mentioned is that several ORMA teams have moved into the IMOCA class. If they're still running at ORMA levels of cost, then it's not surprising that the game's become more expensive.

I can see two teams with a strong connection to ORMA :

Foncia, who have a reasonnable but not very high budget

Gitana, who probably have one of the top budgets. (Highest budget is Safran)

And yes, those are two very serious players...

 

[Buckie Lugger]

Guillemot crossed over from the ORMA circuit too, but I can't remember who his previous sponsor was.

 

[Across the Pond]

Guillemot crossed over from the ORMA circuit too, but I can't remember who his previous sponsor was.

Wasn't it Biscuits La Trinitaine? I think he also spent some time with the Gitana taem.

 

[Speng]

Kalumder has a good point in saying that the boats aren't raced often enough. IMOCA has tried to go this route of having exclusive races and personally I think that is a waste of time. Many of the races the Open 60s participate in aren't exclusive but those are often the most followed races and with the demise of the ORMAs the IMOCAs are usually at center stage. Also most IMOCA races are usually point-to-point in format. I think it should be a principle to have return races like the Ecover B2B was for the TJV. For example it was a waste to have so few of the IMOCAs in the Quebec- Saint Malo at the very least they could have arranged a competitive Transatlantic record attempt for the boats. Doing long distance (often short handed) races isn't expensive and the exposure isn't expensive. I would not suggest that the boats do any inshore racing and there should be limits on crew size for any crewed race so that the boats don't lose the short handed focus but I think more races would be better. There might also be the effect that if the boats had to race more often then they'd be driven toward better reliability since teams could not afford to have the boats in the shed for major overhauls all the time else they'd miss races.

Regarding the rules article by Merfyn Owen I was surprised because even though I knew that people were talking about making the changes I didn't realize there was anything concrete coming out of it.

- From his article I was most in favor of the rule regarding the AVS because it seems based on what he said that even though the class has an AVS requirement that the boats have in fact become more unstable over time. Also I'm a big fan of saying WHAT needs to be don't not HOW it needs to be done as that is more "open".

- I do think that the amount of water ballast and the number of tanks it is carried in should be limited as it seems as though this is an area where all/most of the new boats have gone far beyond the prevous generations in terms of complexity to the point where water ballast is compromising the amount and usability of the interior room in the boats.

- Foils, except rudders, should only be allowed one degree of freedom of operation so that pitch adjustable daggerboards would be disallowed for example. I exempt rudders to allow for kicking up as I don't think it should be disallowed. Also I'm not a huge fan of the trim tabs and interceptors because while they might make for safer operation when they are an optional design feature like on the Farr's where the underlying design has to be fairly safe without it but you can see some designer using these features allow an unsafe hull to be controlled and then you can imagine the catastrophe when the system fails or there is user error...

- I can see outboard sheeting as an approach to making better use of limited number of sails and the implementation is usually simple so I can't see the big deal. Plus eliminating outboard sheeting could be construed as eliminating fairly conventional devices as whisker poles, spinnaker poles and reaching struts.

- I do think that some of the things regarding rigs need to be looked at like Pindar's deck spreaders which I've variously heard to be telescoping and/or having hydraulically adjustable stays etc. These types of rig shenanigans sound like a bad idea on a short handed boat.

- IMOCA needs to specify required non-destructive testing/inspections on critical areas of the boat such as keels and canting keel support structure and mechanisms and masts.

I'm not really surprised that the rule changes were mostly voted down because I think the view from many of the sailors, particularly the veteran ones, is that the competition should sort out the over-reaching designs. Plus a lot of teams are on long term sponsorship deals and there probably is a fear that if the rules are changed right now to require a significant, unexpected outlay before the 2012 Vendee that either sponsors would drop or not re up. Fact is the IMOCA fleet since the rewrite of the rules around the turn of the century are probably the safety class of blue water ocean racing boats by any measure and even with the extremity of some of the new designs I don't really think you're likely to see wholesale carnage a la the ORMA fleet in the next cycle of races. I think that issues that will occur in next Vendee will be mostly attributable to sailor inexperience as there are some green sailors sailing some powerful tricky boats.

Bucky BTW I'm living in Southampton now, down near Ocean Village. I need to know where is the local sailing, shit talking hangout is...

