The next Big Thing?

We take a close look at the Transpac 52 class

Mark Mills Design

The small rule space is one the classes great virtues: if you look at rules along a continuum from One Design (no rulespace/no loopholes) to something like IMS (complex rulespace / multiple loopholes) its proximity to the former offers the stability and security that many owners desire - leading ultimately to close on the water racing which is its own reward. This simple design space is in contrast to the expanding vista of variable ballast/movable appendage designs which offer performance advantages at significantly increased cost and no boat-for-boat competition. In light of Ian Walker's comments about the game becoming too expensive I think this has to be seen as a serious advantage.

Regarding the design philosophy - it's a very nicely weighted design space - the vcg is somewhat limited, which acts as a surrogate waterline beam restraint - waterline beam measurement or lack thereof have been a major obstacle in IRM and the new Grand Prix rule effort. The additional benefit to this from an outside perspective is that this low displacement/high vcg state is very amenable to rectification by a larger non-class bulb: leading to a better boat upwind and more IRC friendly - with no permanent drawbacks - change keels and it's back in class.



Where our 'class' boat will fit into the TP52 depends on what the final decision is made by the client - in this case since its likely to produce more than one we expect it to be weighted evenly between the 'sled' configuration for Transpac and the 'inshore' setup for
other class events. I think this split in the type of class events is very helpful in limiting the extreme specialisation of the designs - one boat may win Transpac but it won't win the class championships.

The differences between the two extend to hull shape - in particular the BWL tradeoff with bulb weight, to cockpit layout with a focus on spinnaker and guy winches, and to a certain extend on sail choices.

The Med opens up a new scenario with a lower windspeed/inshore bias design, it will be interesting to see if they go for the TP52 as is, or whether they create a new box which the TP 52 can fit inside, which I understand has been discussed.

One of the few negative pressures in the class is the very high build costs, which are only partially explained by the pressure produced by a low displacement and the vcg/bwl tradeoff. We feel that a strong performer could be built at a significantly lower base cost than some of the current figures indicate.