Menu

J/99 Blur | 2026 sail inventory

J/99 Blur | 2026 sail inventory

, , , , 0

After two seasons with the J/99, we’re pretty happy with our sail setup, and a lot of people have asked us for specifics.

So here goes: what we chose, why, and what the data says after a season that included Gotland Runt and the RORC Baltic Sea Race. Including the one crossover we still haven’t figured out.

Learnings from the Incidence sails

The boat raced as J Lance in France in 2024 with an Incidence inventory. The setup was the result of multiple J/99 campaigns and a two-boat development program with J/99 AxeSail and Incidence designer Jean-Baptiste Boullet. I had several discussions with both teams and Jean-Baptiste to really understand the thinking behind it, and what improvements and optimizations could be done.

We also made an early decision to race the 2025 season without changing anything. Many teams rush to configure a new boat based on prior experience, but we saw this as a unique opportunity to learn from two of the best J/99 teams in the world. And then build on those learnings. This, together with our 35 000 nm in the J/111, would give us a unique perspective.

The Incidence wardrobe was fast, and we proved that by winning both Marstrand Big Boat Race and Færderseilasen. But it was put together for a different program: full crew, French coastal racing, with a J1, J2 and J4, a small code and an A5 that were great for what they were built for. Our program would focus on doublehanded offshore racing. We also had to consider the lighter Scandinavian conditions.

So none of the old sails survived. Not because they were slow, but because the structure was wrong for us. What we learned from a season with them was simple: we didn’t need more sails, we needed fewer sails with more range.

For 2026 we started over with North Sails Gothenburg. Here’s what we chose, why, and what the data says after a season that included Sandhamn Open, Gotland Runt and the RORC Baltic Sea Race.

As a side note, it’s always kind of scary to leave something that’s working very well. We were very fast with the Incidence sails, and I had a few moments during the winter wondering if we had made the right decision…

Doublehanded priorities

The brief to North was short:

  • We wanted to be all-round, to match the J/99 performance profile.
  • We wanted as few sail changes as possible, which means big overlaps between sails.
  • We wanted redundancy if something happened to a specific sail.

We landed on one full-size jib on soft hanks. One heavy-weather jib with a reef. A main with a deep second reef. A downwind sail besides the S2 for more wind that could also do other jobs. And something to plug the hole in light VMG and reaching.

HELIX structured luffs are a big part of maximizing the overlap, because cunningham tension on the jib buys range that used to require a different sail. The same thinking runs through the downwind inventory, where S2, A3 and S5 are meant to bleed into each other rather than have narrow crossovers.

The J/99 is good upwind in 10–25 knots and on a medium-air run. The wardrobe should make it better at what it already does, and remove the weak spots, rather than chase conditions it will never love.

Two things we said no to. A staysail, because IRC counts headsails and because a staysail only pays if somebody trims it, which is hard doublehanded. And an A6 on the pole, which was the alternative to the S5. We judged the fractional S5 more all-round: it can do the A6’s job in a blow, and it can stand in for the S2 if the S2 blows up.

Rating considerations

Since all the big 600 nm races are run under IRC, this was the main priority. With the J/111 we continuously adapted the boat to whatever rule we were racing (SRS, NOR Rating, DH, ORC, IRC, ORR, PHRF…), which was expensive and time consuming. This time we’ll stick to IRC and hope it works in whatever rule we end up racing.

For us this means:

  • as few jibs as possible
  • no staysails
  • moderate downwind area
  • shorter sprit (STL = SPL)
  • possible to mix and match symmetrical and asymmetrical kites.

Finally getting into the groove after the start in Gotland Runt.

Upwind sails

The J/99 is a mean upwind boat; it points well and is pretty easy to sail to its targets. Especially compared to the J/111, which was very sensitive to both trim and steering. This makes the J/99 a much better doublehanded boat. The challenge is to shift gears throughout the wind range without too many costly sail changes.

Mainsail MN-B

MaterialNorth 3Di RAW 870, 12,600 Dpi
MeasurementsP / E = 12.70 / 4.33 m
MGT / MGU / MGM / MGL = 1.13 / 1.75 / 2.76 / 3.58 m
Area34.75 m² (ORC rated 34.15 m²)
Weight15 kg
Details2 reefs
NW Reef Zone
3 × RBS T-700 carbon battens + 1 full-length E-glass, 2 flutter battens
Glowfast trim stripes
RangeFull main to 22 kt
Reef 1 ~18–26 kt
Reef 2 ~29–40 kt

Pretty much standard dimensions and very similar to the Incidence main. The reefs are where the doublehanded thinking shows. Reef 1 is maybe 30 % bigger than a normal first reef. Reef 2 is pretty much a reef 3 on a fully crewed boat, because with two people you reef earlier and want each reef to last longer. In practice reef 1 goes in around 18–20 knots upwind. This is very similar to what we had on the J/111. I’m always surprised how often we end up with reef 2…

If you look at the sail above you can see that it has what North Sails call “NW Reef Zone”, an Endurance-type outer layer that makes the sail more durable when reefing.

