World Leader in Rating Technology

OFFSHORE RACING CONGRESS

ORC VPP Documentation

2021
 2

Copyright © 2021 Offshore Racing Congress

All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part is

only with the permission of the Offshore Racing Congress.

The cover image is from a CFD study being conducted by members of

the ORC’s International Technical Committee (ITC) to explore the
hydrodinamics of foiling yachts. This study is on ITC’s research
agenda 2021
C ONTENTS

1 Background 9

2 Introduction 10
2.1 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3 Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3 VPP Methodology 11
3.1 Solution Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2 Boat Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.1 Functional relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3 Equations of Equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.1 Driving Force - Drag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.2 Heeling Moment - Rolling Moment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4 Water Ballast and Canting Keel Yachts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4.1 Canting Keel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4.2 Daggerboard (Centreline lifting appendage) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4.3 Daggerboard and Bilge boards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4.4 Water ballast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4.5 Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.5 Dynamic Allowance (DA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.5.1 Credits (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.5.2 Calculation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.6 Non Manual Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4 Lines Processing Program 21

4.1 Hydrostatics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.2 LPP Output parameter definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.2.1 Measurement Trim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.2.2 Sailing Trim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.2.3 Second Moment Length (LSM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2.4 Appendage stripping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2.5 Beam Depth Ratio (BTR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2.6 Maximum Effective Draft (MHSD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.2.7 Bulb/Wing Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.3 Appendage wetted areas and lengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.3.1 Conventional Fin keel and rudder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.3.2 Other appendages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.4 Righting Moment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.4.1 Righting Arm Curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.4.2 Hydrodynamic Centre of Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.4.3 Crew righting moment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.4.4 Dynamic Righting Moment. RMV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.4.5 Rated Righting Moment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

3
 4

5 Aerodynamic Forces 34
5.1 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.1.1 Individual Sail Areas and 2-Dimensional Aerodynamic Force Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.1.2 Simplified Rigging Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.1.3 Optimization and De-powering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.2 Sail Areas & Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.2.1 Mainsail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.2.2 Jib or Genoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.2.3 Spinnakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.2.4 Spinnaker tack position Power Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.2.5 Headsails set flying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.3 Windage Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.3.1 Rigging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.4 Total Aerodynamic Lift and Drag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.4.1 Lift and Drag of complete sail set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.4.2 Center of Effort Height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.4.3 Induced Drag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.4.4 Twist Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.5 Resolution of Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.5.1 P HI U P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.5.2 Thrust and Heeling Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.5.3 Aerodynamic heeling Moment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.6 Blanketing functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.6.1 Mainsail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.6.2 Jib . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.6.3 Mizzen, Jib Downwind, Spinnaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.6.4 Mizzen Staysail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

6 Hydrodynamic Forces 57
6.1 Viscous Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
6.1.1 Canoe body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
6.1.2 Appendages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
6.2 Propeller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
6.2.1 Shaft Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
6.2.2 Strut drive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
6.2.3 In aperture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.2.4 Tractor propellers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.2.5 Twin screws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.3 Residuary Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.3.1 Canoe body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.3.2 Appendages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
6.4 Drag due to heel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6.5 Induced Drag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6.5.1 Correction Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.6 Immersed transom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.7 Rail-under drag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.8 Added Resistance in Waves, RAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.8.1 Wave Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.8.2 Determination of added resistance response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.9 Construction material length factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

7 Environment 76
7.1 Wind Triangle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
7.2 Sailing Angles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
7.2.1 Velocity Made along the Course. (VMC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
 5

8 Handicapping 78
8.1 VPP results as used for scoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
8.1.1 Velocity prediction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
8.1.2 Time allowances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
8.2 Simple scoring options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
8.2.1 Time on Distance (ToD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
8.2.2 Time on Time (ToT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
8.2.3 Triple Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
8.2.4 Class Division Length (CDL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

A Offsets File (.OFF) Format 82

A.1 Introduction to offset format 2.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
A.2 Offset format - pre 2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Bibliography 86
L IST OF F IGURES

3.1 Force Balance See saw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.2 Force Balance in the plane of the water surfce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3 Roll Moment Equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4 Schematic of ORC VPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.5 Functional relationships in the VPP Boat Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.6 DA credit vs. True Wind Angle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

4.1 Offset file station distribution and typical section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4.2 Flotation waterline positions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.3 Bulb and winglet detection scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.4 Upper Bulb shape factor examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.5 Widest point detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.6 Typical righting arm curve and hydrostatic data output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.7 Typical righting arm curve of a boat with movable ballast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

5.1 Sail parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5.2 Basic Sail Force Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.3 De-powering scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.4 Routine for de-powering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.5 Roach calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.6 Alternative Mainsail force coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.7 Fractionality Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.8 shadow effect of the mast portion above . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.9 Alternative Jib Force Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.10 Spinnaker and Code zero Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.11 Large Spinnakers Force Correction in light winds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.12 Aero coefficients of flying headsail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.13 Typical From of “Collective” Upwind Sail Force Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.14 Variation of Effective Span Factor with Apparent wind angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.15 Variation of Drag Coefficient with Flat parameter (left), modification of the linear depowering scheme,
fcdmult , (right) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.16 Twist Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

6.1 Stripwise segmentation of appendages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

6.2 Increase of appendage drag with lift. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6.3 Propeller Installation Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
6.4 Typical Rr multiplier at fixed Froude Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.5 Floatation planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
6.6 Appendage residuary resistance per unit volume at standard depth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
6.7 Induced Drag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6.8 Multiplier of induced drag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6.9 Scheme of bilgeboards and related variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.10 Keel root free surface factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.11 Principle of estimating transom immersion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.12 Wave Energy as a function of True Wind Velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

A.1 Offsets editing through ORC-Manager application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

6
L IST OF TABLES

3.1 Matrix of values pw used for the calculation of non manual power penalty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

5.1 Mainsail force coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5.2 Application of Alternative Coefficient sets for Mainsails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.3 Mainsail low tech material credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.4 Genoa Force Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.5 Application of Alternative sets for jibs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.6 Symmetric Spinnaker Force Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.7 Asymmetric Spinnaker tacked on centreline Force Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.8 Asymmetric Spinnaker tacked on a pole Force Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.9 Aero coefficients of flying headsails. The names carry a number corresponding to the HHW/HLP
ratio. The two rightmost columns are the multipliers of CL and CD for battened sail . . . . . . . . . 48
5.10 Windage force model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.11 Calculated P HI U P values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

6.1 Appendage Cf · 103 values used in the VPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

6.2 L calculation scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
6.3 Added Resistance in Waves; parametric limits and base values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6.4 Length factor for construction material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

7.1 VPP True wind angle and wind speed matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

8.1 Velocity prediction printed on the 1st page of the ORC International certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
8.2 Time Allowances and Selected Courses on the second page of the ORC International certificate . . . . 79
8.3 Simple scoring options on ORC International & ORC Club certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
8.4 Time allowance weighing table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

7
R EVISION L IST

2020-2021
Section Change
par. 6.8.1 modified bubble function
par. 6.8.2 modified GY R term
par. 6.1.2 modified friction coefficients
par. 6.1.2 introduced CL dependency of appendage drag
par. 3.5 modified DA for performance yachts
par. 4.2.2 revised gear weight and sails weight
par. 5.2.5 new approach for headsail set flying
for. 5.25 revised default area for headsail set flying
par. 8.2 revised simple scoring options
par. A.1 introduction to new offsets file format

Due to the very peculiar character of the season 2020, where very few races took place, the table above includes the
changes introduced in VPP 2020. Beside the above changes, reflecting the modifications introduced in the VPP 2020
and VPP 2021, further fixes and additions were made to the document.

8
1 BACKGROUND

The following document describes the methods and formulations used by the Offshore Racing Congress (ORC)
Velocity Prediction Program (VPP).
The ORC VPP is the program used to calculate racing yacht handicaps based on a mathematical model of the
physical processes embodied in a sailing yacht. This approach to handicapping was first developed in 1978. The H.
Irving Pratt Ocean Racing Handicapping project created a handicap system that used a mathematical model of hull and
rig performance to predict sailing speeds and thereby produce a time on distance handicap system. This computational
approach to yacht handicapping was of course only made possible by the advent of desktop computing capability.
The first 2 papers describing the project were presented to the Chesapeake Sailing Yacht Symposium (CSYS) in
1979 (Kerwin, J.E. and Newman, J.N. 1979, Strohmeier D.D. 1979) . This work resulted in the MHS system that
was used in the United States. The aerodynamic model was subsequently revised by George Hazen (Hazen 1980) and
the hydrodynamic model was refined over time as the Delft Systematic Yacht Hull Series was expanded (Gerritsma et
al. 1993) .
Other research was documented in subsequent CSYS proceedings: sail formulations (2001 (Ranzenbach and
Teeters 2001) and 2003 (Teeters J. et al. 2003)), and hull shape effects (2003 (Teeters J. et al. 2003)). Papers de-
scribing research have also been published in the HISWA symposia on sail research (Fossati et al. 2008).
In 1986 the current formulations of the IMS were documented by Charlie Poor (Poor 1986), and this was updated
in 1999 (Claughton 1999). The 1999 CSYS paper was used as a basis for this document, with members of the ITC
contributing the fruits of their labours over the last 10 years as the ORC carried forward the work of maintaining an
up-to-date handicapping system that is based on the physics of a sailing yacht.

9
2 I NTRODUCTION

2.1 S COPE
The following document is a companion to the ORC Rating Systems 2021 and IMS (International Measurement
System) 2021. The document provides a summary of the physics and computational processes that lie behind the
calculation of sailing speeds and corresponding time allowances (seconds/mile). The current ORC handicap system
comprises 3 separate elements:
1. The IMS measurement procedure whereby the physical shape of the hull and appendages are defined, along
with dimensions of mast, sails, etc.
2. A performance prediction procedure based on (1) a lines processing procedure which determines the parametric
inputs used by the Velocity Prediction Program (VPP) to predict sailing speed on different points of sailing, in
different wind speeds with different sails set.
3. A race management system whereby the results of (2) are applied to offer condition-specific race handicapping.
This document describes the methodology of the equations used to calculate the forces produced by the hull,
appendages, and sails, and how these are combined in the VPP.

2.2 OVERVIEW
Predicting the speed of a sailing yacht from its physical dimensions alone is a complex task, particularly when
constrained by the need to do it in the “general case” using software that is robust enough to be run routinely by rating
offices throughout the world. Nevertheless this is what the ORC Rating system aims to do. The only absolute record
of the VPP (and companion Lines Processing Program (LPP)) is the FORTRAN source code, so it is a difficult matter
for a layman to determine either the intent or underlying methodology by inspection of this code.
The purpose of this document is to describe the physical basis of the methods used to predict the forces on a sailing
yacht rig and hull, and to define the formulations (equations) used by the VPP to encapsulate the physical model.
In order to do this the document has been set out to first layout the broadest view of the process, gradually breaking
the problem down into its constituent parts, so that ultimately the underlying equations of the VPP can be presented.

2.3 L AYOUT
The document is arranged in 6 chapters:
• Chapter 3 describes the methods by which the velocity prediction is carried out and the fundamental force bal-
ances inherent in solving the problem are laid out. Following this an overview of the “boat model” is presented,
whereby the elements of the aerodynamic and hydrodynamic model are described.
• Chapter 4 describes how the hull shape parameters are pre-processed to determine the parameters that are used
in the hydrodynamic force model described in Section 8.
• Chapter 5 describes how the yacht’s environment is characterized in terms of the incident wind field experienced
by the sails.
• Chapter 6 describes how the VPP results are presented as a rating certificate.
• Chapter 7 describes the methods used to predict the aerodynamic forces produced by the mast, sails, and above-
water part of the hull.
• Chapter 8 describes how the hydrodynamic drag and lift of the hull and appendages are calculated.

10
3 VPP M ETHODOLOGY

The VPP has a two-part structure comprised of the solution algorithm and the boat model. The solution algorithm
must find an equilibrium condition for each point of sailing where:
a) the driving force from the sails matches the hull and aerodynamic drag, and
b) the heeling moment from the rig is matched by the righting moment from the hull.

F IGURE 3.1: Force Balance See saw

i.e. balance the seesaw in Figure 3.1(?), and optimize the sail controls (reef and flat) and the crew transverse position
to produce the maximum speed at each true wind angle.

3.1 S OLUTION M ETHOD

The VPP determines the steady state conditions by satisfying 2 equilibrium equations:
1. Firstly the net force - along the yacht’s track (its direction of motion) must be zero,

(i.e. Driving Force - Drag = 0)

2. Secondly the aerodynamic heeling moment produced by the mast & sails must be equal and opposite to the
righting moment produced by the hull and crew.

(i.e. Heeling Moment - Righting Moment = 0)

Figure 3.2 shows a yacht sailing on starboard tack. In order for the yacht to hold a steady course the magnitude and
line of action of the aerodynamic and hydrodynamic forces must be the same. The VPP adopts an iterative procedure
at each true wind speed and angle to find “equilibrium” sailing conditions, defined by unique values of boat speed
(Vs ), heel angle ( ), and the sail trim parameters (reef, flat) where;
1. Thrust (driving force) from the sails equals the hydrodynamic drag.
2. The heeling moment produced by the couple between the aerodynamic and hydrodynamic Heeling Force equals
the hull righting moment, as shown in Figure3.3

11
 12

F IGURE 3.2: Force Balance in the plane of the water surfce

It should be noted that the VPP solves only for a balance of force and moment about the track axis. The yaw moment
balance is ignored so that sail trimming options, or speed and heel values that produce excessive yaw moments, are
not reflected in terms of their influence on speed.

3.2 B OAT M ODEL

The boat model may be thought of as a black box into which boat speed, heel angle, and the sail trim parameters,
reef and flat are input. The output is simply four numbers:
- the aerodynamic driving force,
- the heeling moment from the above water part of the hull and rig,

- the drag of the hull keel and rudder and,

- the righting moment from the hull and crew.
The solution algorithm iterates to a solution by interrogating the boat model with each new guess of the input values
until a set of conditions is found that produces a match of thrust and drag and heeling moment and righting moment.
The solution algorithm also seeks to find the highest speed on each point of sailing by adjusting the sail trim parameters
and the crew righting moment for optimum performance. Figure 3.4 shows how the boat model is divided into two
parts:
• Aerodynamic Force Model
For a given wind and boat model variable set (true wind speed VT , true wind angle T , Vs , , reef, flat),
determine the apparent wind angle and speed that the sails ‘see’ and predict the aerodynamic lift and drag they
produce. The aerodynamic forces are resolved into a thrust and heeling force.
• Hydrodynamic Force Model
Predicts the resistance (drag) and righting moment the hull produces for the assumed speed and heel angle,
given that the hydrodynamic side force will equal the previously calculated aerodynamic heeling force.
 13

F IGURE 3.3: Roll Moment Equilibrium

3.2.1 F UNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS

Figure 3.5 shows the functional relationships that make up the elements of the VPP boat model. In order to
minimize amount of computational operations within the main iterative VPP loop the Rig Analysis and the Lines
Processing parts are carried out before the computations of a steady state solution begin.