 

[RedFlag]

- From his article I was most in favor of the rule regarding the AVS because it seems based on what he said that even though the class has an AVS requirement that the boats have in fact become more unstable over time. Also I'm a big fan of saying WHAT needs to be don't not HOW it needs to be done as that is more "open". - I do think that the amount of water ballast and the number of tanks it is carried in should be limited as it seems as though this is an area where all/most of the new boats have gone far beyond the prevous generations in terms of complexity to the point where water ballast is compromising the amount and usability of the interior room in the boats.

- Foils, except rudders, should only be allowed one degree of freedom of operation so that pitch adjustable daggerboards would be disallowed for example. I exempt rudders to allow for kicking up as I don't think it should be disallowed. Also I'm not a huge fan of the trim tabs and interceptors because while they might make for safer operation when they are an optional design feature like on the Farr's where the underlying design has to be fairly safe without it but you can see some designer using these features allow an unsafe hull to be controlled and then you can imagine the catastrophe when the system fails or there is user error...

- I can see outboard sheeting as an approach to making better use of limited number of sails and the implementation is usually simple so I can't see the big deal. Plus eliminating outboard sheeting could be construed as eliminating fairly conventional devices as whisker poles, spinnaker poles and reaching struts.

- I do think that some of the things regarding rigs need to be looked at like Pindar's deck spreaders which I've variously heard to be telescoping and/or having hydraulically adjustable stays etc. These types of rig shenanigans sound like a bad idea on a short handed boat.

- IMOCA needs to specify required non-destructive testing/inspections on critical areas of the boat such as keels and canting keel support structure and mechanisms and masts.

If you don't mind, I'll comment on some of these points :

- Regarding AVS : As I said earlier, I'm with you, that's the way to go.

- Water ballasts : The new boats are actually no more complicated than a few generations ago : Fixed keel boats often had 4-5 tanks per side. Current canting keel boat have 3-4 tanks per side, and most have a very simplified piping, because, well... piping is heavy. Water ballast tops also provide a very nice, flat surface on which to walk and move sails.

- Appendages : I'm still quite convinced that the tabs are illegal. The fact that they've been accepted because they are "appendages" is far-fetched at best. But that's what you get when a rule, written some time ago in a certain spirit (safety in the case of IMOCA), but not as precisely as it could have been, is taken to the letter by the newcomers (Farr for instance). The problem is that appendages are neither defined, nor limited in number. But their mouvement IS limited to one axis (one rotation OR one translation). Except in two cases : single, central daggerboards can be rotated and lifted. Rudders can be lifted, too.

- Outboard sheeting : now that's pure nonsense from Mervin Owen : When a skipper chooses a wing mast with deck spreaders, it is natural that he'll be using the spreaders for sheeting. Then why should one prevent a boat with a classical mast from seeking the same advantage ? Same for rudders. I don't care that Merf dislikes them (or he would have installed them on his boats). They can make all the difference between keeping on racing and giving up. IIRC more than 50% of last Vendee's breakage was fixed rudders hitting a floating debris.

- Rigs : The rule says the mast must remains in the centerplane of the boat. In my opinion, that more or less forbids systems like Pindars first rig. They said it was only to adjust the rake, but in fact, since you also have to adjust the forestays, it is more or less mandatory that the mast leaves the centerplane, even for a limited period of time. The system's failure has also proven that simplicity is the key to reliability.

- Non-destructive testing is carried out extensively by the teams, already.

One needs to remember that the skippers and their teams are usually not a bunch of irresponsible amateurs (although some lack basic engineering skills). They all know the skipper's life is at stake. They also know that shit happens...

 

[Schakel]

All more or less reasonable changes except for the lifting rudders which are suggested to be banned.

Perhaps it is my lack of engineering skills but aren't lifting rudders a fail break when bumping into a large mammal like a whale or a Baskin Shark or a container. Since the canting keel doesn't provide a protection for these obstructions just beneath the surface?

 

[Remodel]

Please pardon the non sequitur, but what is an intercepter?

 

[bclovisp]

Please pardon the non sequitur, but what is an intercepter?

Thank you for asking, i felt too shy to ask as i thought my ignorance was only due to my poor english language skills...

C.

 

[psychowax]

Why screw with a rule that is enjoying so much success??