J1.5-B

MaterialNorth 3Di RAW 870, 14,700 Dpi
MeasurementsI / J / LP = 13.21 / 3.88 m / 103 %
Luff / LPG = 12.59 / 4.02 m
JGT / JGU / JGM / JGL = 0.62 / 1.15 / 2.12 / 3.08 m
Area28.30 m² (ORC headsail 27.11 m²)
DetailsHELIX structured luff
Reef, soft hanks, padded clew w T-ring
3 carbon + 1 E-glass battens
Range4–20 kt

One jib from 4 to 20 knots. Challenging from a design point of view, but that’s the whole point. The J1.5 is where a J1 and a J2 used to be, and HELIX is what makes it possible: ease the cunningham in light air for depth and power, crank it on in 12–16 knots and the draft moves forward and the sail flattens without changing anything else. It’s on a halyard lock, which makes this even more powerful.

It also has a reef, but that’s mostly for emergencies; think front passage with 30 minutes to the mark. Not the ideal place for a sail change.

Soft hanks to keep things light. Also, you know the jib is going to stay on the boat when you lower it. It makes sail changes harder, but it’s a trade-off we’re willing to make.

Checking out J3.5 at North Sails Clinic before Marstrand Big Boat Race in May.

J3.5-A Heavy Weather Jib

MaterialNorth 3Di RAW 360 (polyester), 16,800 Dpi
MeasurementsI / J / LP = 13.21 / 3.88 m / 103 %
Luff / LPG = 11.22 / 4.04 m
JGT / JGU / JGM / JGL = 0.61 / 1.11 / 2.08 / 3.08 m
Area23.59 m² (OSR max HWJ 23.57 m²)
DetailsHELIX structured luff
NW Reef Zone
Reef, soft hanks, padded clew w T-ring
E-glass battens
Range15–40 kt

Built to the OSR limit as a heavy-weather jib, so it doesn’t count towards the number of jibs you bring. Low aspect rather than tall and narrow, and it ends up with the exact same sheeting position as the big jib.

RAW 360 polyester rather than 870, because the sail lives in the bottom of the boat 80 % of the season and needs to withstand some serious abuse. It also has the NW Reef Zone, like the main. With the reef it covers most of what the weather can throw at us, short of the storm jib. We made it a little fuller to overlap with the J1.5 in flat water and to give us more punch in a seaway.

Great theories meet reality in this year’s RORC Baltic Sea Race.

Bags in different colors is a great way to separate them when it’s messy below.

Downwind sails

As many of you know, putting together a balanced downwind inventory is hard. No matter what you do, there’s always a new sail that would make it even better. We also see boats with very few downwind sails doing really well, and others with a full container also performing really well. There are no right answers.

Naturally, a lot of the same reasoning went into our downwind inventory. One big difference is that many of the lessons from the J/111, a sportier planing boat, had to be unlearned in this project.

A great opportunity to benchmark the Code 0 vs the jib top on First 36.7 Pro4U.

Code 0 (C0-24)

MaterialNorth 3Di Downwind 706, 8,820 Dpi
MeasurementsSLU / SLE = 14.25 / 12.67 m
AMG / ASF = 4.84 / 6.45 m (mid girth 75%)
Area57.90 m²
Weight17.8 kg complete with cable and furler
DetailsHELIX structured luff
Karver KFR1.5 racing + KTS1.5 spi adaptor (top-down)
Counts as asymmetric in IRC
Range0–28 kt, TWA 75–125

The Code 0 is first and foremost a light-air weapon on any angle from 75 to 110, and with the top-down setup it furls reliably even when conditions get fruity. Seventeen kilos in the bag is real weight on a 3,900 kg boat, but it’s the sail that gets us moving.

In many rating rules you’re allowed to tweak the mid girth to get a more upwind-oriented shape. On the J/111 we experimented with 50 and 55 %, which made sense on a faster boat, but in IRC you’re pretty much stuck at 75 %. These used to be pretty terrible sails, as it’s hard to get the shape right in such a wide sail. But with modern technology like HELIX structured luffs and new materials, they have become really useful.

Looks serene. But Gotland Runt was one of the most stressful finishes of my life.

A3-A

MaterialAerotech Polyester P45–P40
MeasurementsISP / SPL = 14.31 / 4.60 m
SLU / SLE = 15.40 / 13.60 m
AMG / ASF = 7.31 / 8.13 m
Area90.62 m² (ORC asym 90.31 m²)
Weight7.4 kg
DetailsGybulator, trim chevrons, ZipIt
Range0–30 kt, TWA 105–150

This sail plugged a big hole for us: light and medium wind reaching, where the old A5 was too small, and light air VMG running, where we felt a longer luff would give us more power. The photo above is from the last leg of Gotland Runt, which turned into a 2–5 knot VMG run.

We chose polyester over nylon because it holds its shape better at tight angles (see below). We had tested a jib top in the same material on the J/80 Han Solo and were very happy with the performance.