R IG A NALYSIS P ROGRAM
The Rig Analysis Program takes the measured sail and rig dimensions and calculates the areas and centers of
effort for the mainsail, jib and spinnaker. Originally the Rig Analysis Program used the force coefficients for each
individual sail to calculate a “collective” set of aerodynamic force coefficients for the rig in an upwind and downwind
configuration. This collective table of lift and drag coefficients at each apparent wind angle is interrogated by the
solution algorithm during each iteration as the program works towards an equilibrium sailing condition.
More recently1 for the upwind sailing configurations the calculation of the “collective” sail force coefficients was
moved inside the VPP optimization loop so that a more realistic model of sail heeling force reduction could be used.

L INES P ROCESSING P ROGRAM (LPP)

The Lines Processing program takes the measured hull shape, expressed as an offset file2 , and calculates the hull
dimensions and coefficients that are used to calculate hull drag. The LPP also takes the inclining test results and uses
this to determine the yachts stability in sailing trim.
1 2009
2 .OFF File, a simple txt file of transverse (y) and vertical (z) coordinates of the hull surface at a fixed longitudinal (x) position
 14

F IGURE 3.4: Schematic of ORC VPP

I TERATIVE S OLVER L OOP

Once these elements have been completed the iterative part of the VPP is started. At each wind speed and true
wind angle the process starts with an initial guess at speed and heel angle, given this the wind triangle can calculate
the apparent wind speed and angle for the aerodynamic model.
With this information the total aerodynamic force can be calculated, based on the “collective” aerodynamic coef-
ficients. The total aerodynamic force is resolved into the thrust and heeling force (See Figure3.2).
Using the same initial guess for speed and heel angle, plus the calculated heeling force from the aerodynamic force
model, the hydrodynamic model can calculate the total hull drag.
The available thrust and the drag can now be compared and a revised estimate of speed can be made, so the heeling
moment and righting moment are compared to provide a revised value for heel angle. This process is repeated until
speed and heel angle have converged to a steady value. The process is then repeated for a matrix of true wind angles
and wind speeds.
The solution routine also includes an optimization element that ensures the sail trim parameters (reef and flat)
are chosen to produce the highest speed on each point of sailing. The same routine is used to ensure that the VPP
calculates an optimum up-wind and down-wind VMG for each true wind speed. In 2019 the crew righting moment
has been included as an additional optimization parameter: the crew weight is moved between the full-to-leeward and
the full-to-windward positions, seeking again for the highest boat velocity.
 15

F IGURE 3.5: Functional relationships in the VPP Boat Model

3.3 E QUATIONS OF E QUILIBRIUM

In order to produce a steady state sailing condition the VPP must solve the 2 equilibrium equations matching
available driving force to drag, and the heeling moment to the hull righting moment. The accuracy of the VPP
prediction is entirely reliant on the accuracy with which these 4 elements can be calculated from parametric data
gathered during the measurement process.

3.3.1 D RIVING F ORCE - D RAG

This is the basic equation for longitudinal force equilibrium, with the net force along the boat’s track being zero:

F RA F RW = 0 (3.1)
 16

where:
FRA = Total Aerodynamic Thrust
FRW = Total Resistance
The total resistance is treated as the sum of 4 separate components, shown in equation 3.2. In reality these divisions
are not physically clear-cut, but the approach is adopted to make the problem tractable using a parametric description
of the hull and its appendages.

F RW = Dviscous + Dresiduary + Dinduced + Draw (3.2)

where:
Dviscous = Drag due to the friction of the water flowing over the surface of the hull and ap-
pendages at the current heel angle, and the propeller if one is fitted.
Dresiduary = Residuary Drag, drag due to the creation of surface waves, calculated from the hull
parameters at the current heel angle.
Dinduced = Induced Drag created when the hull keel and rudder produce sideforce
Draw = Drag due to the yachts motion in a seaway.
The aerodynamic driving force is the Aerodynamic driving force less the windage drag of the above-water boat com-
ponents.
F RA = F RAb4windage F RAhull F RAmast F RArigging F RAcrew (3.3)
where:
F RAb4windage = Aerodynamic driving force
F RAhull = Hull windage drag
F RAmast = Mast windage drag
F RArigging = Rigging wire drag
F RAcrew = crew windage drag

3.3.2 H EELING M OMENT - ROLLING M OMENT

The aerodynamic heeling moment produced by the mast and sails must be equal and opposite to the righting
moment produced by the hull and crew.

HMtotal = RMtotal (3.4)

HMtotal = HM A + RM 4 · F HA (3.5)
HM A = HM Ab4windage + HM Ahull + HM Amast + HM Arigging wire + HM Acrew (3.6)

where
HM Atotal = Total heeling moment
RMtotal = Total righting moment
HM A = Aerodynamic heeling moment about the waterplane
RM 4 = Vertical CLR, below waterplane
F HA = Total aerodynamic heeling force (equal to hydrodynamic force normal to the yacths
centre plane)
HM Ab4windage = Aerodynamic heeling moment from sails
HM Ahull = Hull windage heeling moment
HM Amast = Mast windage heeling moment
HM Arigging wire = Rigging wire windage heeling moment
HM Acrew = Crew windage heeling moment
F HA is the total heeling force:

F HA = F HAb4windage + F HAhull + F HAmast + F HAcrew (3.7)

where
 17

F HAb4windage = Aerodynamic heeling force from sails

F HAhull = Hull windage heeling force
F HAmast = Mast windage heeling force
F HArigging wire = Rigging wire windage heeling force
F HAcrew = Crew windage heeling force
RMtotal is the total righting moment available from the hull and crew sitting off centerline.

RMtotal = RM RM V + RMaug (3.8)

where
RM = Hydrostatic Righting moment
RM V = Stability loss due to forward speed
RM Vaug = Righting moment augmentation due to shifting crew

3.4 WATER BALLAST AND C ANTING K EEL YACHTS

The following section describes the VPP run sequences for yachts with moveable ballast and retractable dagger
boards or bilgeboards.

3.4.1 C ANTING K EEL

Two VPP runs are made and the best speed achieved on each point of sailing is used to calculate the handicap.
• First VPP run with canting keel on Centre Line (CL) without adding any Righting Moment increase (MHSD
computed with the keel on CL)
• Second VPP run with canting keel fully canted adding Righting Moment increase (MHSD computed from the
maximum of the two rudders and canted keel.)

3.4.2 DAGGERBOARD (C ENTRELINE LIFTING APPENDAGE )

The daggerboard is input to the .DAT file with a special code to identify it as such. Two VPP runs are made and
the best speed achieved on each point of sailing is used to calculate the handicap.
• First VPP with the dagger board up. If the yacht has a canting keel this VPP run is done with the keel on centre
line.
• Second VPP run with the dagger board down, viscous drag calculated as if it were a conventional fin keel. If the
yacht has a canting keel this run is done with the keel at full cant angle. (MHSD is computed with maximum
depth based on the keel canted, dagger board down and aft rudder)

3.4.3 DAGGERBOARD AND B ILGE BOARDS

Daggerboard and bilgeboards are lifting appendages, the former on the centerline and the latter off centerline.
They are added to the .DXT file, by specifying the span, the thickness, the average chord, and also the angle to the
vertical, the lateral and longitudinal position. Moreover, it is specified if the board is retractable and and to what
extent (bilgeboard fraction). When the lateral position is set to zero, this defines a single daggerboard, otherwise two
bilgeboards are modelled. Two VPP runs are made and the best speed achieved on each point of sailing is used to
calculate the handicap.
• First VPP run with the bilge board up. If the yacht has a canting keel this VPP run is done with the keel on
centre line.
• Second VPP run with the leeward bilge board (or daggerboard) down, viscous drag calculated as if it were a
conventional fin keel. If the yacht has a canting keel this run is done with the keel at full cant angle. (MHSD
computed with maximum depth between keel canted, fwd leeward bilge board down and aft rudder)
 18

3.4.4 WATER BALLAST

Two VPP runs are executed, with and without water ballast; the fastest speed is used for handicapping. When
water ballast volume is input directly, the following values are assumed:

Water ballast VCG = 0.50 ⇥ freeboard aft

Water ballast LCG = 0.70 ⇥ LOA
Water ballast Moment arm = 0.90 ⇥ crew arm
When there are water ballast tanks (one tank on each side) and canting keel, the following runs are performed:
1. tanks empty, keel on CL

2. tanks empty, keel to windward

3. tank to windward filled, keel on CL
4. tank to windward filled, keel to windward

The fastest solution among the above four is taken as the final solution.
In 2016 a new type of water ballast have been introduced in addition to the above one: in this case the ballast is
supposed to be shifted to windward when going upwind, but the tanks are not emptied when going downwind. They
are called fresh water ballast.

3.4.5 M EASUREMENT
Dimensions and locations of dagger boards, bilge boards, forward rudders, etc. can now be added to the .DXT files
rather than by direct measurement of their offsets with the wand or laser scanner. For water ballast yachts the volume
and location of the water ballast may be edited into the .DXT file instead of by direct measurement.

3.5 DYNAMIC A LLOWANCE (DA)

Dynamic Allowance is an adjustment which may be applied to velocity predictions (i.e., time allowances) to
account for relative performance degradation in unsteady states (e.g., while tacking) not otherwise accounted for in
the VPP performance prediction model. DA is a percentage credit calculated on the basis of six design variables
deemed to be relevant in assessing the performance degradation and is applied (or not applied) as explained below.
Even where applied, the result of the calculated credit may be zero. The design variables considered are described
in section 3.5.1 below. Where applied, the calculated amount of credit will vary with point of sail and wind velocity.
These credits are therefore applied individually to each respective time allowance cell in the large table on the
Rating Certificate (see Table 8.2) entitled, “Time Allowances”. The credit is also automatically carried forward into
the “Selected Courses” time allowances table, because these course time allowances are comprised of the appropriate
proportions of various time allowances from the larger table. Likewise, any credit is carried forward into the General
Purpose Handicap (GPH) and the “Simplified Scoring Options”. The single value for DA which is actually displayed
on the Certificate is that which was applied to GPH and is shown only to give a comparative reference to the average
DA applied for the yacht.
For yachts in the Cruiser/Racer Division that comply with IMS Appendix 1, the DA percentage credits are always
fully applied to the time allowances. For other yachts the DA is applied with the same credit only of boats older than
30 years3 .
The various credits are derived from a statistical study of a fleet of Cruiser/Racers and Racers, based on IMS L to
take into account a scaling factor. For each parametric ratio, an area in the Cartesian plane (Ratio/L) is fixed, limited
by two boundary lines which represent a statistical approximation of the Cruiser/Racers and the Racers respectively.
For a given “L”, a difference is calculated as the distance between the boundary limits. The individual contribution of
each parameter for the given yacht will be the ratio of the distance between the individual yacht’s parameters relative
to the Racer boundary line and the previously computed distance between the boundaries, with a cap value for each of
the parameters.
3 2020
 19

3.5.1 C REDITS (2012)

The credits are then calculated as follows:
racer slope · L + racer incpt RAT IO
Credit = M axCredit · (3.9)
(racer slope cruiser slope) · L + (racer incpt cruiser incpt)
where
RATIO racer slope racer incpt cruiser slope cruiser incpt MAX CREDIT
btgsa/vol 0.620 19.0 0.392 15.238 0.75%
runsa/vol 1.000 32.0 0.727 25.093 0.30%
btgsa/ws 0.058 2.39 0.0294 2.38 0.75%
runsa/ws 0.089 4.10 0.059 3.924 0.30%
L/vol 0.062 4.45 0.055 3.985 0.30%

B EATING CREDIT
Applied full strength to VMG Upwind, then linearly decreased to zero at 70 True Wind Angle (TWA), varied
with True Wind Speed (TWS) as follows:
btgsa · (20 T W S) BSA · T W S
Beating Credit = + (3.10)
W etted area credit · (20 6) V olume Credit · 20
btgsa/Wetted Area Credit is calculated with complete Sail Area (mainsail + genoa), BSA/ Volume Credit is calculated
with Sail Area = Mainsail + foretriangle

RUNNING CREDIT
Applied full strength VMG Downwind, then linearly decreased to zero at 90 TWA, varied with TWS as follows:
runsa · (20 T W S) DSA · T W S
Running Credit = · (3.11)
W etted area credit · (20 6) V olume Credit · 20

L ENGTH /VOLUME RATIO

Applied full strength to all TWA and TWS

3.5.2 C ALCULATION P ROCEDURE

1. Compute the table of polar speeds and GPH without any credit (like all racing boats)
2. Compute DA credits for each true wind speed and wind angle to obtain a matrix with the same row and columns
as the table of speeds.
3. Divide any polar speed of the table by corresponding computed credit and re-calculate the new GPH. To compute
the DA value (that is printed on certificate only as reference) the ratio between new and the original GPH is used.
The typical distribution of DA over True wind speed and angle is shown in Figure 3.6

3.6 N ON M ANUAL P OWER

Similarly to the Dynamic Allowance, there is another corrector to the overall performance of the boat, which is
applied after the solution is calculated in terms of velocities and heeling. The corrector is based on the use of non
manual power for adjusting the rig, sail sheets, or both (plus any other manoeuver). Below is displayed the amount of
handicap penalty, in percentage, for each of the above three types of non-manual power. The penalty is different for
boats belonging to the Race category compared to those belonging to the Cruiser/Racer one. Moreover, the amount of
the penalty (in %) is adjusted by the square of the ratio of declared crewweight to the default creweight:
✓ ◆2
creweight
fnmp = 0.5 · pw · min( ; 1) (3.12)
crewweightdef
This is done with the aim of distinguish between boats having full crew plus the aid of non manual power and boats
using it essentially because they are short of crew.
 20

F IN A L C R E D IT

1 .6 0 %

1 .4 0 %

1 .2 0 %

1 .0 0 % 6

10

12
0 .8 0 %
14

16

20
0 .6 0 %

0 .4 0 %

0 .2 0 %

0 .0 0 %
45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175

TW A

F IGURE 3.6: DA credit vs. True Wind Angle.

rig sheets all

Performance 0.50 0.50 1.00
Cruiser/Racer 0.25 0.75 1.00

TABLE 3.1: Matrix of values pw used for the calculation of non manual power penalty.
4 L INES P ROCESSING P ROGRAM

The LPP is a companion program to the VPP which processes the measurements taken from the hull and ap-
pendages into an Offset (.OFF) file and uses this point by point geometric definition to calculate integrated physical
quantities that the boat model can use to perform its calculations.
The LPP uses the hull shape defined by the offset file and the results of the inclining test to determine the righting
moment at each heel angle.
The LPP uses a definition of hull and appendage shape derived from physical measurement of the hull. The
measurement of the hull (wanding) is carried out at pre-determined transverse stations according to the measurement
instructions. A typical offset file is shown in Figure 4.1. The format of the .OFF file is described in Appendix A.

