Race Course Design

Rob Davis · Post by **Rob Davis** » 05 Dec 2003, 16:12

From a North American perspective, most of our racing has used a Windward / Leeward course with a windward offset mark and a leeward gate. This type of course was used at the Vancouver Worlds as well. The objective of the offset and leeward gate is to reduce fouls and congestion during a race.

The course projections from the Australian Worlds info depicts using the venerable Triangle course which leads me to ask the IOM skippers what they think about the various courses we could utilize. What do others normally sail and most importantly why? What would you like to sail (assuming you get to make the decision)?

Happy Holidays,

Jake Leo · Post by **Jake Leo** » 05 Dec 2003, 16:41

With reaches, little or nothing changes for those legs and reduces tactical options.

I personally would not like to go back to that style.

Ken Dobbie · Post by **Ken Dobbie** » 05 Dec 2003, 21:41

When developing its own Championship Regulations, IOM-ICA should specify the type of course to be sailed as this will have some bearing on site approvals. Not all sites can accommodate a windward/leeward course and not all countries have embraced the windward/leeward concept. Quad Park is suitable for these courses.

We have been using these courses at my home club for more than 12 months and whilst there are a one or two members who still yearn for the old days, the courses have proven a hit with our members and less hits for the boats.

Ken Dobbie

Roy Thompson · Post by **Roy Thompson** » 06 Dec 2003, 01:16

I am not so sure IOMICA should specify the course type in it's Champ Regs. Surely that may exclude an otherwise suitable site? For sure it can be recommended or prefered but we don't need to start limiting the choice of sites.
I do however understand the desire to reduce incidents and allow more tactical sailing and am personally in favour of upwind downwind courses. Unfortunately, like many other otherwise perfectly good sailng venues, at my club's lake we can't set a very good uw-dw course under many wind conditions/directions, so we would be predjudiced against at events where it was obligatory since we are not used to either the sailing or tactical skills required to dominate that type of course. We are also limited in that there are few sites suitable (water depth, weed free, local authority or owners permision etc) for our sport so we can't easily find an alternative venue where uw-dw sailing couls be the norm. Can you see the problem?

Rob Davis · Post by **Rob Davis** » 06 Dec 2003, 03:19

I can see the problem but if you're saying that the uw legs are being sailed directly away from the skippers thats a HUGE problem. Especially for a National Championship or higher regatta IMHO. Am I understanding your statement correct?

I thought the triangle courses we're speaking of are normally situated where the uw and dw legs are sailed parallel to the shore so the fleet can see the events unfolding on these very tactical legs.

Roy Thompson · Post by **Roy Thompson** » 06 Dec 2003, 16:51

No I'm not saying that, obviously it depends on the layout of the lake and wind direction, and one thing is club sailing and another International Championships. In neither case is uw-dw sailing or triangle sailing good if the the start line isn't more or less perpendicular to the control area with the uw leg visible for all to see. I thought the uw leg of a triangular course was somewhat shorter that the uw/dw legs of an uw-dw course, making it slightly less easy to fit in a uw-dw course on some bodies of water that are long and narrow when the wind blows down the lake.
The Aus bids site looks ideal in that in could easily hold uw-dw sailing in almost any wind direction, but not all sites have this potential.

What I wanted to point out is the need to keep it fair for sailors who for whatever circumstances can't practice regularly on an uw-dw course. Also the need to not exclude sites where this type of course may not be possible under all wind conditions. (This year we have 2 possible contenders bidding to hold the 2005 Worlds, but other years are different and if we start stipulating the course layout in the regs I just feel we may make it less likely to be able to sail in some places.)

Tito Llana · Post by **Tito Llana** » 08 Dec 2003, 01:12

I am reading attenttively all the questions formulated and, obviously, the REG [Class Championship Regulations] musn't limit the courses' leg type. That isn't very important in itself.

The important thing is to be serious that the sailing area, control area, winds coverage, and courses type are mounted in good location and adequate shape.

This "global shape" for mounting sailing areas is the essential thing.