Aerotech P vs N

What it isAerotech is North Sails’ woven downwind cloth, launched in 2024 after three years of development with a textile partner. It comes in two fibres: Aerotech P (polyester) and Aerotech N (nylon). It replaces the older NPC Downwind range for racing spinnakers.
Aerotech P (polyester)Built for high-load asymmetrics sailed at tight angles and high apparent wind: A3-type reachers and anything that spends its life with the leech loaded. Polyester stretches less than nylon and holds its designed shape under sustained pressure, so the sail keeps its draft position when powered up. The trade-off is that it’s heavier for a given strength and less forgiving of shock loads and collapse-and-fill cycles (really bad in choppy seas).
Aerotech N (nylon)Built for wider-angle asymmetrics and symmetrics: runners and VMG sails. Nylon is lighter for a given strength and has more give, so it flies in less wind, absorbs shock loads better, and survives the collapses that come with deep angles.
The numbersP45–P40, N37–N32 and N55–N45 are cloth weights in grams per square metre. Two values because each sail is built with a heavier cloth in the high-load areas (head, clews, leech) and a lighter cloth in the body.
On BlurA3 in P45–P40: a light polyester reacher that holds shape on a tight angle.
S2 in N37–N32: a light runner nylon.
S5 in N55–N45: heavy-air nylon for a fractional kite that has to survive 30 knots and the occasional swim.
Why it mattersNorth’s argument is that modern boats on sprits spend far more time at tight angles and high apparent wind than the old nylon assumptions allowed. 3Di solved that for codes and flying sails; woven cloth for A3-type sails hadn’t moved in decades. Aerotech P is the answer to that gap. Nylon still wins where the sail needs to fly light and forgive mistakes, which doublehanded is most of the time.
LinksAerotech overview · Aerotech FAQ · Launch announcement · North sail material guide

First long downwind leg of Gotland Runt. Life is pretty good.

S2-A

MaterialAerotech Coated Nylon N37–N32
MeasurementsISP / SPL = 14.31 / 4.60 m
SLU = SLE = 14.44 m
AMG / ASF = 7.65 / 7.64 m
Area93.00 m² (ORC sym 92.03 m²)
Weight5.4 kg
DetailsZipIt
Range7–21 kt, TWA 135–172

The workhorse. On a J/99 with a sprit, a symmetric on the pole is still the fastest way downwind in 8–18 knots. We weren’t really sure when we got the boat, but naturally the French had done their homework. There’s a reason they put a pole on most boats this size.

We were super happy with the Incidence S2, but if there’s one thing North knows how to do, it’s runners.

The data from the Baltic transport on 1 August (below) shows the median boat speed sitting on or above the polar from 16 to 19 knots, which is about as good as it gets doublehanded with an autopilot doing most of the steering.

Yup. The S5 works. Video here.

S5-A fractional

MaterialAerotech Coated Nylon N55–N45
MeasurementsFractional, on the forestay height (13.21 m)
SLU = SLE = 13.30 m
AMG / ASF = 6.50 / 7.50 m
Area72.00 m²
Weight6.0 kg
DetailsTrim chevrons, ZipIt
Range18–37 kt, TWA 125–175

The chicken chute, except it’s meant to be raced. In 2025 we had a couple of races where we opted for the A5 above 20 knots, mainly W/L races with a few messy roundings. Offshore, where you get to pick a safe angle, we feel the S2 works higher up the range. But sometimes you want to take less risk while still keeping the average speed up.

Fractional hoist keeps the centre of effort low, N55 nylon means it survives being dragged through the water, and 72 m² is enough to keep the boat planing in 25 knots without the wipeouts. It’s also the backup if the S2 goes.

This shows two data sets, both at TWA 135–155: the S2 on our transport to Finland in 16–20 knots, and the S5 on 28 August in 19–26 knots. Best quartile per knot of TWS against our v5DH polar.

What it shows: at 20 knots the two sails are equal, both on the polar at about 9.6 knots. Below that the S2 is ahead, as it should be. Above 20 the S5 median sits under the polar until 23–24 knots, where the best quartile finally catches the target and then beats it. The polar table ends at 24 and freezes at 12.43, and the S5 data at 25–26 knots goes straight through that number.

So the honest reading is this: the S5 doesn’t sail to the polar in 20–23 knots, which suggests the S2 would be faster there if we dared. We have no S2 data above 20 because we’ve never left it up that long. That’s the experiment for next season. Somewhere between 20 and 24 there’s a crossover we haven’t found yet, and the answer probably depends more on sea state and how tired we are than on the sails.

Also, the ORC polar probably overstates our planing ability 😀

The sail chart

After a full season the chart is mostly confirmed. This sail chart is what we started out with in May, and it should be updated in the next few weeks. The overlaps turned out bigger than expected, which is exactly what we wanted. Plus we found some sweet spots:

  • The J1.5 works upwind in 20 knots.
  • The J3.5 works in 12 knots if the water is flat.
  • The S2 is still a great all-round sail that fits the J/99 very well.
  • The A3 works at much tighter angles in light air (TWA 100 in 4–6 knots). The C0 has the proper shape, but the A3 has the area.
  • The A3 works really well in light air VMG. The crossover to the S2 is probably around 7 knots.
  • The A3 has a real sweet spot at TWA 130–135 in 10–15 knots, where we get to use our stability.
  • The S5 does what it was supposed to do, and apparently has enough power to pitchpole the boat in a gust.