F IGURE 4.1: Offset file station distribution and typical section.

4.1 H YDROSTATICS
As part of the afloat measurements an inclining test is carried out and the freeboards in “Light Ship Trim”1 are
determined. The first task of the LPP is calculate a righting moment vs. heel angle curve for the yacht in its sailing
condition. The following steps are carried out:
• Determine measurement trim displacement from the immersed volume of hull and appendages below the flota-
tion waterline, using the offset file as a definition of the immersed hull and appendages
• Use the inclining test results to determine the vertical centre of gravity position (VCG) in measurement trim

• Calculate the displacement and VCG in sailing trim by the addition of weights for crew and gear
• Calculate a righting moment at specified heel angles
• Calculate the Limit of Positive Stability (LPS), the heel angle above which the yacht will capsize
1 2013

21
 22

4.2 LPP O UTPUT PARAMETER DEFINITIONS

In addition to the traditional “hydrostatic” calculations the LPP also calculates a number of parameters that are
used by the hydrodynamic force model. Two fundamental flotation conditions are determined:

4.2.1 M EASUREMENT T RIM

The flotation waterplane is that determined by the measured freeboards with the yacht floating upright. LSM0 is
calculated in this condition using equation [4.5], and an exponent nl = 0.25

4.2.2 S AILING T RIM

In order to achieve the sailing trim the default crew weight and gear weight are combined and added 0.1LSM 0 aft
of the Longitudinal Centre of buoyancy (LCB) and (0.05 ⇤ LSM 0 + 0.36) m above the measurement trim flotation
plane. LSM1 is calculated in this condition using equation [4.5], and an exponent nl = 0.25. Then the sails weight
is also added, placing it 0.095LSM 0 forward of the LCB and 0.012LSM 0 0.32 m above the measurement trim
flotation plane.

C REW W EIGHT
The default value for the Crew Weight (kg.) is calculated as follows:
CW = 25.8 · LSM 01.4262 (4.1)
The above value cannot be larger than 50% of the displacement in light ship trim. The owner may accept the default
calculated weight, but can declare any crew weight which shall be recorded in the certificate. The declared crew
weight is used to compute increased righting moment while default crew weight will be used to compute sailing trim
displacement.
The longitudinal position of the combined crew longitudinal centre of gravity is calculated from the formula:
X loc of crew cg = 0.1 · LSM 0 af t LCB (4.2)

G EAR W EIGHT
Gear weight is calculated from equation below:
Gear W eight = 0.16 · Crew W eight Def ault (4.3)
In 2020 the gear weight has been bounded to be less than 5% of the displacement in measurement trim.

S AILS W EIGHT
In 2020 the sails weight has been reformulated taking indirectly into account the pressure acting on the sails, by
introducing the righting moment in the formulation. Below, Amain , Ajib and Aspin are the areas of the largest main,
jib and spin found in the sail inventory, DHK is the keel draft.
arm = P + BAS + HBI + DHK
SA = Amain + Ajib + Amiz
RM 25
k1 =
0.43 · arm · SA
mw = (k1 · 0.00065 · A2main + 0.12 · Amain ) + 1.5
jibw = (k1 · 0.00091 · A2jib + 0.12 · Ajib ) + 1.5
0.0013
spinw = max(k1 · · A2spin , 0.08 · Aspin )
30
0.0013
hsf w = max(k1 · · A2tothsf , 0.08 · Atothsf )
30
rnjibs = 3.16 + 0.2345 · LSM 0
rnjibs = rnjibs nhsf
rnspins = 1.16 + 0.2345 · LSM 0
osailsw = jibw · max(rnjibs · 0.5, 1) + spiw · max(rnspins · 0.6, 1) + hsf w (4.4)
 23

In the above formulas, Atothsf is the cumulative total area of the declared headsails set flying, and nhsf is the declared
number of headsails set flying. The terms rnjibs and rnspins are continuous functions fitting at best the ORC rules
for maximum number of sails on board. rnjibs is bounded by 5 at the bottom and 8 at the top, similarly rnspins is
bounded by 3 and 6. They depend by LSM 0 because the CDL, which is used the ORC rules, is not known until the
end of the VPP run. The headsail set flying weight calculation takes into account the real number of sails declared
on board, which also acts as a constraint when computing the number of jibs on board. The weighs then added for
computing the sailing trim are mw (mainsail weight) and osailsw (other sails weight), this last summing up the weighs
of luffed headsails (jibs), headsails set flying, and spinnakers.

4.2.3 S ECOND M OMENT L ENGTH (LSM)

s✓ R ◆ ✓R ◆2
x2 sdxnl xsdxnl
LSM = 3.9232 · R R (4.5)
sdxnl sdxnl
where:
s = an element of sectional area attenuated for depth
x = length in the fore and aft direction
nl = Length Exponent
This method of deriving the Effective sailing length from a weighted sectional area curve is a legacy of the original
MHS system. Originally the length calculation took note of the longitudinal volume distribution of the hull, rather
than include directly in the residuary resistance calculation terms that were calculated from the sectional area curve.
The depth attenuation of sectional areas is performed by multiplying each Z (vertical offset) by e( 10⇤Z/LSM 0) .
The LPP uses the physical shape of the canoe body, as defined by the .OFF offset file, to calculate immersed
lengths at several different waterplane positions.

F IGURE 4.2: Flotation waterline positions.

4.2.4 A PPENDAGE STRIPPING

Once the offset file has been acquired and checked, the LPP “strips” off the appendages to leave a ”fair” canoe body.
Various hydrostatic characteristics and physical parameters are calculated using the flotation waterline determined at
the in-water measurement. The characteristics of the appendages are handled separately to determine the parameters
that affect their resistance.

4.2.5 B EAM D EPTH R ATIO (BTR)

The LPP also computes the effective beam and draft of the yachts canoe body, along with the maximum effective
draft of the keel. The Beam Depth Ratio (BTR) is the effective beam (B) divided by the effective hull depth (T).
B
BT R = (4.6)
T
 24

T HE E FFECTIVE B EAM (B)

The effective beam is calculated based on the transverse second moment of the immersed volume attenuated with
depth for the yacht in Sailing Trim floating upright. This approach “weights” more heavily elements of hull volume
close to the water surface. s RR
2
· b3 e 10z/LSM 0 dzdx
B = 3.45 · 3 R R (4.7)
be 10z/LSM 0 dzdx
where
b = an element of beam;
e = is the Neperian base, 2.7183
z = is depth in the vertical direction
x = is depth in the fore and aft direction

E FFECTIVE H ULL D EPTH (T)

The Effective Hull Depth is a depth-related quantity for the largest immersed section of the hull. It is derived from
the area of the largest immersed section attenuated with depth for the yacht in Sailing Trim floating upright (AMS2)
divided by B:
AM S2
T = 2.07 · (4.8)
B

M AXIMUM S ECTION A REAS

Maximum section areas used for the derivation of Effective Hull Depth (T).
AMS1 is the area of the largest immersed section for the yacht in Sailing Trim floating upright. AMS2 is the area
of the largest immersed section attenuated with depth for the yacht in Sailing Trim floating upright.
Formulae for Maximum Section Areas, (where b is an element of beam; e is the Naperian base, 2.7183; and z is
depth in the vertical direction):
R
AM S1 = maximum of bdz over length
R
AM S2 = maximum of b · e 10z/LSM 0 dz over length

4.2.6 M AXIMUM E FFECTIVE D RAFT (MHSD)

To inform the calculation of hydrodynamic induced drag (drag due to lift2 ) during the VPP force balance calcula-
tions the “effective draft” of the hull and keel combination must be calculated.
The value of the effective draft (MHSD) is determined by the LPP using the original expression for a “reduced
draft” (TR) which is calculated based on the local section maximum draft and hull cross sectional area. This expres-
sion which treats the hull and keel as one half of a slender axi-symmetric body, calculates the effect of streamline
contraction around the canoe body. In this way the influence of a deep hull on effective draft is accounted for.
The maximum effective draft of the keel is found by calculating the following parameters at each immersed station
along the length of the hull.

T RM AX = xxy1 = Maximum reduced draft

T RD = xxy = Centreline immersed depth
T RSA = sectional area.
T RX = longitudinal location of station
S(i) = the sectional area at station i
Xxy = centerline immersed depth of station (i)
2 described in section 6.5
 25
r
4 · S(i)
xxb = (4.9)
⇡ · BT R !
r⇣
xxy xxy ⌘2
xxr1 = 0.5 · + + 0.25 · BT R2 1 (4.10)
xxb xxb
p
xxr2 = xxr12 0.5 · (1 + 0.5 · BT R) (4.11)
✓ ◆
0.25 · (0.25 · BT R2 1)
xxy = xxb · xxr2 (4.12)
xxr2
These computed quantities are only important as intermediate results. The information is stored for the station yielding
the greatest value of xxy1, “MHSD” (MHS draft), and is determined from:

M HSD = 0.92 · max(xxy1) (4.13)

C ENTERBOARDS
Centerboards, drop keels, dagger boards etc. are treated in a similar manner. In the calculation of xxb S(i) is
taken as the cross sectional area for the section at the same longitudinal position as the point of maximum draft for the
appendage. Also xxy is now taken as the corrected draft for the hull with the fixed keel plus the corrected centerboard
extension (ECE).
r
4 · S(max depth)
xxb = (4.14)
⇡ · BT R
DEF = DHKef f ective + ECE (4.15)
0 s✓ 1
◆2
DEF DEF
xxr1 = 0.5 · @ + + 0.25 · BT R2 1A (4.16)
xxb xxb
p
xxr2 = xxr12 0.5 · (1 + 0.5 · BT R) (4.17)
✓ 2
◆
0.25 · (0.25 · BT R 1)
xxy1 = xxb · xxr2 (4.18)
xxr2
MHSD is again calculated from the formula

M HSD = max(0.92 · xxy1, M HSDnocenterboard ) (4.19)

T WIN (D OUBLE ) K EELS AND B ULBS

The twin keel is defined by the following inputs3 :
• keel distance from bow
• vertical span
• mean chord lengths and thicknesses
• y-offset (distance from CL of fin)
• angle of fin to vertical
The viscous drag is calculated using the method described in Section 6.1.2, with the exception that the keels are not
divided into horizontal stripes for the purpose of calculating the local section characteristics. The induced drag is
calculated using the standard method described in section 6.5
The bulb is defined by the following inputs:

• Length
• max width
• max height
3 2011
 26

With these data the following bulb parameters are computed, which are then used to calculate the frictional and
residuary resistance with the usual schemes (6.1.2 and 6.3.2):

thickness chord ratio = width/length

wetted area = 1.10 · (width+height) · length
volume = 0.5 · width · height · length

4.2.7 B ULB /W ING E FFECTS

The geometry of the keel tip is influential on the induced drag of the keel fin. These effects may be both positive
and negative,
• A ballast bulb with circular (or elliptical) cross section reduces the effect span of the keel fin.
• A well designed wing keel extends the effective span of the keel.
The VPP contains an algorithm which detects the type and degree of “bulb” keel or “wing” keel and modifies the
effective span, derived according to section 4.2.6.

D EFINITIONS
DHK0 geometric overall draft of keel
MAXW max width of keel
TMAXW draft at max width of keel
MAXW and TMAXW are corrected by “10 line test”
FLAGBULB 1 if bulb is detected
FLAGWING 1 if winglets are detected
UPBULBF upper shape factor for bulb
DeltaD effective draft correction due to bulb and/or winglet.

W INGLET DETECTION
Winglets exist if a line from the maximum width location to a point located in a vertical plane of symmetry, in the
same transverse section, vertically distant from the maximum width location less than MAXW/4 which does not lie
somewhere in keel (Figure 4.3-1). Then WWING width is added by the wing.

B ULB DETECTION
If winglets are not detected, a bulb exists if a line from the maximum width location to a point located in vertical
plane of symmetry, in the same transverse section, vertically distant from max width location less than MAXW which
does not lie somewhere in keel (Figure 4.3-2). Then WBULB is width added by bulb.

B ULB + W INGLET DETECTION

In any case: MAXW= WBULB+WWING (Figure 4.3-3)

D ELTA D FORMULAS
DeltaD is calculated with the following formulae and then corrected by the “limitations” defined below. The
formulations are based on CFD calculations for eight bulb or winglet configurations. The multiplier of 0.5 applied to
f 2 is an arbitrary reduction of the bulb credit.
✓ ✓ ◆
DeltaD DHK0 T M AXW W BU LB
= · F lagbulb · U P BU LBF · 0.5 · f 2 ·
M HSD 0.5 · M AXW DHK0
✓ ◆◆
W BU LB M AXW
· F lagwing · f 3 (4.20)
F lagwing · W W IN G + W BU LB DHK0
Note that:
• f2 addresses the bulb effect if there is no winglet
 27

F IGURE 4.3: Bulb and winglet detection scheme

• f3 addresses winglet effect if there is no bulb

• the case where bulb and winglet exist the interactions are taken into account by multiplying f 2 value by the
W BU LB/(F lagwing ⇤ W W IN G + W BU LB) term
where:
f 1(X) = 1 + k1 ⇤ X if X < 1
= 1 + k1 if X > 1

f 2(X) = k20 + k21 ⇤ (X wbu T 0) if X > wbu T 0

= k20 ⇤ X/wbu T 0 if X <= wbu T 0
f 3(X) = k30 ⇤ X/wwi T 0 if X < wwi T 0
= k30 + k31 ⇤ (X wwi T 0) if X >= wwi T 0

k1 0.6
k20 0.06
k21 0.19
k30 0.05
k31 0.02
wbu T 0 0.15
wwi T 0 0.5

U PPER SHAPE FACTOR FOR BULB

UPBULBF is introduced to take into account that end effect of the bulb depends of the shape of the top of the bulb.
A straight shape (e.g. a Scheel Keel) has a positive effect, although a round shape has negative effect on effective draft.
Moreover UPBULBF helps to smooth the jump of DeltaD when a bulb becomes winglet. UPBULBF is defined as
follows:
1. Consider the rectangle defined by opposite corners at the maximum width bulb point and a point on the top
surface of the bulb located at 0.05 * DHK0 off the centerline. Calculate the area Ar
2. Consider the enclosed part of the bulb in the rectangle. Calculate the area Abu
3. Define the upper bulb shape factor U P BU LBF = f 4(Abu/Ar): f 4(1) = 1 for x = 0.825, f 4(0.3) = 0.3, f 4
linear function.