IMHO. the REG's must include "the correct and adequate shape", including, of course, triangle configuration and upwind-downwind courses tipo de recorrido. Upwind-downwind course are preferred, that's all.

Also, it is sure that local and regional regattas are one thing, and national and international events another. The sailors make always a long travel and at least they have the right to sail in the best possible conditons.

Tito

Roy Thompson · Post by **Roy Thompson** » 08 Dec 2003, 20:57

Thinking about this a bit more, and looking carefully at our local water, we could have an uw-dw course, maybe with an extra lap to keep the distance/time about right, and I suspect that all but the narrowest stretches of water could do the same in many wind conditions/directions. But the biggest problem is the positioning of the control area. As has been mentioned earlier, probably one of the fundamental things is the position of the control area relative to the uw leg (keeping this leg about parallel to cont.zone), although this could also be said for the traditional triangle.

Tito Llana · Post by **Tito Llana** » 08 Dec 2003, 22:11

certainly.

that is the big problem.

Post by **Chairman** » 08 Dec 2003, 22:39

One of the problems at the 2003 Worlds in Vancouver (and I think this can apply for any course layout) was a couple of races when a mark was so far away that you could not read the numbers on the sails as the boats rounded. Now IMHO that mark was too far away. So this would be one of the constraints on a feasible and appropriate course.

Tito Llana · Post by **Tito Llana** » 08 Dec 2003, 23:03

certainly,

so that, in the REG the triangle dimension i think can be regulated.

the events sub com have in prevision some indications for that.

Steve Landeau · Post by **Steve Landeau** » 10 Dec 2003, 03:43

My experience with triangle courses and R/C sailing has shown little positive results. Most importanly, a proper reach mark would certainly take you too far away to judge the mark well, as well as see other boats' numbers (a properly set reach is a right angle turn). It is not possible to properly protest a boat by the book if you cannot see the sail numbers. Secondly, as Rob stated, it becomes mostly a parade with little or no tactical maneuvers available. Reach marks are about boat speed. Yes, that is part of racing, but it does not outweigh the tactical situations available in a windward/leeward. That's why it isn't done anymore in most every major "big boat" event.
I think it is very important for the skippers to know the expected conditions and planned courses before commiting to go half way 'round the world.

Greg Vasileff · Post by **Greg Vasileff** » 10 Dec 2003, 06:03

Our club has come to adopt the windward leeward course with the windward offset and leeward gate. Prior to this we mostly sailed the triangle, but would often do so in Olympic fashion adding a final windward leeward led. We still pull this out once in a while as itâ€™s a different challenge and since we sail every weekend, it just adds some new thinking on the skippers part. We have the ability to do this at our site being that we have a large open shoreline on a good size reservoir, but Iâ€™m sure we all know of clubs that would have a difficult time setting up a decent windward leeward course. I could even say that most of our largest clubs here in region 1 USA might find it hard to pull off a good windward leeward.

Not sure where this is going though? Itâ€™s good stuff, but is there some thinking here about provisioning mandatory standards for racecourses? I certainly would hate to see something like this happen. I would hope that any regional or national regatta would not be required to set up an â€˜IOM class rulesâ€™ course. Even the thinking that a particular class would â€˜recommendâ€™ certain course layouts is stepping over the line a bit. That a certain club would have to consider whether or not to adopt the IOM due to the fact that they may not be able to meet the â€˜class requirementsâ€™ for course layout would be detrimental to the IOM class I would think. Just the idea that a club would have to â€˜considerâ€™ such a thing might send them in another direction.

Steve Landeau · Post by **Steve Landeau** » 10 Dec 2003, 06:34

No, not necessarily a mandate, but a proper evaluation of a venue before travellers make a large monetary commitment to travel.
Put it this way, if you had a pond at the end of your street that had a pier for 3 people to stand on, and only enough distance to sail a small triangle, or a top notch, made for R/C sailing rectangular pond with an 1/8 windward leeward fetch, but had to drive an hour to get there, which would you pick? To me, it's well worth the added travel effort for a good venue.
And to take it a step further, would you invite the nation to a regional at your little pond without telling us what it's like?