The one open question is when to use the S2 over 20 knots.

What’s next

We’re super happy with this setup, and feel we can be competitive in most conditions. Seven sails, no gaps we know of, and fewer sail changes than we’ve ever had on a race boat.

Naturally there are areas where we can improve. The S2 above 20 knots is the obvious one, and there are probably a few sweet spots we haven’t found yet. Having another J/99 for two-boat testing next year will help with both.

If you’re putting together a doublehanded inventory for a boat this size, the short version is this: fewer sails, more overlap, and let the rule you actually race under decide the edges.

The rest is, as always, time on the water.

Uppgradering till Victron LiFePO4

Uppgradering till Victron LiFePO4

, , , 4

Notera att det är jag (och inte Alfred) som satt batterierna “snett” för att få ner tyngdpunkten. Hade han fått bestämma så hade det blivit en snygg liten hylla.

Skall man segla offshore, så är elsystem och batterier viktigt. Vi seglar ju typiskt race på 600 nm eller 4 dygn, och då behöver man tänka till lite extra;

  • Ofta har man ganska hög förbrukning då det är många saker igång samtidigt. Vår budget för ett 600 nm-race: autopilot 2–3 A (mer i sjö), plotter + instrument 1,5 A, laptop 2 A, kyl 2 A (cyklar), nav-ljus nattetid 1 A, AIS/VHF 0,5 A. Snitt runt 7 A, alltså ~170 Ah per dygn.
  • Man vill inte ladda för ofta, och när man laddar måste man få i mycket ström i batterierna. Vi kan tycka det är ok att ladda morgon och kväll, men det får inte vara hela världen om man skjuter upp det. Med litium kan man använda i stort sett hela kapaciteten, så 300 Ah ger dryga 24 timmar utan laddning. Motsvarande buffert med AGM hade krävt ~600 Ah, eftersom man bara bör ta ut hälften.
  • Man behöver ha koll på läget. Det får inte komma som en överraskning att batterierna är tomma, eller om det som finns kvar räcker i mål.
  • Ofta gör man detta för att spara vikt, men nu har vi en båtvikt som passar bra i IRC och batterierna är på rätt ställe. Totalt sett sparade vi 18 kg på förbrukningsbatterierna (vilket så klart meddelades i SRS-ansökan).

Vi gjorde ju ett jobb på J/111, där Tymar på Bullandö hjälpte oss att uppgradera till ett system som funkade bra i 10 år. Men det har ju hänt en del sedan dess, så det var kul att göra om samma resa med Alfred på Göteborgs Båtelektriska.

De stora skillnaderna:

  • Man kan få en helhet från ett välrenommerat märke som Victron.
  • Mjukvaran i telefonen som kopplar upp sig mot alla delar med bluetooth är mycket bättre.
  • Det är lättare att styra hur mycket kräm man tar ur generatorn. På J/111 maxade vi 85 A utan problem, men nu är vi lite mer konservativa och tar ut 60-70 A.
  • Vi kan nu få upp både SOC (State of Charge) och Current (hur mycket vi drar) på plottern i sittbrunn vilket känns tryggt. Och BMV-712 kan fortfarande larma när vi har 20% kvar.
  • Denna gång har vi också valt att behålla startbatteriet. På J/111 körde vi allt från samma bank, men nu är vi inte riktigt lika viktkänsliga + att säkerhetsreglerna kräver ett separat batteri.

Komponenter

Batterier

KomponentVad den gör
3 × Victron Lithium SuperPack 12,8 V / 100 AhLiFePO4 med inbyggd BMS och säkerhetsbrytare. 150 A maxström så de kan ej rusa iväg. Drop-in, ingen extern BMS eller reläer. Tre parallellkopplade ger 300 Ah husbank med redundans om ett pack stänger av. Cirka 12 kg styck. (länk)

Övervakning

KomponentVad den gör
Victron BMV-712 SmartBatterimonitor med display vid navbordet. Räknar Ah in och ut via shunten och visar SOC, ström, spänning och tid kvar. Programmerbart larm, hos oss vid 20 %. Bluetooth till telefon. (länk)
Victron SmartShunt 300 AShunten som mäter all ström till och från husbanken. Sitter i minusledaren närmast batteriet. Bluetooth och VE.Direct-utgång. 300 A räcker gott för en 12 V-bank utan bogpropeller eller vinschar. (länk)
Victron VE.Direct till NMEA 2000-interfaceSkickar SOC och ström från shunten ut på NMEA 2000-nätet så att de visas på plottern i sittbrunnen. (länk)
Victron VE.Direct-kabelKopplar shunten till NMEA 2000-interfacet. (länk)