4. In the bulb wing formula, multiply f 2 by U P BU LBF .

 28

F IGURE 4.4: Upper Bulb shape factor examples

L IMITATIONS
DeltaD > 0.025 ⇤ DHK0 (credit bulb limitation)
If the widest point of the bulb or winglet is not enough deep with respect to DHK0 and MAXW, the bulb or winglet
are considered to have no effect:
DeltaD = 0 if T M AXW + 3 ⇤ M AXW/2 < DHK0
DeltaD is not affected if T M AXW + M AXW/2 > DHK0
DeltaD varies linearly between those two situations.

S MOOTHING TECHNIQUE
Because the detection scheme must work on old offset files, which may have sparse data points in the area of the
keel tip, it is important to avoid catching spurious “widest points”. When, going down along the bulb/winglet section,
the point of max width is found, at that point the “10 deg line test” is applied.
The test is to trace an almost vertical line downward, inclined 10 degrees inboard. The lowest offset point that lies
“external” to that line is taken as the widest point of the section, in way of the actual widest point. At this point the
test is applied for winglet and bulb (see Figure 4.5).

F IGURE 4.5: Widest point detection

 29

4.3 A PPENDAGE WETTED AREAS AND LENGTHS

The original VPP formulations were concerned only with “conventional” fin keel and rudder configurations. Sub-
sequently the ability to handle off-center appendages, and canting keels has been added.

4.3.1 C ONVENTIONAL F IN KEEL AND RUDDER

The keel and rudder are divided into 5 horizontal strips and a wetted surface area together with a mean length and
thickness to chord ratio is calculated for each strip4 . These values are used to calculate the viscous resistance of the
appendages. In this case the volume of the fin keel and any associated bulb is calculated so that the contribution to
wave making resistance may be calculated.

4.3.2 OTHER APPENDAGES

The LPP can deal with twin rudders, centerboards, forward rudders, fixed or retractable dagger boards. These
appendages can be added into the .DXT file based on their measured dimensions, rather than including them in the
wanded .OFF file data. Only the viscous drag of these appendages is calculated, based on methods described in detail
in section 6.1.2. The LPP also calculates any reduction of wetted surface area that occurs if any dagger board, twin
rudder etc. comes above the flotation waterline.

4.4 R IGHTING M OMENT

The righting moment balances the heeling moment produced by the sailplan, and is the sum of several components:

RM = RMhull + RMcrew + RM V + RMmovable ballast + RMDSS (4.21)

where the hull term is the restoring moment of the hull in sailing displacement, the second is the moment gener-
ated by moving the declared crew weight on the rail, RM V is the dynamic righting moment, and RMDSS and
RMmovableb allast are the contributions of the movable ballast (canting keel and/or water ballast) and of the Dynamic
Stability System, whenever they are present.

4.4.1 R IGHTING A RM C URVE

The LPP calculates a righting arm against heel angle curve (Figure 4.6), for the boat in sailing displacement.
For a boat with movable ballast the curves are two, one with the ballast on the CL, the second with the ballast
on one side: this latter is non symmetric through the (-180,180) degrees range of heel, and includes both the terms
RMhydrostatic and RMmovable ballast of formula (4.21). An example is shown in Fig.4.7. The portion between 0 and
180 degrees has the ballast to windward, while the range bewteen -180 and 0 is calculated with the ballast to leeward,
and has opposite sign because of the way the arm is defined: within this range a negative righting arm means positive
stability.

4.4.2 H YDRODYNAMIC C ENTRE OF P RESSURE

The hydrodynamic vertical center of pressure RM4 is given by:

RM 4 = 0.43 · Tmax (4.22)

where Tmax is the maximum draft.

4.4.3 C REW RIGHTING MOMENT

The crew righting moment is based on the declared crew weight or a default crew weight calculated from CW =
25.8 · LSM 01.4262 . The assumed individual crew weight is 89 kg and the number of crew is calculated by dividing
the crew weight by this value.
4 up to 2015 the wetted area of second to fifth strip was the ptojected area of the strip on to the centerplane. For the first strip the real wetted area

was used, because this is the strip containing the bulb, if there is one. After discovering that for some configuration the bulb was partially in the
second strip, since 2016 for all the appendages the real wetted area is used.
 30

STABILITY AND HYDROSTATICS

DATASHEET
! Offshore Racing Congress 2018
w w w .orc.org

0.5

Righting Arm (Meters)

113.0

0.0

-0.5

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Heel (Degrees)
STABILITY CURVE
Righting Moment at 1 159.4k Stability Curve Positive Area 42.732 Stability Curve Ratio 2.2724 Stability Index 118.4
Limit of positive stability 113.0 Stability Curve Negative Area 18.805 BLR Index 0.0000
Righting Arm (meters)
!0 !2 !10 !20 !25 !30 !40 !60 !90 !120 !150 !165 !180
Default Crew Weight 694kg 0.000 0.038 0.186 0.349 0.416 0.475 0.565 0.574 0.325 -0.102 -0.419 -0.392 0.000

Declared Crew Weight 600kg 0.000 0.039 0.188 0.352 0.420 0.479 0.571 0.583 0.334 -0.096 -0.418 -0.395 0.000
0.000

BOAT HULL CHARACTERISTICS (MEASUREMENT TRIM) Rating Office

Name NAUT-E-CAL Length Overall 12.432m
Sail Number GRE-11137 Max. Beam 3.546m Max. Beam Station 7.725m
Class CAL 39 Draft 2.062m Max. Draft Station 7.116m

Designer WM. LAPWORTH Moment Unit Trim 9.4kg"m / m m

Builder JENSEN Displacement Unit Immersion 21.13kg/mm

Age Date 01-1971 Block Coefficient 0.3947 Prismatic Coefficent 0.5797

Measured 08-05-2005 HYDROSTATIC DATA

Trim Measurement Sailing
Measurer TSAL/VOGIATZ/BOULT
Issued On 2018-05-14 - VPP 2018 1.00 Displacement 7,525kg 8,459kg
Wetted Area 29.07m# 30.37m#
FLOTATION (MEASUREMENT TRIM)
Forw ard Freeboard at 0.855m 1.331m Water Plane Area 20.30m# 21.13m#
Owner
Freeboard at mast at 5.200m 1.098m Water Plane Beam 3.095m 3.153m

Aft Freeboard at 11.750m 1.055m Longitud. Centre of Flotation 7.119m 7.182m

Overhang Forw ard 1.918m Longitud. Centre of Buoyancy 7.040m 7.113m

Vertical Centre of Gravity 0.056m 0.146m
Overhang Aft 0.682m
Length Waterline 9.602m Max. Section Area 1.49m# 1.63m#
Max. Section Area Station 7.116m 7.116m
MOVABLE BALLAST Sail Area Upw ind 72.71m#
Arm Canting Keel Angle
Sail Plan Centre of Effort Height 6.910m
Weight List Angle

F IGURE 4.6: Typical righting arm curve and hydrostatic data output

LSM GREATER THAN 4.9 M (16 FEET )

When LSM > 4.9 m, two less than the total number of crew are distributed along the deck edge of the boat
centered about the assumed centre of gravity position, a single crew member is assumed to occupy a width of 0.53m.
The lever arm of the crew on the rail is the average hull beam over the length of side deck occupied by the crew.
The remaining 2 crew members, the helmsman and main trimmer are assumed to have transverse centre’s of gravity at
70% of the yachts maximum half beam.
For Sportboats a Crewarm Extension Factor (CEXT) may be used, which takes into account the more radical
transverse position of the crew for this boat types having hiking straps and/or trapezes. Crew hiking is assumed to
have a righitng arm 0.5 m outside of the rail, while crew on the trapeze is supposed to have an arm 1.2 m outside of
the rail.
 31

F IGURE 4.7: Typical righting arm curve of a boat with movable ballast

✓ ◆
Bmax
Crew · rightingarm = CARM · CREW RW + 0.7 · 2 · · bodywt · cos(heel) (4.23)
2
where:
CARM = Crew righting arrm
CREWRW = Crew weight on the rail
Bmax = Hull maximum
bodywt = Average crew body weight.
heel = Heel angle

LSM LESS THAN 4.9 M

For yachts with LSM less than 4.9 m the crew weight is all sat on the rail.

Crew · rightingarm = (CARM · CREW RW ) · cos(heel) (4.24)

C REW WEIGHT TRANSVERSE POSITION

Up to 2018 the crew transverse position followed a prescribed law established for all yachts: the crew was sat on
the leeward side up to a certain heel and the smoothly moved to windward. Since 2019 the crew trasverse position
(better, its righting or heeling moment) is used as an optimisation parameter, searching for the position that maximises
the boat velocity (or vmg), exactly in the same way as the sail depowering parameters are used. As a consequence the
solvers looks for each boat at the ideal heel angle at each specific sailing point (TWS and TWA).

4.4.4 DYNAMIC R IGHTING M OMENT. RMV

RMV is a term intended to account for the difference between the hydrostatic righting moment calculated by the
LPP, and the actual righting moment produced by the hull when moving through the water. This term was in the VPP
 32

from its first implementation5 .

5
✓ ◆
5.955 · 10 Bcb
RM V = · DSP L · LSM · 1 6.25 p 2.1 · SLR · (4.25)
3 AM S1cb
where
DSP L = Displacement
Bcb = Canoe body beam
AM S1cb = Maximum section area of canoe body
SLR = Speed length ratio

DYNAMIC S TABILITY S YSTEM (DSS)

The DSS is the deployment of an approximately horizontal hydrofoil on the leeward side of the yacht that generates
a vertical force component to augment the yachts righting moment. Since 2010 the VPP is able to calculate the drag
and increased righting moment available from a DSS. The data input file take in the geometrical data of the foil’s
size and position and use a simple algorithm to calculate the increased righting moment of the foil. The lift force is
proportional to the square of the yachts speed, and the maximum extra righting moment capped at a percentage of the
yachts typical sailing righting moment. Like all features of the ORC VPP this force prediction algorithm is intended
to provide an equitable handicap for yachts fitted with the DSS. It is not a “design and optimization” tool.

4.4.5 R ATED R IGHTING M OMENT

When predicting the performances of the boat (and therefore the handicaps), the VPP makes use of an averaged
stability calculation: the VCG of the yacht is computed by using the following weighed average between the measured
and the default righting moment at 1 degree of heel6 :
2 1
RM @1rated = · RM @1measured + · RM @1def ault (4.26)
3 3
Default righting moment is calculated as follows7 :
✓ ◆
V OL1/3 SA · HA IM SB
RM @1def ault = 1.025· a0 + a1 · IM SBT R + a2 · + a3 · + a4 · ·DSP M ·IM SL
IM SL IM SB 3 V OL1/3
(4.27)
where all the variables are calculated by the VPP using the following coefficient values.
a0 = -0.00410481856369339 (regression coefficient)
a1 = -0.0000399900056441 (regression coefficient)
a2 = -0.0001700878169134 (regression coefficient)
a3 = 0.00001918314177143 (regression coefficient)
a4 = 0.00360273975568493 (regression coefficient)
DSPM = displacement in sailing trim
SA = sail area upwind
HA = heeling arm, defined as

CEHmain · Amain + CEHheadsail · Aheadsail + CEHmizzen · Amizzen

+HBI+DHKA·0.45
SA

CEH = height of centre of effort

DHKA = Draft of keel and hull adjusted
Default righting moment shall not be taken greater than 1.3 ⇤ RM @1measured nor smaller than 0.7 ⇤ RM @1measured .
For movable ballast boats the default righting moment intends to predict the righting moment of the boat with-
out the effect of movable ballast (water tanks empty, or keel on the center plane), is then decreased by a factor
5 The divisor of 3 in the first term was introduced in 2000 to correct an over-prediction of RMV for contemporary hull forms
6 2015
7 1.025 multiplier added in 2013
 33

(1 RM @25 movable/RM @25 tot), where RM @25 movable is the righting moment due to the contribution of
movable ballast at 25 degrees of heel, and RM @25 tot is the total righting moment at 25 degrees, with keel canted or
windward tanks full. Both RM @25 movable and RM @25 tot are calculated on the basis of the measured RM @1.
For these boats, the max and min bounds are set to 1.0 ⇤ RM @1measured and 0.9 ⇤ RM @1measured respectively. If
righting moment is not measured or obtained from another source, the rated righting moment shall be increased for
3% and shall not be taken less than one giving the Limit of positive stability (LPS) of 103.0 degrees or 90.0 degrees
for an ORC Sportboat.
5 A ERODYNAMIC F ORCES

The VPP assumes that each individual sail, mainsail, jib, spinnaker, gennaker or code zero can be characterized by
a maximum achievable lift coefficient and a corresponding viscous drag coefficient that are continuous functions of
apparent wind angle. The values of these coefficients are adjusted depending on the exact sail type and the mast and
rigging configuration. The individual coefficients are then combined into a set of complete sail plan (main and jib, or
main and spinnaker) coefficients.
In order to simulate the reduction of heeling force by the crew trimming and changing sails Flat and Reef param-
eters are used.
The flat parameter is used to simulate the reduction of the lift coefficient. It reduces from a value of 1.0, associated
with maximum lift, to a minimum value of 0.62 for normally rigged yachts1 , i.e. the lift coefficient reduced by 38%.
The reef parameter simulates the reduction of sail area. When reefing is required to achieve optimum performance
the genoa sail area is first reduced until the genoa reaches its minimum foot length, then if further heeling force
reduction is required the mainsail is reefed.
The VPP optimizer is at liberty to de-power the sails by reducing the maximum lift coefficient (Flat) and reduce
sail size (Reef) to achieve best performance at each prescribed true wind angle and velocity.

5.1 M ETHODOLOGY
The aerodynamic forces acting on the yacht are resolved into two orthogonal components, lift and drag. The
lift force acts perpendicular to the apparent wind direction and the drag force acts parallel to it. The force model
incorporates 3 sources of drag:
1. The base drag associated with the windage of the hull, spars, rigging and crew;

2. The parasitic drag associated with the skin friction drag of the sails, and the pressure drag associated with flow
separation. The parasitic drag is assumed not to depend on the sail lift force, it does however vary with the point
of sailing;
3. The induced drag, which arises from the three-dimensional nature of the flow around the sails, and the loss of
circulation from the head and foot of the sails. The induced drag is assumed to vary as the square of the lift
coefficient. A two-dimensional lift dependant drag term is also added to the basic induced drag.
Analysis of the rig begins by ascribing the appropriate coefficient set to the main, jib and offwind sails. The frontal and
side areas associated with the mast, hull and rigging are also calculated. Each area has an associated vertical centre
of force which represents the height at which all the aerodynamic loads could be concentrated to produce the same
overall rolling moment. Because the presence of a wind gradient implies that the wind velocity is a function of height,
the vertical heights of the centres of force are used when evaluating the dynamic pressure acting on any aerodynamic
surface.

5.1.1 I NDIVIDUAL S AIL A REAS AND 2-D IMENSIONAL A ERODYNAMIC F ORCE C OEFFI -
CIENTS
The fundamental components of the aerodynamic model are the individual sails, characterised by the following
parameters, which are shown diagrammatically in Figure 5.1:
• Sail area
• Centre of effort height above the sail’s datum

• CLmax and CD0 versus AW envelope. (Maximum lift coefficient and parasitic (viscous) drag coefficient
versus apparent wind angle).