Greg Vasileff · Post by **Greg Vasileff** » 10 Dec 2003, 07:39

To start with, just so you all know, I'm this

, not this

I know sometimes it's hard to tell with typed words.

Steve Landeau wrote:No, not necessarily a mandate, but a proper evaluation of a venue before travellers make a large monetary commitment to travel. ......

Good point Steve, but is this not what we all do anyway? I think that every one of us has an idea of what to expect at any venue that we might be traveling to, either by word of mouth or via the Internet. Our AMYA IOM class secretary seems to be on top of this, and within his own 'common sense' evaluates whether or not it has the possibilities of being a 'proper' venue. I don't think that we need to have a club labeled as one that does not fit within the 'requirements' of the class, itâ€™s just not great class politics.

......And to take it a step further, would you invite the nation to a regional at your little pond without telling us what it's like?

Again, a good point Steve. I would not, and I have never come across a club that has done so for an IOM regional or national event. Maybe because Rob has filtered them out of the equation already? So, again, letâ€™s not remove the possibility of 'common sense' to be used by placing more 'requirements' or labeling a club with an 'evaluation' from the IOM class. I do think that we need to be careful about holding standards in such an open way. It only makes the class look more intimidating, and that ain't so good.

Jake Leo · Post by **Jake Leo** » 10 Dec 2003, 16:19

So, again, letâ€™s not remove the possibility of 'common sense' to be used by placing more 'requirements' or labeling a club with an 'evaluation' from the IOM class. I do think that we need to be careful about holding standards in such an open way. It only makes the class look more intimidating, and that ain't so good.

An interesting perspective.....I think we have enough non-intimidating classes in the world now.....especially where quality events and good leadership are a rare commodity.

Every IOM regatta I attended this year was "first class" do in major part to the event requirements, venue selection and guidance of the class secrataries in cooporation with the host committees.

Steve is right, most competitive members I know, won't waste their time with a unprofessionally run event or a bad venue. That will hurt the class more than anything else.

I think the numbers speak for themselves!

microporo · Post by **microporo** » 12 Dec 2003, 20:43

I agree 100% with Steve and I would like to highligh some questions.

I think we should look to what other classes are doing, because as Steve said cruising boats are racing up&downs in high level races, Tornados and Mistral also has a special design.

Also, if you can set a triangle you can set an up&down, the question is how many turns you need to sail and where are the starting and the finishing lines, because they donÂ´t need to be the same. The starting line could be close to the leeward mark and the finishing line between the top and the offset marks.

I am sorry friends, this is very interesting but I have to start a long journey because tomorrow there is a race in a place where is almost impossible that wind come paralell to the shore

IanHB · Post by **IanHB** » 21 Jan 2004, 02:04

I am interested to know more about the Leeward Gate mentioned in previous posts?
I have heard of a system where their are TWO leeward turning marks set aprox 5-6 metres apart which boats must pass between and then may choose to turn left or right to begin the next windward leg.
Is this is what is ment by the term leeward gate?

Steve Landeau · Post by **Steve Landeau** » 21 Jan 2004, 02:39

Yes, the leeward gate is simply 2 leeward marks that you must sail between and around the outside of either. It is extremely effective in large fleets or short courses where the fleet does not have time to separate. They should be as close together as possible to avoid a "favored" side or else the gate would not be so effective. However, they also should not (and in my opinion cannot legally) be within 8 boatlengths of each other or else you could have overlapped boats that may wish to turn "toward" each other and end up with rule 18 conflicts. This would be a rare occurance, but it is possible. I have set leeward gates at less than 8 lenghts, but I always notified the fleet of the potential problem, and if they talk to each other early on as they approach the gate there won't be any problems. Closer is better for the upwind leg following. If they are too far apart, it give the trailing boat a chance to gamble and go the other direction simply to avoid "following" the leader to the finish or next leg.

IOMICA Forum