Laddning

KomponentVad den gör
2 × Victron Orion XS 12/12-50 A DC-DC-laddareLaddar husbanken från generatorn via startbatteriet. Litium drar all ström generatorn kan ge tills den överhettar; Orion XS begränsar till 50 A styck (100 A totalt), skyddar generatorn och ger rätt laddprofil för LiFePO4. Skapar också redundans. (länk)
Victron Blue Smart IP22 12/30 ALandströmsladdare med litiumprofil. 30 A ger 20→100 % på ungefär 8 timmar. Bluetooth för inställning. (länk)

Säkringar och fördelning

KomponentVad den gör
2 × Blue Sea 5196 MRBF Fuse Block, 3 kretsarSäkringsblock direkt på batteripol som matar tre kretsar med var sin MRBF-säkring. Kortslutningsskydd så nära källan som möjligt, viktigt med litium eftersom kortslutningsströmmen är mycket hög. (länk)
Blue Sea 2151 MRBF Fuse Block, dubbelHållare för två MRBF-säkringar på samma pol. (länk)
Blue Sea 5191 MRBF Fuse Block, enkelHållare för en MRBF-säkring på batteripol. (länk)
9 × Blue Sea MRBF Terminal FuseSjälva säkringarna, en per krets. Brytförmåga 10 000 A vid 14 V, tändskyddade, färgkodade med siktfönster. Monteras alltid i block, aldrig direkt på polen. (länk)
TBS Electronics kopplingsplint 3×M10Samlingsskena för huvudkablarna från batterierna. (länk)
TBS Electronics kopplingsplint 3×M8Fördelning till laddare och förbrukare. (länk)
TBS Electronics kopplingsplint 1×M8Enkel anslutningspunkt, t.ex. för shuntens lastsida. (länk)

Bonus: vi satte in en ny lucka på babordssidan av motorn för att enkelt komma åt generator och elektronikbox. Bra oavsett.

Rolig ORC-racer 33-35 fot?

Rolig ORC-racer 33-35 fot?

, 10

Veckans läsarfråga:

Hej!

Vi är ett gäng som idag seglar en 80-talsbåt och trivs bra med det. Men vi har börjat snegla uppåt. Vi vill kunna vara med i Marstrand Big Boat, Gotland Runt och liknande race, och då räcker inte riktigt den båt vi har.

Eftersom MBBR numera seglas under ORC behöver båten fungera hyfsat i regeln. Men det viktigare att det är en båt vi kan lära oss något av. Vi vill utvecklas som seglare, så det vore kul om det gick att köra gennaker även om det kanske inte är ett krav.

Vi vill också prova på offshore, och då blir transporterna till och från racen en stor del. Alltså måste man kunna bo i den, inte bara överleva ett par nätter.

Så vad säger Blurs läsare?

Vilka alternativ finns det för ett gäng i vår situation?

Äntligen undanvind!

, , , 0

Efter en säsong som präglats av mycket kryss (och en del sträckbogar) fick vi en ordentlig undanvindsrepa från Limhamn till Långedrag. 132 distans på 14 timmar.

Från Kullen hade vi 22-28 knops vind med en bra vinkel, även om sjön var lite för kort.

Vi visste att det skulle öka över dagen, och mycket riktigt tog det slut när vi fick en by på 34 knop (17 m/s) och körde in i vågen framför så ordentligt så att rodret lyfte ur vattnet. En klassisk “nosedive”. Nu vet vi var gränsen går. Bara att ta ner.

Kanske var det inte så här spektakulärt. Men vår pitch-data säger att vi lutade 17 grader framåt och då är hela rodret i luften 🤣

Också ett bra tillfälle att få lite mer data. Nu är det tydligt att vi skall köra den stora S2 upp till 22 knop.

Här är samma tabell för vår transport till Finland 1/8 då vi körde S2.

Och bägge i samma. Baserat på detta skulle jag säga att S2 skall vara uppe till 22 knops vind, och att man då tidigare kan komma i semiplaning eller fånga vågor. Från 22-24 knop är S5 snabb och betydligt lättare att hantera. Med bra vågor och kanske ett rev i storen borde S5 funka i +30 knop?

ORC answers: six questions about scoring

ORC answers: six questions about scoring

, , , , 2

This summer’s scoring debate has been the most engaged discussion on this blog in years.

After Færder, the DH Worlds, Sandhamn Open, and the Bermuda report, I wrote down six questions and sent them to ORC.

To their credit, they answered.

Thomas Nilsson and Andy Claughton, chairman of ORC’s International Technical Committee, prepared the response below, and I publish it in full, unedited. Whatever you think about WRS, this is how a governing body should meet criticism.

Read their answers first.

My comments come after.

Questions from Peter Gustafsson, with ORC’s Responses

These answers have been prepared jointly by Thomas Nilsson and Andy Claughton, Chairman of the ORC International Technical Committee (ITC).

Hi Peter, thank you for taking the time to crystallise your observations about Weather Routing Scoring into a concise set of questions for us to answer. We have tried to keep our answers to the point, but as you can see we have a lot to get off our chests.