34
 35

F IGURE 5.1: Sail parameters

Figure 5.2 shows the individual two-dimensional coefficients for the 3 sail types originally supported by the VPP.
The characteristics of the mainsail and jib and spinnaker were derived empirically when the sail force model was
introduced2 . The coefficient values, which are based on cloth area, show typical effects:

• As apparent wind angle increases a rapid rise in lift to a peak value prior to the onset of separation and stall.
• The sails ‘fill’ at different apparent wind angles, reflecting the different sheeting arrangements and shapes of the
sails.
• At an apparent wind angle of 180 degrees, approximating to an angle of attack of 90 degrees, the lift has declined
to zero and the drag coefficient increased to 1.0.

5.1.2 S IMPLIFIED R IGGING C OEFFICIENTS

This reflects the ability of yachts with more complex fore and aft staying arrangements to adjust their sails for
best performance. The Mainsail and Jib may have varying lift and drag force coefficients depending on the ability to
change the camber of the sails by adjustable stays.
For both sail types a low and a high set of lift and drag coefficients exist. In the application of the coefficients
adjustable forestays, backstays, and running backstays are considered. The details of the scheme are described in
sections 5.2.1 for the mainsail and 5.2.2 for the jib.
1 Thisminimum flat value of 0.62 is based on the lift force reduction that has been observed in wind tunnel tests
2 Theaerodynamic coefficients of the sails have been adjusted and modified a number of times in order to follow the sail performance develop-
ment. Furthermore, while in the old days some efficiency factors were adopted for the sails areas (1/1.16 for the mainsail, 0.6 for the symmetric
spinnaker, 0.72 for the asymmetric), more recently this approach has been abandoned and the aero coefficients are based on the rated sail areas,
which are close to the geomtric sail areas. The last adjustment to the coefficients of single sails was done in 2016.
 36

1.60

1.40

1.20

1.00 cd0-mnc
cl-mnc
0.80
CD0, CL

cd0jyb
0.60 cljyb
cd0-ss
0.40
cl-ss
0.20

0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
-0.20
apparent wind angle - beta (deg)

F IGURE 5.2: Basic Sail Force Coefficients

5.1.3 O PTIMIZATION AND D E - POWERING

R EVISED O PTIMIZATION S CHEME
Traditionally (pre 2010) the VPP aerodynamic model has been free to adjust the sail power (Flat) and area (Reef)
independently to achieve the highest sailing speed at each True Wind Angle. This is time consuming for the optimiza-
tion computer code, and does not reflect the way in which yachts are sailed, in that reefing is usually delayed until
the sails are fully flattened. The new3 sail trimming scheme adopts the following methodology to reduce sail heeling
moment as wind speed increases.
1. Reduce F lat progressively to F latM IN . F latM IN = 0.62 ⇥ F lat8. F lat8 is the f lat value used with jib
upwind at TWS=8 kt and TWA=52 degrees. This remodulation of the minimum is done with the aim of giving
the same amount of relative f lat reduction even for boats using a certain amount of depowering already in light
winds.
2. Once F latM IN is reached reduce jib area progressively to the minimum jib area. (Still using F lat = F latM IN )
3. Once the Minimum jib area is reached reduce mainsail area. (Still using F lat = F latM IN )

D E - POWERING WITH JIB

The de-powering scheme is based on new VPP variables ftj, and rfm working with a new4 optimization parameter
RED that replaces the traditional reef parameter.
ftj = jib foot parameter ftj=1 full size jib, ftj=0 minimum jib
rfm = is the main reduction factor, Rfm=1 full main, rfm=0 no main. Works like the old
Reef function but on the mainsail only.
RED is a combination of these 2 factors into a single optimization parameter.
RED = 2 then ftj=rfm=1, i.e. full sail
RED = 1 then ftj=0, rfm=1, i.e. jib at minimum size
RED < 1 then ftj=0 and rfm<1.
The usual reef parameter, comparing in the output of the VPP, when the headsail is a jib or genoa it has to be read
as a re-parametrization of the RED parameter, by means the simple relation reef = RED/2. The progressive de-
powering scheme is shown graphically in Figure 5.3. At each stage in the process the current sail area, fractionality
3 2010
4 2009
 37

and overlap are calculated and the values used to calculate the Effective rig height and vertical centre of pressure
position.
In 2016 a further refinement has been modeled for the above depowering sequence: the jib foot reduction is carried
on down to a LPG of 105% before any jib luff reduction. From that point on, the luff and foot reduction are performed
together. The total sail forces are now calculated during each VPP iteration5 . The process is described in Figure 5.4.

DE POWERING

ftj = 1.0 ftj = 0.5 ftj = 0.0 ftj = 0.0

rfm = 1.0 rfm = 1.0 rfm = 1.0 rfm = 0.8
red = 2.0 red = 1.5 red = 1.0 red = 0.8

I
I_red I_min I_min

LP

LP_min LP_min
LP_red

OLAP, FRAC, HE HE_red

HE_red HE_red HE_red
OLAP_red, FRAC_red, HE_red OLAP_min, FRAC_min, HE_red OLAP_min, FRAC_red, HE_red

FRAC_red
F IGURE 5.3: De-powering scheme
FRAC_red FRAC_red
FRAC_red

OLAP_red OLAP_red OLAP_red

OLAP_red

OLAP, FRAC, HE
CE_red CE_red CE_red
CE_red
OLAP_red, FRAC_red, HE_red
OLAP_min, FRAC_min, HE_red OLAP_min, FRAC_red, HE_red
enter from current VPP iteration:
flat = flatmin, reef
FRAC_red get current FRAC_red
value of RED
FRAC_red
ftj = max(RED-1;0) FRAC_red
RED = reef*2 rfm = min(RED;1)

OLAP_red OLAP_red
OLAP_red OLAP_red

LPG_r = LPG*ftj
P_r = P*rfm
update reduced rig geometry JL is reduced together with LPG only once LPG
decreases below 105%
IG follows the JL reduction proportionally

update sailplan properties: frac_r = IG_r/(P_r+BAS)

fractionality, overlap, jib area (Ajib), over_r = LPG_r/J
Amain_r = Amain*rfm^2
mainsail area (Amain), effective height
b_r = max(P_r+BAS,I*IG_r/IG ) ! geom. span
(heff), center of effort height (CEH),
Ajib is recomputed by using reduced LPG and girths. The total CEH is
global lift (CLmax), global parasite drag
recomputed based on the reduced CEH of main and jib. effective height heff
(CD0max)
is proportional to the geometric span b_r.

Aref_r = Ajib_r + Amain_r

compute induced drag CDi = [KPP+(Aref_r)/(pi*heff_r^2)]*(CLmax*flat)^2

compute aerodynamic forces,: heeling CR = CL_fl*sin(beta) - (CD0_fl+CDi)*cos(beta)

return driving and heeling
force (FH), driving force (FR), heeling CH = CL_fl*cos(beta) + (CD0_fl+CDi)*sin(beta)
forces
moment (MH)

F IGURE 5.4: Routine for de-powering

5 rather than adopting the RIGANAL approach of the old code where as much of the aero model as possible was pre-calculated before the VPP

itself was run. The current approach would not have been possible even 10 years ago due to the extra burden of calculation making the VPP too
slow to run routinely
 38

5.2 S AIL A REAS & C OEFFICIENTS

5.2.1 M AINSAIL
M AINSAIL A REA AND ROACH
Mainsail area is the physical cloth area of the largest mainsail in the yacht’s sail inventory6 .

F IGURE 5.5: Roach calculation

In 2010 a revised scheme for determining the height of the girth sections was adopted. The heights are calculated
using the following formula which must be calculated in the order presented.
P M HW E/2
M HW H = + ·E
2 P
M HW H M QW (E + M HW )/2
M QW H = + · (E M HW )
2 M HW H
M HW H + P M T W M HW/2
MTWH = + · M HW
2 P M HW H
MTWH + P M U W M T W/2
MUWH = + · MTW (5.1)
2 P MTWH
Mainsail rated area is then calculated as follows:
M QW + E M QW + M HW
Area = · M QW H + · (M HW H M QW H) +
2 2
M HW + M T W MUW + MTW
· (M T W H M HW H) + · (M U W H M T W H) +
2 2
M U W + M HB
· (P M U W H) (5.2)
2
The boom depth (BD) limit is 0.06 ⇤ E. If BD exceeds its limit, mainsail area shall be increased by 2 ⇤ E ⇤ (BD
0.06 ⇤ E). The amount of roach will proportionally increase the rated area from the measured one. A parameter roach
6 Before 2010 the area was calculated as follows: Area M ain = P · (E + 2M QW + 2M HW + 1.5M T W + M U W + 0.5M HB)
8
Presently this formula is still used, due to its simplicity, by the ORC Manager for what is called the measured area, written also on the certificate
 39

is calculated to define the planform shape of the mainsail:

upper 3/4 area
0.375·P ·M QW 1
ROACH = (5.3)
0.844
The roach is calculated in the upper 3/4 part of the mainsail to avoid any influence of E (that is not measured on the
sail). The upper 3/4 area of the mainsail is calculated as follows:
P
U pper 3/4 area = · (M QW + 2M HW + 1.5M T W + M U W + 0.5M HB) (5.4)
8
A roach value of zero corresponds to a main with triangular 3/4 upper part. Negative roaches are accounted as zero.
A value greater than this indicates a degree of “big headedness”7 . The constant 0.844 is introduced to normalize the
roach measurement with the roach measured in wind tunnel based on P · E/2 triangle.

M AINSAIL C OEFFICIENTS
The mainsail may have either of two coefficient sets as shown in Table 5.1, the standard mainsail and one based
on having no adjustable check stays. The “simple” main without checkstays is characterized by a reduced maximum
available Lift Coefficient resulting from the inability to increase sail camber in light airs through the use of check
stays, as shown in Figure 5.6 .
Nomenclature:
kpm = two dimensional quadratic viscous drag coefficient
beta = Apparent wind angle (deg)
CD = Drag Coefficient
CL = Lift Coefficient

MAINSAIL
kpmm 0.01379
0 7 9 12 28 60 90 120 150 180
cdnc-CDlow 0.04310 0.02586 0.02328 0.02328 0.03259 0.11302 0.38250 0.96888 1.31578 1.34483
clnc-CLlow 0.00000 0.86207 1.05172 1.16379 1.34698 1.35345 1.26724 0.93103 0.38793 -0.11207
cdyc-CDhi 0.03448 0.01724 0.01466 0.01466 0.02586 0.11302 0.38250 0.96888 1.31578 1.34483
clyc-CLhi 0.00000 0.94828 1.13793 1.25000 1.42681 1.38319 1.26724 0.93103 0.38793 -0.11207

TABLE 5.1: Mainsail force coefficients

The low set of lift and drag coefficients (CLlow ) is used when there is neither a backstay nor a pair of running
backstays or in case of one pair of running backstays only. With two or more backstays (regardless of type) the high
set of coefficients (CLhigh ) is applied. Table 5.2 shows the matrix of rated rigging arrangements and corresponding
main sail force coefficient sets.
L = Low Lift associated with low mainsail adjustability.
H = High Lift associated with increased mast bend control.
M = intermediate coefficient set depending on rig fractionality.
In the case of a backstay being fitted but without running backstays, a fractionality coefficient fCoef is derived which
controls the effect of the backstay on the mainsail shape. This is shown diagrammatically in Figure 5.7.
s  ✓ ✓ ◆◆
⇡ 1
fcoef = sin · min 0.3; max 0; 1 (5.5)
0.6 F ractionality

For the configuration with one pair of backstays only, a medium level set of coefficients is calculated:
✓ ◆
fcoef fcoef
Cmedium = Clow · 1 + Chigh · (5.6)
2 2
 40

Mainsail coefficients
1.60

1.40

1.20
cd0-mnc
1.00
cl-mnc
0.80

CD0, CL
cd0-myc
0.60 cl-myc

0.40

0.20

0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
-0.20
beta (deg) - apparent wind angle

F IGURE 5.6: Alternative Mainsail force coefficients

TABLE 5.2: Application of Alternative Coefficient sets for Mainsails

F IGURE 5.7: Fractionality Coefficient

 41

F IGURE 5.8: shadow effect of the mast portion above

the hounds

M AST SHADOW EFFECT

In 2016 it has been introduced (better, re-introduced, because the very same effect was modeled by ITC experts
many years ago) a model taking into account the shadow effect of the mast portion above the hounds on the mainsail.
The effect is taken into account by calculating the portion of mainsail that is included in a strip wide 1.5 the average
mast diameter 0.5(M DL + M DT ) calculated at that height. That portion of area is subtracted to the mainsail area.

L OW TECHNOLOGY SAIL CLOTH

When the sails are made of low technology material, as woven polyester sail cloth, a credit is applied to the
mainsail coefficients, by slightly modifying both drag and lift coefficients by the following amounts: The credit has

0 7 9 12 28 60 90 120 150 180

dcd 0.0028 0.0028 0.0028 0.0028 0.0028 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
dcl 0.0000 0.0284 0.0284 0.0284 0.0284 0.0085 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

TABLE 5.3: Mainsail low tech material credit

been reduced in 2016 to 33% of the 2015 credit.

C ENTRE OF E FFORT (CE) CALCULATION

The mainsail centre of effort is calculated as the centroid of area of the projected mainsail trapezoid areas, plus a
constant, that is 0.024 · P . P
i Ai · zci
CEH = P + 0.024 · P (5.7)
i Ai
where Ai are the areas of trapezoids formed by the girths, portion of the luff and portion of the leech, and zci is
the height above the P base of the centroid of each trapezoid. The constant was chosen in the past, when it was
introduced the formulation based on trapezes areas, in order to maintain, for a mainsail with default girths, the value
of CEH = 0.39P , that was used before. Since 2011 the default girths were modified, so that with the present defaults
we have CEH = 0.40 · P .

5.2.2 J IB OR G ENOA
The jib also has 2 possible coefficient sets depending on whether the forestay can be adjusted whilst racing. If it
can be adjusted the jib has a higher maximum Lift Coefficient to reflect the fact that sail camber can be increased in
light airs by easing the head stay.
7 2013
 42

G ENOA A REA
Jib rated area is be the biggest area of any jib/genoa in the sail inventory calculated as follows:

Jib area = 0.1125HLU (1.445HLP + 2HQW + 2HHW + 1.5HT W + HU W + 0.5HHB) (5.8)

using the girths measured as per the ERS (ERS 2016). The above formula is the area of a genoa where the portion
above the HLP is divided into trapezes bounded by the girths and by portions of leech and luff, while the portion
below the HLP is estimated as a triangle, where the sides are the HLP , the foot, and a portion of the luff, equal to
0.1 · HLU . A default Jib Area is calculated from the following formula:
p
0.9 · IM 2 + J 2 · 0.9 · J
Jibdef ault = (5.9)
2
If Jib Area > Jibdef ault then rated area = actual area. If Jib Area < Jibdef ault then rated area = default area.

