Volvo Ocean Race 2005

James Boyd looks at what could be done to improve the world's premier round the world grand prix

So why has it become so expensive and what can be done about it?

In madfor sailing's view the prime focus of any modifications made to the Volvo Ocean Race should concentrate on trying to lower campaign costs to perhaps half their present level. This would give better value to sponsors and should increase the number of campaigns taking part. The interesting question is how to achieve this.

One of the principle reasons for the hike in budgets is that the race is a lot longer, now that there are more legs and the race finishes in the Baltic. This has resulted in more days in port - the time when the race proves most costly to the campaigns. BJ Grimholt says that keeping the entire djuice team in port costs them $4,000 each day.

Shortening the race and reducing the number of stopovers would have a profound affect on reducing costs. But within the Volvo fleet there is mixed opinion about this. Tyco skipper Kevin Shoebridge agrees that the race needs fewer stopovers. "There's a huge amount of money, time and energy spent at these stopovers, and the teams have got big. By the time we've got wives, kids and everyone else hanging around we're up to about 54 people. That's where a lot of the expense lies. But then again the short leg thing is exciting - it really depends what sort of boat you end up with for future races". More on this later.

illbruck challenge CEO Glenn Bourke says there is a trade-off between stopover time and media coverage: "I think Volvo is doing a good job getting local exposure in the ports, but I think what they may have to do is reduce the duration of the race. These long stopovers are incredibly expensive, and I think the answer may be to have fewer stopovers and longer legs."

SEB skipper Gurra Krantz, however, is all in favour of stretching the race out over nine months. "You've got to have at least five stopovers, although no more than nine. Accessibility of the race to the public is important, and the time span is an important factor in giving commercial return to your sponsor. You can't do that in a fast, two-month race."

Clearly Volvo and many of the boat sponsors have used the stopovers for corporate entertainment and to generate media interest in some of their key markets. But surely this could be intensified but squeezing it into days, not weeks? Aside from the expense, the three to four week long stopovers as seen in Sydney and Auckland knocks the momentum out of the race from a media perspective.

Several pundits have suggested that shorter stopovers more akin to Formula One pitstops would solve this.

The second biggest affect on campaign budgets is simply that the game has been raised to a new and more expensive level. In this respect illbruck's no-stone-unturned approach has set the benchmark. They purchased the two EF boats within months of the last race and had to fund a large enough squad to man two boats for the best part of three years prior to the start.

Then of course there are the sail development programmes with many campaigns getting through one wardrobe of sails (or often more) before the race even started. If the present format continues, then to win, campaigns will have to run two-boat programmes or at least have two identical training boats as illbruck have this time.

A bigger dilemma is over the future of the Volvo Ocean 60. Tomorrow we shall looks at the pros and cons of the various options available.