In short:

WRS delivers in the 21st century what the IMS pioneers sought to do in the 1980s: polar-curve-based handicapping for offshore races. We commend it to race organisers as our best offering — they can choose to use it or not. It is transparent, in the same way as the VPP is transparent through its documentation. It offers TCFs before the race start and therefore quick post-race scoring; delays may arise from human error, not systemic problems. We are building training tools to bring WRS to race organisers, and we have a support team in place.

Background

The IMS and subsequent ORC handicap systems grew from a desire to provide handicaps that were sensitive to wind speed (TWS) and point of sailing (TWA). The certificate has always had a tabulated polar speed curve and pre-calculated handicaps for a windward-leeward course in 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 20 knots of wind.

The persistent problem has been working out what wind the fleet actually experienced during the race. For inshore races, performance curve scoring and, more recently, the “constructed course” method based on observed wind have been used. For offshore racing, APH was used — based on a wind distribution with a little bit of everything, 6–20 knots TWS, 0–180 TWA. No offshore race has ever experienced this precise distribution of conditions; that is no surprise, since it is essentially a weather forecast made in 1980 and applied for the last 40 years.

The WRS initiative offers the opportunity to create handicaps using a better estimate of the wind conditions actually seen by the fleet, with TCFs published before the race start — a scoring process identical to using APH.

1. Have we gotten worse, despite better technology?

No — this is not a real problem. Approximately 180 races have been run using WRS this season; of these, 5 required post-race recalculation of the results. This season’s delays were not a single isolated failure: they stemmed from a combination of a flawed constructed-course calculation method and insufficient pre-race quality control. ORC recognises this as a systemic gap in the process, not an inherent flaw in the WRS concept, and is implementing pre-race validation procedures using new checking tools developed this season specifically to close it.

2. Are the scoring models too complex for their own good?

This question — “why did a boat win” — exposes the fundamental limitation of using a single, immutable TCF to score an offshore race. In a one-design championship the answer is easy: the best-sailed boat won. In a handicap race the answer is always coloured by the handicap. In a windy race a Class 40 will beat a Farr 40, but in light airs it’s the reverse. No amount of skill can bridge the failure of a single number to fairly handicap boats across light and strong winds — everyone has seen this story and can understand it.

With WRS, Class 40s now find themselves in the top places even in light-air races, because the full power of the polar table has been brought to bear on the problem. The complexity lies in how the TCF is generated, not in how corrected time is calculated: Elapsed Time × TCF is the same principle used by IRC, ORC, ORC Club, SRS and PHRF. WRS gives every boat its own TWS/TWA matrix based on the forecast wind conditions.

For each WRS race, the pecking order under the TCFs is different from APH, and the “muscle memory” of who should win in given conditions no longer applies. With APH it’s easy to anticipate who should win; with WRS it’s much harder — that’s the whole idea. Every handicap on an ORC certificate is related to a forecast wind distribution: the APH forecast was made in 1980, the WRS forecast the night before the race.

We are comfortable with complex systems elsewhere in our lives (maps, streaming, social media) provided they can be used with a few clicks; that is the aim for WRS as well.

3. Why is the final result still a black box?

The WRS process is not a black box: scoring polars are on the certificate, and the predicted tracks and the wind speed and direction used to calculate the Predicted Elapsed Time are published. New analysis tools in RaceFlow, used correctly and communicated well, should eliminate the “black box” perception. The routing itself is run by a third party (PredictWind) using algorithms they maintain for commercial customers; this method is documented on the PredictWind website. But remember, the routing is a means to an end — the deliverable is the wind distribution used by the VPP to calculate the TCF.

4. Can the results be reproduced?

Yes — given the same certificate, course, weather model and settings, the same inputs will produce the same result. Can a competitor check their own score without access to proprietary systems? No — at present there is no published, independent way for a competitor to verify their own WRS TCF outside RaceFlow. The validity of the published TCFs can only be judged by scrutinising the WRS pre-race output.

The situation is analogous to the VPP. The accuracy of the VPP is the best we can do given our resources and the constraint that it should run in two or three minutes per boat. An independent researcher could find more accurate methods to calculate boat speeds, but that does not undermine the fundamental value of the VPP as a tool for handicapping race yachts.

A more useful question might be: can the TCF calculation be assessed before the race? Yes — the WRS output is shared: the forecast used and its timing, the course coordinates, the track data, the time histories of TWS and TWA, current strength and direction, and of course the TCFs. Is this information “correct”? If there are no mistakes, yes. Would another router with different tools get a different answer? Yes — but so what? Our aim is to avoid a boat’s TCF being based on 6–20 knots when the race will actually be sailed in 6–10 knots. The forecast can never be perfect; by focusing too much on the nuances of process, forecast type or routing engine, we risk making the perfect the enemy of the good.

5. What is a reasonable time-to-results?

The speed of delivering results is fundamentally a matter of data-entry efficiency rather than system processing. Under the WRS framework, much like any other handicap method, the TCFs are pre-loaded before the first signal, so the model itself introduces no additional latency. The time between finishing and the final standings is purely a function of how quickly arrival times are recorded and entered into the software.