G ENOA A ERODYNAMIC C OEFFICIENTS

A similar approach to the mainsail is applied for the set of lift and drag coefficients of the jib, as shown in Table
5.4. The low set of coefficients is applied only when there is neither a backstay nor an adjustable forestay. If the
forestay is adjustable or in the case of one or more pairs of running backstays the high set of coefficients is used. The
coefficients are plotted in Figure 5.9.

JIB
kpj 0.016
7 15 20 27 50 60 100 150 180
cdjnb-CDlow 0.05000 0.03200 0.03100 0.03700 0.25000 0.35000 0.73000 0.95000 0.90000
cljnb-CLlow 0.00000 1.00000 1.37500 1.45000 1.45000 1.25000 0.40000 0.00000 -0.10000
cdjyb-CDhi 0.05000 0.03200 0.03100 0.03700 0.25000 0.35000 0.73000 0.95000 0.90000
cljyb-CLhi 0.00000 1.10000 1.47500 1.50000 1.45000 1.25000 0.40000 0.00000 -0.10000

TABLE 5.4: Genoa Force Coefficients

There is no diffencence in the coefficients for jibs and genoa with or without battens.

TABLE 5.5: Application of Alternative sets for jibs

Table 4 shows the matrix of rated rigging arrangements and corresponding jib/genoa sail force coefficient sets.

L = Low Lift associated with a non adjustable forestay which does not allow genoa camber to be
controlled.
H = High Lift associated with increased forestay control.
In case of a backstay being fitted but no running backstays, a medium level set of coefficients is calculated similar to
the procedure applied for the mainsail. The intermediate coefficients are derived with the same fractionality coefficient
fCoef given above by using the following formula:

Cmedium = Clow · fcoef + Chigh · (1 fcoef ) (5.10)

 43

Jib coefficients
1.60
cd0-jnb
1.40 cl-jnb
1.20 cd0-jyb
1.00 cl-jyb

CD0, CL
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
beta (deg) - apparent wind angle

F IGURE 5.9: Alternative Jib Force Coefficient

ROLLER F URLING G ENOA

For a roller furling genoa the lift coefficient is reduced by the following amount at each apparent wind angle. The
modified coefficients are applied only if the genoa has an LP > 110% of J, and there is only one headsail carried
onboard.
AWA 7.0 15.0 20.0 27.0 50.0 60.0 100.0 150.0 180. 0
Delta Cl 0.0 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0

L OW TECHNOLOGY SAIL CLOTH

As for the mainsail, also for the jib a credit for carrying only jibs made by low technology material is available. Its
value has been reduced in 2016 to 33% of 2015, and it’s equal to 33% of the Roller furling jib credit of par.(5.2.2).

P OLED OUT JIB

In 2011 the poled out jib coefficients were removed. For non-spinnaker handicaps on downwind courses the sail
coefficients are taken as those for an asymmetric spinnaker set on a pole with a spinnaker sail area equal to 1.064 times
the area of the largest rated headsail carried onboard.

N O S PINNAKER C ONFIGURATION
For the “No Spinnaker” configuration the yacht is run through the VPP with the normal jib force coefficients.
Also a sail set called “jib downwind” between True Wind Angles of 60 and 180 using the asymmetric on centerline
coefficients and a sail area equal to 1.064 times the jib area. For handicapping the best speed from each of the polar
curves is selected.

J IB C ENTRE OF E FFORT (CE) CALCULATION

The jib centre of effort is calculated as the centroid of area of the projected trapezoid areas, plus the triangular
portion below the LP G. P
i Ai · zci
CEH = P (5.11)
i Ai

5.2.3 S PINNAKERS
The following configurations can be handicapped:
 44

1. No spinnaker
2. Symmetric spinnaker on pole only
3. Asymmetric spinnaker tacked on CL
4. Asymmetric spinnaker on pole , asymmetric on CL and symmetric on pole

S PINNAKER A REA
The VPP and the sail areas published on the certificate are now actual sailcloth areas8 . The concept of a “rated sail
area” that reflects different types of sail plan has been replaced by more sophisticated force coefficient sets.
SL · (SF L + 4 · SHW )
Spinnaker area = (5.12)
6
For asymmetric spinnakers and code zero’s, SL = (SLU + SLE)/2.
A default spinnaker area is calculated. From 2011 onwards if the measured area is less than the default area the
default spinnaker area is used in the VPP calculation. Default (minimum) values for symmetric spinnakers:
p
SLdef ault = 0.95 · ISP 2 + J 2 (5.13)
SF Ldef ault = 1.8 · max(SP L, J) (5.14)
SHWdef ault = 0.75 · SF Ldef ault (5.15)

If SP L is not recorded it will be set SP L = J

For the asymmetric spinnaker:
p
SLdef ault = 0.95 · ISP 2 + J 2 (5.16)
SF Ldef ault = max(1.8 · SP L, 1.8 · J, 1.6 · T P S) (5.17)
SHWdef ault = 0.75 · SF Ldef ault (5.18)

In the case that the configuration is only asymmetric on CL and T P S is not recorded it will be set T P S = J + SF J.
If there is no spinnaker aboard the boat will be rated as explained above in 5.2.2.

F ORCE C OEFFICIENTS (2011, 2016)

kpss 0.02639
28 41 50 60 67 75 100 115 130 150 170 180
cdss1 0.19152 0.28152 0.35496 0.43920 0.48960 0.53280 0.61920 0.65880 0.67320 0.67320 0.67320 0.67320
clss1 -0.02484 0.69437 0.90677 1.04400 1.08000 1.08000 0.95760 0.81360 0.61200 0.32400 0.10800 0.00000

TABLE 5.6: Symmetric Spinnaker Force Coefficients

kpasc 0.02648
28 41 50 60 67 75 100 115 130 150 170 180
cdasc1 0.16215 0.25184 0.32502 0.40897 0.45920 0.50225 0.57400 0.59552 0.50225 0.38027 0.30852 0.28700
clasc1 0.01830 0.73500 0.94666 1.08342 1.10494 1.09059 0.94709 0.75337 0.32287 0.03587 0.00000 0.00000

TABLE 5.7: Asymmetric Spinnaker tacked on centreline Force Coefficients

kpasp 0.02648
28 41 50 60 67 75 100 115 130 150 170 180
cdasp1 0.16215 0.25184 0.32502 0.40897 0.45920 0.50225 0.59839 0.65292 0.67086 0.67086 0.67086 0.67086
clasp1 0.01830 0.73500 0.94666 1.08342 1.10494 1.09059 0.95427 0.81077 0.60987 0.32287 0.10762 0.00000

TABLE 5.8: Asymmetric Spinnaker tacked on a pole Force Coefficients

The Spinnaker Coefficients are plotted in Figure 5.10.

8 2008 change
 45

Spinnaker coefficients
1.20
cd0-ss
1.00 cl-ss
cd0-asc
0.80
cl-asc
0.60 cd0-asp
CD0, CL
cl-asp
0.40

0.20

0.00

-0.20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
beta (deg) - apparent wind angle

F IGURE 5.10: Spinnaker and Code zero Coefficients

R EDUCTION IN D RIVE F ORCE FROM LARGE SPINNAKERS IN LIGHT AIRS (S HAPE F UNCTION )
The SHAPE function9 was introduced some years ago as it is an observed effect that large spinnakers are particu-
larly inefficient in light airs. To address this “type-forming” towards smaller spinnakers, a power loss factor for larger
sails was developed so reducing the effective area of a spinnaker that is bigger than the “reference area”. The current
formulation was adopted in 2012 and it considers the space available for the spinnaker to be flown in, defined by ISPc,
J and pole type.
Features of the shape function:
• The reference area depends on whether a pole or a bowsprit configuration is used, due to the different space
available in each case;
• The shape function reference area has a head angle relationship as well as being related to ISP and TPS in order
to bring in the effect of gravity making it harder to fly a lower aspect ratio sail;
• The shape function relates to apparent wind speed rather than true;
• The ISP used by the reference area is the full ISP for pole boats at AW A < 80 , blending to ISPc at AW A >
90 , in order to simulate the practice of tacking very light wind sails onto a short bowsprit length to gain more
projected area. ISP for sprit boats is the full ISP throughout the range of AWA.
This is the SHAPE function formulation:
SHAP E = 1 + W ind Speed Range M ultiplier ⇤ (Shape f actor 1)
W ind Speed range M ultiplier = 1 if AW S < 5, 0 if AW S > 6
(the M ultiplier = 1 for AW S < 5, 0 for AW S > 6, (5.19)
and interpolates between)
Shape f actor = 1 3 · (Ref Area/Area actual 1)2 with 0.8 < Shape f actor < 1.0
Area actual = max(SP I AREA, Ref Area)
Ref Area = 1.04625 ⇤ ISP c · SP Lc/Head Angle Corrector
Head Angle Corrector = arctan(2.5 · (SP L; T P S)/ISP c) (5.20)
ISP c = ISP ( for sprit) or ISP 0.16 · LSM 1 (for poles)
(5.21)
The formulation ensures that the “rated area” increases slightly with the increase of TPS, even in 5 kts AWS, and the
reference area is more appropriate to a small sail for the limited space and AWA. Being related to AWS, it is physically
9 2011 & 2012
 46

realistic and should mean that for a light boat the effect disappears at about 10kts TWS, while for a 37’ heavy cruiser-
racer the effect tapers down at 12 kts TWS with the transition represented in Figure 5.11. For spinnaker area below
default area, no further reductions will be made, while the maximum reduction will be limited to 75% of measured
area.

F IGURE 5.11: Large Spinnakers Force Correction in light winds

S PINNAKER C ENTRE OF EFFORT HEIGHT

The centre of effort height is 0.565 · ISP above the base of I.

S PINNAKER J IB C ROSSOVER (2011, 2016)

The 2011 and 2016 modifications to the spinnaker coefficients were largely driven by the desire to “force” the VPP
to adopt crossover points from spinnaker to jib at apparent wind angles that more closely reflect the angles observed
whilst sailing.
Moreover, in 2014 the maximum heel angle allowed under spinnaker was reduced from about 26.5 to about 21.5 de-
grees. Numbers are approximated because when approaching the limit value a ‘soft’ boundary is modeled in terms of a
rapidly increasing resistance. The minimum REEF factor allowed was fixed at: 0.85·Spin Area/Def ault Spin Area.

5.2.4 S PINNAKER TACK POSITION Power F UNCTION

In order to more equitably handicap the influence of increasing the length of the spinnaker pole or bowsprit relative
to the spinnaker, gennaker and Code zero mid-girth a power function was introduced to the mainsail blanketing
algorithm as shown in the equation below.
The power calculation is triggered by the value of the term f sp. If this is less than 0.0 then the spinnaker pole is
considered longer than the norm and the power function increases above 1.0.
The Power Function since 2013 has an apparent wind angle linkage, so that the effective reference area is essen-
tially similar to what would be ideal for the wind angle considered. This addresses several handicapping issues: deep
running symmetrical sails on heavy boats now need to be bigger relative to the space available than asymmetrical sails
on lighter boats that sail higher angles in order to collect the same Power Function credits.
First, bowsprits are considered shorter than poles (a reduction factor of 0.9 is applied to TPS) while a correction of
height available is taken into account for poles as 0.16*LSM1, considering that poles are set higher than the bowsprit.
 47

The power formulation10 is:

P ower = 1.00 + |f sp|1.5 , but not to exceed 1.28

f sp = min((1 1.488 · SP Lc/(SP I AREA/(ISP c · AW Af act)) 0.17, 0)
SP Lc = SP L or 0.9 · T P S
ISP c = ISP ( for sprit) or ISP 0.16 · LSM 1 (for poles)
0.1274
AW Af act = 0.5196 · AW A if AW A > 28 , 0.794 if AW A < 28
CE height = 0.517 · ISP c + 0.16 · LSM 1 for poles or 0.517 · ISP c for sprits (5.22)

In 2014 power function was fine tuned: the upper last 5% of mast height is for free in ISP for the sake of power
function calculation: ISP c = min(ISP c, 0.95 · (P + BAS)).
The f sp formulation includes ISP and TPS, so in effect it has dimensions of an area. The AWA factor is a
modification on this area to consider a boat type that needs to sail at 175 degrees and can fill the available space with a
larger spinnaker more effectively than a boat that needs to sail at 100 degrees that would not benefit from such a large
spinnaker. So if a typical A1 area is set at a typical A1 angle, it should reach a similar power factor to a typical S4 or
A4 area set at their typically-wider angles. The “Power” function does not credit poles or bowsprits shorter than the
norm, and the maximum power increment is 20% above the base level.
In order to calculate the force from the spinnaker/gennaker the sail area is multiplied by the Power function.

5.2.5 H EADSAILS SET FLYING

headsail set flying coefficients

cl_50
1.6 cd0_50
cl_60
cd0_60
cl_68
cd0_68
1.2
cl_75
cd0_75
cl_81
cd0_81
0.8 cl_85
CL, CD0

cd0_85

0.4

0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

-0.4
AWA

F IGURE 5.12: Aero coefficients of flying headsail

Since 2014 the former code0 has been renamed as headsail set flying, and some modifications have been introduced
to the rules, affecting the way its area is computed, and its performances. The flying headsail area is now measured
similarly to the jib and genoa (which are headsails too, but not set flying). In 2020 the concept of headsail set flying
has been further refined and modified, with important changes in the approach. The reason for changing approach was
the advent of cableless sails, which made useless the test for identifying a loose-luffed or a tight luff sails.
Regarding the aerodynamic coefficients, it has been acknowledged that there is a big variety of flying headsails:
they could be conceived for close reaching and upwind sailing similarly to a genoa or jib, or they can be designed
to give their maximum performance at wider angles. The driver of the sail performances with wind angle has been
identified in the ratio of the half width to the LP width, HHW/HLP . Therefore, a matrix of aerodynamic coefficients
CL, CD0 has been developed for six different ratios HHW/HLP , ranging from the jib at 50% up to the spinnaker at
10 2013
 48

85%. Moreover, there is a smooth transition in the remaining aerodynamic variables, like CEH and effective height,
from a treatment that is equal to that of a jib for sails with 50% of ratio, to one that is equal to a spinnaker for sails
with ratio equal to 85%. For a specific sail, the set of coefficients is selected by interrogating the above matrix, and
finding the correct set by interpolation whenever the ratio HHW/HLP does not coincide with one of the six.
For the above reasons, being each flying headsail different, there is a VPP run for each one of these, contrary to
the approach used for jibs and spinnakers, where only the largest of each type is used. Moreover, with every sail run,
very little depowering is allowed, with a minimum reef equal to 0.91.
Another feature to be noted is that the set of coefficients is defined for ratios HHW/HLP up to 85%. This is
already in the spinnaker region. When an spinnaker has a ratio SHW/SF L smaller than 85%, beside the usual run
with the spinnaker coefficients, also a run with the headsail set flying coefficients is performed. The transformation
from SHW/SF L ratio to HHW/HLP is carried using the position HHW/HLP = SHW/SF L. Such approach
ensures that there is no jump in performances between a sail declared as a spinnaker with SHW/SF L = 0.751 and
the same sail declared as an headsail set flying with HHW/HLP = 0.749.

A ERO COEFFICIENTS

AWA cl_50 cd0_50 cl_60 cd0_60 cl_68 cd0_68 cl_75 cd0_75 cl_81 cd0_81 cl_85 cd0_85 kcl kcd
7 0.0000 0.0500 0.0000 0.0500 0.0000 0.0498 0.0000 0.0498 -0.1940 0.0485 -0.3800 0.0475 1.000 0.830
15 1.1000 0.0320 0.9000 0.0370 0.6300 0.0440 0.3500 0.0500 -0.0776 0.0679 -0.3135 0.0808 1.028 0.830
20 1.4750 0.0310 1.2700 0.0350 0.9600 0.0450 0.6200 0.0550 0.1649 0.0873 -0.2470 0.1045 1.040 0.830
27 1.5000 0.0370 1.5000 0.0450 1.3150 0.0600 0.9800 0.0770 0.6014 0.1261 -0.0285 0.1473 1.055 0.830
35 1.5100 0.0650 1.6500 0.0750 1.4400 0.0950 1.1500 0.1300 0.9021 0.1843 0.4275 0.1995 1.060 0.830
41 1.4900 0.1000 1.6840 0.1050 1.4750 0.1350 1.2200 0.1700 1.0282 0.2231 0.6983 0.2392 1.060 0.880
45 1.4750 0.1450 1.6600 0.1400 1.4800 0.1650 1.2650 0.2000 1.0816 0.2522 0.8028 0.2660 1.058 0.880
50 1.4500 0.2200 1.5300 0.1850 1.4600 0.2050 1.3000 0.2400 1.1204 0.2910 0.8993 0.3088 1.056 0.880
53 1.4100 0.2650 1.4600 0.2150 1.4500 0.2350 1.3100 0.2650 1.1349 0.3153 0.9500 0.3325 1.055 0.880
60 1.2500 0.3500 1.3000 0.2800 1.4000 0.2950 1.3000 0.3200 1.1446 0.3686 1.0292 0.3885 1.055 0.930
67 1.0800 0.4300 1.1400 0.3350 1.2650 0.3550 1.2700 0.3850 1.1349 0.4220 1.0497 0.4362 1.055 0.970
70 1.0000 0.4600 1.0700 0.3600 1.2000 0.3800 1.2550 0.4100 1.1252 0.4414 1.0498 0.4513 1.055 0.980
75 0.8900 0.5100 0.9700 0.3950 1.0900 0.4150 1.2050 0.4500 1.1010 0.4656 1.0361 0.4771 1.052 0.990
80 0.7900 0.5600 0.8700 0.4300 0.9950 0.4550 1.1350 0.4800 1.0719 0.4899 1.0165 0.4940 1.049 0.994
90 0.5900 0.6500 0.7000 0.5000 0.8100 0.5150 0.9600 0.5300 1.0088 0.5287 0.9785 0.5225 1.040 0.998
100 0.3800 0.6643 0.5130 0.5223 0.6080 0.5223 0.7410 0.5269 0.8701 0.5448 0.8997 0.5453 1.033 1.000
115 0.1700 0.6560 0.2805 0.5120 0.3570 0.5103 0.4505 0.5022 0.5622 0.5429 0.7157 0.5653 1.027 1.000
120 0.1245 0.6516 0.2241 0.5070 0.2905 0.5040 0.3569 0.4938 0.4502 0.5369 0.5985 0.5605 1.025 1.000
130 0.0720 0.6388 0.1360 0.4978 0.1760 0.4864 0.2000 0.4712 0.2444 0.4951 0.3067 0.4771 1.015 1.000
150 0.0000 0.6142 0.0240 0.4736 0.0240 0.4514 0.0320 0.4218 0.0349 0.3966 0.0342 0.3613 1.000 1.000
170 -0.0560 0.5920 -0.0240 0.4514 -0.0120 0.3922 -0.0060 0.3515 0.0000 0.3291 0.0000 0.2931 1.000 1.000
180 -0.080 0.5846 -0.0429 0.4440 -0.0216 0.3700 !test
-0.0108
1.01d 0.3219
!test 1.01d
0.0000 0.3038 0.0000 0.2727 1.000 1.000

TABLE 5.9: Aero coefficients of flying headsails. The names carry a number corresponding to the HHW/HLP ratio.
The two rightmost columns are the multipliers of CL and CD for battened sail

A REA CALCULATION AND LEGACY CONVERSION

The area formula for flying headsail is the same as for jibs/genoa (now all called headsails):

Area = 0.1125 · HLU (1.4444444HLP + 2HQW + 2HHW + 1.5HT W + HU W + 0.5HHB) (5.23)

The old code0s area was based on spinnaker formula:

0.5(SLU + SLE)(SF L + 4SHW )

Area old = (5.24)
6
During the transition 2013-2014 for legacy code0s a conversion formula that preserves HHW/HLP = SHW/SF L
has been adopted. This formulation derives some virtual girths, based on the old spinnaker-like measures SHW ,
SF L, SLU , and SLE. Moreover, a factor is applied to the old area calculation, in order to reproduce the same
performances with the new approach.
 49

TRANSITION 2013-2014 formulas

Area = 0.94 ⇤ A old
M F R = SHW/SF L
HLU = SLU
HHW = M F R ⇤ HLP
HHB = 0.05 ⇤ HLP
HU W = 0.25 ⇤ HHW + 0.75 ⇤ HHB
HT W = 0.5 ⇤ (HHB + HHW )
HQW = 0.5 ⇤ (HLP + HHW )
with above relations it results, after simplifications:
HLP = Area/[0.1125 ⇤ HLU ⇤ (2.544444 + 4 ⇤ M F R)]

D EFAULT AREA
The headsail set flying has a default area defined as the area of the foretriangle defined by T P S and ISP :
✓ ◆
ISPn SHW
area def ault = · 4 · T P Sn · + T P Sn (5.25)
6 SF L

A flying headsail is not taken into account by the VPP if it is declared to be flown internal to the forestay.

5.3 W INDAGE F ORCES

The windage drag is incorporated into the force balance by adding to the aerodynamic drag a windage drag de-
termined from equation 5.26. Each of the (n) windage elements is ascribed its own dynamic head (qn ) based on an
apparent wind velocity appropriate to its centre of effort height (ZCE), reference area (Aref ) and drag coefficient
(Cd).
Xn
DW IN DAGE = qn · Aref · Cdn (5.26)
1

The windage drag for each element is calculated at apparent wind angles of 0 and 90 degrees, while at intermediate
angles the drag coefficient is calculated as

Cd = [Cdf ront · Af ront · cos sgn(90 ) + Cdside · Aside · sin ]/Aref (5.27)

being the local apparent wind angle at the center of effort height of the selected windage element. The calculation of
Centre of Effort Height (ZCE), Drag Coefficient (Cd0) and reference area (AREF ) at apparent wind angles of 0 and
90 degrees is shown in the table 5.10 below, the values for 180 degrees are the same as those for the headwind case. In
table 5.10 rf m is the amount of mainsail reefing (see sec.5.1.3), while ehm is the static effective height, calculated as
ehm = max(P · tf + BAS, I, ISP ), where tf = 0.16Zm /P + 0.94, Zm being the vertical distance of the centroid
of mainsail area measured from the boom.
The hull side area (HSA0 ), at zero heel is:
Z n
HSA0 = F reeboard dl = f b · LOA (5.28)
0
RL
where n = number of measurement stations, and f b is the average freeboard with boat upright, f b = 1/LOA 0 f reeboard dl.
In 2017 the calculation of the heeled hull side area has been refined: the old formulation took into account an
increase due to heel based on a simple sin formula:

HSA = HSA0 + 0.75 · IM SB/2 · sin · LOA (5.29)

The new formulation is

HSA = f b · LOA (5.30)
where f b is the calculated average freeboard when the boat is heeled at angle . This formulation leads to more pre-
cise results in particular for light and wide yachts, where the old formulation underestimated the heeled hull windage
area.
 50

Apparent. Wind Angle 0

WINDAGE ELEMENT ZCE Cd AREF
HULL 0.66(FBAV+Bsin ) 0.816 FBAV*B
MAST-Sail HBI+EHM*rfm/2 0.4a Front Area
MAST-Bare HBI+EHM*(1-rfm)/2 0.8a Front Area
RIGGING HBI+I/2 1.0b I*f(Default Rigging wt.)
Non round rigging11 HBI+I/2 0.25b I*f(Default Rigging wt.)
CREW HBI+0.5+B/2 sin 1.08 0.25
Apparent. Wind Angle 90
WINDAGE ELEMENT ZCE Cd AREF
HULL 0.66(FBAV+Bsin ) 0.816 f (HSA0 , )
MAST-Sail HBI+EHM*rfm/2 0.6a Side Area
MAST-Bare HBI+EHM*(1-rfm)/2 0.8a Side Area
RIGGING HBI+I/2 1.0b I*f(Default Rigging wt.)
CREW HBI+0.5+B/2sin 1.08 0.5*Mvblcrew
a modified by EDM factor for non standard mast section aspect ratio.
b plus spreader factor = 0.2

TABLE 5.10: Windage force model

Regarding the mast windage, there is a limit in the mast longitudinal diameter:
✓ ◆0.25
RM @25
M DLmax = 0.036 · IG · (5.31)
25

when the limit is exceeded, the excess is added to the mainsail girths and headboard.
Concerning the windage of the crew, since 2019 it is computed basing the drag on the default crew weight, and no
more on the declared crew weight.

5.3.1 R IGGING
The drag of the rigging wire is calculated based on the default rigging weight. The square root converts wire
cross-sectional area to wire diameter, and the factor of 2 means four stays.
p
Diameter of Rigging wire = 2 (4 · W T Def ault/I/Steel density/⇡) (5.32)
Area Rigging W ire windage = I · Diameter of Rigging wire (5.33)
Cd0 Rigging wire = Cd Rigging W ire · (1 + spreader F actor windage) (5.34)

S PREADERS
If the rig has bona-fide spreaders their drag is added in as a multiplier as shown in equation 5.34, where
spreader F actor windage is set to 0.2.

5.4 T OTAL A ERODYNAMIC L IFT AND D RAG

The next phase is to combine the individual sail’s characteristics to produce a set of lift and drag coefficients that
describe the aerodynamic behavior of the entire rig.
This is accomplished by a weighed superposition of the individual sail force coefficients at each apparent wind
angle. This process is described in more detail in section 5.4.1.
The weight given to each sail’s coefficients during this process is proportional to the product of its area and the
“blanketing” factor, which modifies the individual sails coefficients depending on the apparent wind angle. After
summing the weighted coefficients the total is normalized with respect to the reference sail area (Aref ).
When calculating the collective vertical centre of force the weight given to each sail’s contribution is proportional
to the product of the area, the blanketing factor, and the total force coefficient.
 51

The induced drag coefficient is calculated from knowledge of the effective rig height. hef f

CL2 · Aref
CDI = (5.35)
⇡ · hef f 2
The effective rig height is calculated from the sail plan geometry at each iteration of the VPP through the aerodynamic
force calculation loop.
The effective rig height is a function of:

• the mainsail roach

• the relative positions of the mainsail head and the jib head expressed as “fractionality” and
• the overlap of the headsail
• the depowering

5.4.1 L IFT AND D RAG OF COMPLETE SAIL SET

The aggregate maximum lift and linear parasite drag coefficients are the sum of each sail component’s contribution
normalized by reference area, and modified by a blanketing function bki :
X Ai
CLmax = CLmaxi · bki · (5.36)
Aref
X Ai
CD0max = Cd0maxi · bki · (5.37)
Aref
(5.38)

A typical form of the collective sail force coefficients is shown in Figure 5.13. The “Drag” Curve is the parasitic drag
contribution, and the Total Drag curve includes the induced drag contribution.

F IGURE 5.13: Typical From of “Collective” Upwind Sail Force Coefficients

 52

5.4.2 C ENTER OF E FFORT H EIGHT

Center of effort height Zce is evaluated by weighting each sail’s individual center of effort height by its area and
partial force coefficient (comprised of lift and linear component of parasitic drag):
P p
Zcei · CLmax2i + CD0max2i · bki · Ai
Zce = p (5.39)
Aref · CLmax2 + Cd0max2

J IB T WIST (2012)
The centre of effort height (Zce ) of the total sailplan is reduced linearly with the jib foot (f tj) parameter:

Zce = Zce |f tj=1 delta CEH (5.40)

Zce is lowered when the jib area starts to be reduced (f tj = 1, or REEF = 1), and is lowered to a maximum value
of 5% of IG when the jib area is reduced to its minimum value (f tj = 0, which means REEF = 0.5).

delta CEH = (1 f tj) · 0.05 · IG ; 0  f tj  1 (5.41)

It has to be noted that this reduction of center of effort height is different from the one called twist function (5.4.4):
the former is related to the jib foot reduction, that is incorporated in the REEF parameter (from 1.0 to 0.5), while the
latter in related to the F LAT parameter.

5.4.3 I NDUCED D RAG

In order to calculate the induced drag component an efficiency coefficient is derived. The efficiency coefficient is
such that when multiplied by the collective lift coefficient squared it yields the collective induced drag of the sails.
The efficiency coefficient is comprised of 2 parts;
• The 2 dimensional part describing the increase of viscous drag that occurs as the sail produces more lift,
• and the “induced drag” which depends on the effective rig height.

Q UADRATIC PARASITE D RAG

The viscous drag of the sails varies according to the square of the lift coefficient. This quadratic parasite drag
coefficient KP P is the sums of the individual sails contributions:
P
KP Pi · CLmax2i · bki · Ai
KP P = (5.42)
Aref · CLmax2

E FFECTIVE RIG HEIGHT

Three parameters - fractionality, overlap and roach- are determined in order to calculate the Effective rig height
which determines the induced drag of the sails.