6. How much complexity is the sport willing to accept?

The issue is transparency, not sophistication. Sailors do not need to understand every line of code, but they should understand where the TCF comes from, why a particular scoring method was chosen, and why it was appropriate for that race. Every ORC TCF is fundamentally based on wind strength and direction because ORC is a VPP-based system; APH, Triple Number, PCS and WRS all come from the same VPP and differ only in the wind distribution used. If a sailor understands the All Purpose Handicap, they should be able to understand WRS just as well, since both are built on the same principle — they only differ in which wind distribution is used to generate the TCF. What we actually need to get better at is explaining, in simple terms, what an ORC TCF really is.

The early proponents of polar-table handicapping would see WRS as the “Holy Grail”: if the weather forecast is perfect, the race is perfectly handicapped.

A common misunderstanding is that a single-number PHRF or IRC rating is equivalent to the ORC APH. Single-number ratings have no mechanism to adjust to different race conditions — they are based on the boat’s physical characteristics, not its predicted performance.

There is an irony to the inherent mistrust of WRS. Every competitor knows that by using APH they have a handicap that is not necessarily appropriate to the wind range they actually encountered during the race. This “horses for courses” situation is acknowledged, and even embraced, as part of the rough and tumble of offshore racing.

Bonus. Where should scoring competence live?

To date, most WRS races have been handled by the ORC team, but the number of races seeking to use WRS has outgrown this capacity — hence the development of the RaceFlow app to widen the pool of competent users.

This has not been without hiccups, but it’s a learning process, and the quality controls are improving. Mistakes will still occur, servers will crash, forecasts will be delayed. It is crucial that the Notice of Race specifies a clear alternative to be used in case of force majeure failures.

If the PRO is satisfied that the WRS process has been completed without error, according to the operating procedure, and that it offers a more appropriate handicap table than the available pre-calculated ones, they can proceed with the full support of ORC. If confidence in the forecast is low, clear fallback procedures should apply — ORC has already introduced these in the Standard Sailing Instructions for major championships, including the upcoming ORC European Championship.

A few things I can’t let go of

First, credit where it’s due. ORC engaged with every question, and their historical framing is strong: APH is, as they put it, a weather forecast made in 1980 that we’ve used for forty years. Nobody defends that with a straight face. The logic behind WRS, handicapping the race that will actually be sailed, is sound.

But four things stand out.

The “No” in question 4. Can a competitor check their own score without access to proprietary systems? ORC answers with one word: no. I appreciate the honesty, but think about what it means. In a sport where sailors do their own penalty turns, the one thing you can’t verify yourself is the number that decides whether you beat the other boat. Published tracks and wind histories let you inspect the output. They don’t let you reproduce it.

“But so what?” Would another routing engine give a different answer? “Yes – but so what?” is the actual quote. I get the point: forecasts are estimates; this is not about perfection. But after a season where a routing discrepancy decided a world championship podium, that’s a lot of weight for a shrug to carry. Sailors aren’t chasing decimals. They want to know if the number that beat them was an artifact of a vendor choice. And that might explain why the most skeptical voices belong to experienced navigators – the people who know exactly how much weather models, grid resolution, and routing settings can move a result.

The question they skipped. I ended by asking what matters most: that the result is correct, understandable, verifiable, or trusted. ORC answered many things, but not that. Maybe because the honest answer is uncomfortable: the four pull in different directions, and WRS optimizes hard for the first one. It’s still the most important question in this debate, and it’s still open.

Whose problem is this solving? Scoring was never the burning issue in offshore racing. We’ve always complained about ratings, but nobody stood on the dock demanding forecast-based correction factors. This has been driven from the top, with real conviction. Fine, most progress starts that way. But when a governing body pushes this hard on a problem the fleet wasn’t loudly complaining about, it’s fair to ask what’s driving the timeline.

One number in passing: 5 races out of 180 needed recalculation this season. ORC offers this as evidence the system works. I’d say no other sport would accept this!?

The debate isn’t only happening on blogs and docks. Several national authorities are sending submissions to ORC’s annual meeting on exactly these questions. The formal machinery of ORC is being asked to reconsider how scoring is chosen, run and communicated. This isn’t a governing body versus a few loud critics. The conversation is happening inside the organization too.

So where does this land?

Better than I expected. ORC admits a systemic gap in quality control, is building validation tools, and is communicating.

The direction is right.

But the finish line hasn’t moved: a scoring system earns trust when a sailor who lost can see why and check it themselves. Until then, every “trust us” rests on the goodwill ORC builds. And conversations like this are how goodwill gets built. So thanks to Thomas and Andy for engaging.

The conversation continues, and judging by this season, it needs to.

Snabbt, billigt och enkelt

Snabbt, billigt och enkelt

, , , 6

Veckans debattinläggen från Christian Haeger på FarEast 28R Kwanza.

Håller med till 100% – väldigt ofta är mindre och enklare också roligare.

Efter att ha sålt vår X-41a Kwanza så var vi väldigt nöjda med att få vara med på satsningen på den nya Club Swan 43an Vargen. Vi hade själva närt en dröm om att kappsegla i Medelhavet men insåg att vi aldrig skulle ha vare sig tid eller pengar till att genomföra det. Men nu får vi vara med ändå och uppskattar utmaningen med att vara med och få utveckla en ny klass. Men efter att ha varit i St Tropez i höstas så saknade vi seglingen på hemmaplan. På flygplatsen gjordes planen upp bland oss fyra blivande delägare att det var dags för något nytt och enkelt på hemmaplan 2026. Men vad?

Kravlistan var rätt enkel. Trailerbar, begränsad besättning, snabb, enkel, modern, gennaker och att kunna vara med på MBBR. Efter lite utvärderingar stod det mellan Farr 30, Fareast 28r och Melges 24a. Med en snittålder på över 60 år så kändes Melges för sportig och Farr 30 något för gammal och känslig, dessutom väldig hög på trailer. Så i vintras blev det en Fareast 28r, nya Kwanza.

I lördags var det Tjörn Runt i vilken ordning vet vi inte. Vårt första Tjörn Runt vad med en Vindö 40a 1973 och kampen var att slå övriga Vindö-båtar. Sedan har vi haft Comfort 34a, Maxi Racer (Cats & Soffi), J24a (Lotus 123), X-95a, Farr 38 (Hägring), First 40,7 (Drake), First 35, X-41 och nu Fareast 28r (samtliga Kwanza) och seglat Tjörn Runt ett antal gånger med samtliga båtar. Vi har vunnit startgruppen ett par gånger men aldrig totalt. Men vad är egentligen viktigast?

Vi har kommit fram till att vår måttstock som vi hade med pappas Vindö 40 räcker fullständigt för att njuta av och få spänning av kappsegling. Alla kan vi skapa vår egen måttstock och bestämma vilka konkurrenter vi vill slå och hur vi ska förbättra oss. 

Nu har vi hunnit med tre regattor under sommaren och vi har hittat en båt som givit oss det roligaste Tjörn Runt som vi någonsin seglat. Inte för att resultatet var det bästa, vi kom 5a i stora kölbåtsklassen och 51a totalt. Men det var definitivt bättre än förväntat med potential till bättre resultat i framtiden. Men undanvindarna var fullständigt magiska och ger en helt ny dimension till seglingen. 

Under MBBR började vi lära oss båten, men med begränsad tid för träning så gjordes flertalet misstag och även under Hermanö trålade vi  gennakern och fick sedan ett fall som fastnade vid nedtagningen vid sista rundningen. Så skedde även under Tjörn Runt där de flesta säkert sett vår vurpa under kraftledningarna där vi broachar svårt. Men vi tycker om att segla hyfsat offensivt och har alltid haft bra hantering av båten även i hårdare vind. Vi gjorde ytterligare säkert 3-4 broachar då vi hade vår största gennaker. Men däremellan seglade vi i 18 knop och flög förbi allt och alla. Tidsangivelserna visar att endast en Melges 24a var snabbare från Vasholmarna in till mål. Den känslan var det häftigaste vi varit med om. Vi gjorde surfar i över 18 knop med X-41:an, men nu flög båten fram i en konstant fart på 18 knop.  

Men även kryss och halvvind är en ren glädje och på MBBR kunde vi matcha X-35orna på kryssen. Att vi ännu inte seglar upp till vårt mätetal är inte lika viktigt. Båten är fantastisk att segla och vi fortsätter att lära oss hela tiden. Vi har testat med sex man på MBBR och Hermanö, vilket funkar bäst och var något lätta på Tjörn Runt där vi var fem man. Sittbrunnen är stor och lättarbetad, två winchar i sittbrunnen, många cleats och en winch på det asymmetriska rufftaket räcker gott och väl. Enkla avlastare på det korta däcket mellan mast och nedgångsluckan gör jobbet enkelt och avsaknaden av förpikslucka förenklar ytterligare. Alla får plats. 

Eftersom vi inte kommer hinna med några fler regattor i år så lyfte vi båten direkt efter Tjörn Runt. En timme för att rigga av och sedan lyfta upp på trailern och vips så är båten klar för vinterförvaring. 

Vi är efter denna första säsong otroligt nöjda med Fareast 28an, det blir säkert ingen stor entypsklass igen så vi ger oss själva stor frihet att förbättra båten. Bland annat har vi haft problem med att storen fastnat i akterstaget vid slag och gippar, så det kommer åtgärdas. 

Det finns ett antal till salu och vi hoppas nu att fler ska upptäcka denna fantastiska konstruktion med hög fart och enkel segling. Både på Hermanö och Tjörn Runt hade vi sällskap av andra Fareast 28or. Under alla omständigheter kommer vi köra många säsonger med fokus på Västkusten och det vore kul att få några fler båtar att utvecklas med. Det blir inte bättre; Snabbt, Billigt och Enkelt

Hälsningar

Christian Haeger, Fareast 28r, Kwanza

« Older Entries
Back To Top