Fractionality = Icurrent /(Pcurrent + BAS)

Overlap = LP Gcurrent /J
Roach = see eq. (5.3)
The influence of sail plan geometry is first calculated to derive a corrected effective span coefficient.

ef f span corr = 1.1 + 0.08 · (Roach 0.2) + 0.5 · (0.68 + 0.31 · f ractionality + 0.075 · overlap 1.1) (5.43)

The effective span coefficient is approximately 1.10 with a masthead rig (f ractionality = 1.0), 150% overlap genoa
and a roach of 0.2.
The effective span coefficient is then further modified to reflect the fact that as the sails are eased at wider apparent
wind angles the effective span is reduced as the sealing of the jib and the hull is lost and the sail interactions become
less favourable. With jib we have:

chef fupwind = ef f span corr · khef f (5.44)

 53
0 10 20 30

kheff
1.3

1.2
kheff
1.1

kheff
0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
AWA (deg)

F IGURE 5.14: Variation of Effective Span Factor with Apparent wind angle

The term khef f varies from 1.22 at 20 degrees to 0.80 as the apparent wind angle widens from 20 to 80 degrees
(Figure 5.14):
With spinnaker the effective height calculation is simpler, being independent of the apparent wind angle and on
the foresail geometry:
1
chef fdownwind = hef f height max spi · reef (5.45)
bmax
where

hef f height max spi = max(P · tf + BAS + HBI, P Y · tf y + HBIY )

0.16(CEHmain 0.024)
tf = + 0.94
P
0.16(CEHmiz 0.024)
tf y = + 0.94
PY
Finally the effective height heff is calculated from the product of cheff and the the highest point of the sail plan b
above the water surface. This is either the mainsail head (P + BAS) or jib head (IG). If the jib head is higher than
the mainsail head then the average is taken.

hef f = chef f · (b + HBI) (5.46)

The efficiency coefficient CE is comprised of the induced drag coefficient and the parasitic drag coefficient that is
proportional to lift squared.
Aref
CE = KP P + (5.47)
⇡ · hef f 2
where the reference area is the total sail area. Finally at each apparent wind angle the total lift and drag coefficient for
the sails can be calculated from the lift, and drag coefficients and the “efficiency coefficient” (CE).

CDsailset = CD0max · [F LAT · fcdmult · f cdj + (1 f cdj)] + CE · CLmax2 · F LAT 2 · fcdmult(5.48)

CLsailset = F LAT · CLmax (5.49)

where
bkjib · CD0maxjib · Ajib
f cdj =
CD0max · Atot
is the fraction of parasitic drag due to the jib. The FLAT parameter characterizes a reduction in sail camber such that
the lift is proportionally reduced from the maximum lift available. Thus flat = 0.9 means 90% of the maximum lift is
being used.
What this means in practice is shown in Figure 5.15, in “full power” conditions (FLAT=1) the available aerody-
namic force is determined by the maximum Cl and associated Cd. The total Cd at max Cl is affected by Cdp and
by the effective rig height that determines the induced drag component. When the sails are flattened to reduce the
 54

F IGURE 5.15: Variation of Drag Coefficient with Flat parameter (left), modification of the linear depowering scheme,
fcdmult , (right)

total force, and therefore the heeling moment, it does so along the Cd vs. Cl2 line shown in Figure 5.15. In 2014,
the so called depowering curve, Cd vs. Cl2 of the sailplan was modified in order to follow the non linearities found
in the wind tunnel (and in the reality!): both at full power and when the sail are well depowerd (that is when the flat
parameter is below 0.8), an increase of the drag is found compared to the linear behavior (see Figure 5.15, the blue line
represents the linear model, red line the modified). For doing this, a multiplier fcdmult is applied to the drag coefficient
of the sailplan, which depends on the position along the depowering curve, in other words on the flat parameter:
Flat 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
fcdmult 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.055 1.048 1.035 1.020 1.008 1.002 1.000 1.004 1.06

Therefore the non linear relation Cd Cl2 (red line in figure 5.15, right) is obtained.

5.4.4 T WIST F UNCTION

1.1

1
Centre of Effort Factor

0.9

0.8 FLAT = 1.0

FLAT = 0.75
0.7
FLAT = 0.5

0.6
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Fractionality

F IGURE 5.16: Twist Function

In order to reflect the fact that as sails are de-powered the centre of effort height moves lower a “twist function” was
introduced, relating the center of effort height to the amount of F LAT used. The extent of the centre of effort lowering
was determined from wind tunnel test results, which showed that this effect was proportional to the fractionality
I/(P + BAS) ratio.

ZCE = ZCE |F LAT =1 · [1 0.203 · (1 f lat) 0.451 · (1 f lat) · (1 f rac)] (5.50)

 55

To reflect the ability of fractionally rigged boats to de-power more readily than masthead rigged boats the twist function
links the vertical centre of effort position to the flat parameter.
Fractional rigged boats more lowering of the centre of effort position as the FLAT parameter reduces is shown in
Figure 5.16.

5.5 R ESOLUTION OF F ORCES

Throughout the evolution of the VPP there has been a constant trend that the VPP appears to overstate the value of
high righting moment. This has been particularly noticeable in light airs on windward/leeward courses, i.e. Mediter-
ranean conditions.
Two strategies have been adopted in the aerodynamic force model to overcome this, the P HI U P , parameter (see
below) and the twist function (see par.5.4.4 )

5.5.1 P HI U P
In the VPP as the yacht heels the apparent wind angle seen by the sails reduces, but on the water the crew have
traveler and jib lead controls that permit adjustment of angle of attack.
To reflect this the P HI U P function modifies the heel angle that is used in the calculation of the apparent wind
angle at which the collective curves of lift and drag coefficient are evaluated. In 2018 the effect of this function has
been detuned, setting the heel angle in the aerodynamic model as the average of the physical angle and the below
calculated phi up.
✓ ◆2
phi up = 10 · (5.51)
30

phi up
0 0.0
10 1.1
20 4.4

TABLE 5.11: Calculated P HI U P values

5.5.2 T HRUST AND H EELING F ORCE

In order to determine the total thrust and heeling moment the aerodynamic forces are resolved into two orthogonal
components; along the yachts track (CR) and perpendicular to the mast plane (CH). The windage forces are then
added to these components.
The collective lift and drag forces from aerodynamic model are resolved as follows:
CR = CL sin CD cos (5.52)
CH = CL cos + CD sin (5.53)
The coefficients are translated into forces:
1
F RA B4 W indage = CR · ⇢Va2 · Aref (5.54)
2
1
F HA B4 W indage = CH · ⇢Va2 · Aref (5.55)
2
Where:
⇢ = air density
Va = apparent wind speed
A = reference sail area
The total aerodynamic force (F RA) and the heeling force (F HA) are then calculated by adding the windage compo-
nents:
F RA = F RA B4 W indage + F RA hull + F RA mast + F RA Rigging W ire + F RA Crew (5.56)
F HA = F HA B4 W indage + F HA hull + F HA mast + F HA Rigging W ire + F HA Crew (5.57)
 56

5.5.3 A ERODYNAMIC HEELING M OMENT

The aerodynamic heeling moment is the sum of the sail heeling moment (HM A B4 W indage) and the heeling
moment from the windage elements.

HM A = HM A B4 W indage + HM A hull + HM A mast + HM A Rigging W ire + HM A Crew (5.58)

The sail heeling moment is the product of the heeling force (CH) and the moment arm above the waterline.
1 2
HM A B4 W indage = ⇢V · AREF · CH · (HBI + ZCE · REEF ) (5.59)
2 a

5.6 B LANKETING FUNCTIONS

5.6.1 M AINSAIL
8
< 1 ✓ if  90
bk( ) = h i3 ◆
135 135
: 1 0.5 · fm 1 1.5 · 45 0.5 · 45 if > 90

where
1.16 · Amiz staysail
fm =
Amain
Clearly fm = 0 for sloops or for a boat without a mizzen staysail. The factor 1.16 is a backward compatibility
multiplier, that originated when the internal vpp mainsail area was assumed equal to the actual rated area, and no more
that same area divided by 1.16 (which was a number probably related to the average roach used many years ago).

5.6.2 J IB
⇢
1 if  135
bk( ) = 135
1 fj 45 if > 135
where
Ajib min(Ajib , Af ore )
fj =
Ajib

5.6.3 M IZZEN , J IB D OWNWIND , S PINNAKER

bk( ) = 1

5.6.4 M IZZEN S TAYSAIL

8  ⇣ ⌘3
>
> 1 fys 1 1.5 · 135
0.5 · 135
if 90
>
> 45 45
>
>
<
1 ⇣ if 90 > 60
bk( ) = ⌘2
>
> 60
>
> 1 15 if 60 > > 45
>
>
:
1 if  45
where
Amizzen
fys =
1.16 · Amiz staysail
6 H YDRODYNAMIC F ORCES

The VPP hydrodynamic force model divides the drag into two sources; viscous or skin friction drag arising from
the flow of the water over the immersed surface, and residuary or wave making drag arising from the creation of
surface waves.
The VPP can make performance predictions not only for conventional fin keel yachts, but also water ballasted and
canting keel yachts that have asymmetric rudder and keel configurations. Whilst the estimate of performance for these
yachts is based on plausible physics, there has been a deliberate policy not to reach a situation where these types of
yachts are favored.
During 2012 the hydrodynamic resistance formulation underwent a significant revision. This resulted in deriving
a new Rr formulation based only on BTR and LVR using a methodology to assess for each Froude number (Fn) the
Rr variation related to a base boat having LVR = BTR = 6. The Length model was also modified to more correctly
represent a dynamic length.
Also the viscous resistance formulation was modified to more sensibly capture the appropriate reference length of
contemporary canoe body shapes.

6.1 V ISCOUS R ESISTANCE

The total frictional resistance is the sum of the appendage and canoe body contribution.
DF RICT ION = RV C + RV A (6.1)

6.1.1 C ANOE BODY

The viscous resistance is calculated as1 :
1
RV C = · ⇢V 2 · Area · (Cf · f f ) (6.2)
2
where
ff = 1.05
0.066
Cf =
(log 10Re 2.03)2
0.85V · LSM 1
Re =
⌫
so for 2013 the friction line (Hughes in way of ITTC57), the form factor (1.05, it was 1.00), and the reference length
(0.85LSM 1 in way of 0.7LSM 1) were modified. ⌫ is the water kinematic viscosity, and V is the boat velocity.

6.1.2 A PPENDAGES
The currently implemented scheme divides each appendage into 5 segments as shown in Figure 6.1, and deter-
mines the viscous coefficient of resistance of each strip based on the local (strip specific) Reynolds Number and
thickness/chord (t/c) ratio.
The viscous resistance of each strip is then calculated from the product of the dynamic head, the local wetted
surface area and an appropriate skin friction resistance coefficient (Cf ). The determination of the appropriate Cf is
based on data presented in Fluid Dynamic Drag (Hoerner 1965). The calculation2 is based on 4 Reynolds Number
regimes, calculated for a flat plate and t/c ratios of 10 and 20%, as shown in Table 6.1. The coefficients have been
modified in 2020, because it was assessed that in terms of effects of thickness to chord ratio on the drag coefficient
the ORC coefficients were pessimistic for thin foils (tcr = 10%) and optimistic for thick foils (tcr = 20%). The new
coefficients are such that keels with tcr = 14% will see no change.
1 Major change 2013
2 Scheme devised by Karl Kirkman, Dave Greeley and Jim Teeters

57
 58

F IGURE 6.1: Stripwise segmentation of appendages

Reynolds 1000 · Cf
No. Flat plate t/c = 0.1 t/c = 0.2 bulb
1.000 · 103 44.56 61.00 66.00 79.89
3.162 · 103 24.85 41.00 45.00 59.29
1.000 · 104 13.86 28.30 31.50 44.00
3.162 · 104 7.73 19.70 22.00 32.66
1.000 · 105 4.95 10.40 12.30 16.54
3.162 · 105 3.46 4.80 5.80 6.51
1.000 · 106 3.00 3.51 4.17 4.49
2.512 · 106 3.00 3.51 4.17 4.49
6.310 · 106 3.00 3.51 4.17 4.49
1.585 · 107 2.81 3.29 3.91 4.21
5.012 · 107 2.39 2.79 3.32 3.57
1.995 · 108 1.96 2.29 2.72 2.93

TABLE 6.1: Appendage Cf · 103 values used in the VPP

This approach works well for plain fin keels and rudders, but for keel bulbs that occupy the lowest appendage strip
some further calculation must be done to ensure that appropriate characteristics are derived. The following approach
is currently used:
1. Use a chord length equal to the average of the top of the bottom strip and the longest fore and aft length occurring
in the bottom strip
2. Use a maximum thickness equal to: volume / (area⇥0.66)
3. Use a reference area equal to the maximum of the strip projected area, and the wetted surface area.
In 2020 the effect of the lift on the drag of the appendage has been introduced. In order to take this into account ,
the effects of the CL on the CD were evaluated using as a reference a NACA 64014 foil for a Rn of 2 million and a
Ncrit value of 1 using Xfoil. The relationship between CL and CD is modeled as:
CD = Cf + 0.0016 · CL + 0.0032 · CL2 (6.3)
which is based on the results on a NACA 64014 foil, tested with a Rn = 2 · 106 , and N crit = 1. The increase of the
CD is capped to that corresponding to a CL of 0.5. This means that no yacht will see an increase in the calculated
keel and rudder viscous resistance greater than about 20%. The keel and rudder CL values are to be calculated based
on the estimated side force load sharing which changes with the heel angle.
 59

The keel and rudder CL values are to be calculated based on the estimated side force load sharing which
changes with the heel angle. The new form factor and CD as a function of CL will be included in 2020
VPP
F IGURE 6.2: Increase of appendage drag with lift.

7. Data acquisition - Database status

The total viscous drag of the appendages is determined as follows:
Rob Ranzenbach made an update of current situation of Database. The following boats are currently
loaded into ORC database5
!
for VPP comparison (all boats have been processed and analysed by KND to
X
1 data2 is suitable)
check if the
RV A = ⇢V [AstripN CD(rudder)StripN + AStripN CD(keel)StripN ] + (6.4)
1. TP52-2 4 boats in KND database
N =1
2. Farr40- Plenty (owner supplied data logs)
1
3. Melges 32-22 boats in KND database
⇢V (A Blue (owner supplied
4. Wally294- Magic centerboard
CDcenterboard
data logs)
+ Acanard CDcanard ) (6.5)
5. JV72- Momo (owner supplied data logs)
6. Swan 42- Selene (owner supplied data logs)
D OUBLE RUDDERS7.(2010) Lady Mariposa Ker 46 (owner supplied data logs)
8. X37- Hansen (owner supplied data logs)
The Offset file has now45-
9. Swan been
Elenaconfigured to supplied
Nova (navigator accept polar
double rudder toconfigurations
transformed 10 M) as detailed in Appendix A. The
viscous drag is calculated according
10. GP 42- to Table supplied
Silva Neo (navigator 6.1, with notransformed
polar velocity deficit
to 10 M)for the keel wake. The immersed wetted area
is calculated at each11.heel angle
Dufour 40 assuming
Performance-anFlying
undisturbed static supplied
Dolphin (owner waterplane.
data logs, but KND expressed some
concern about data quality)
12. Italia 9.98 Low Noise: Polar provided by Matteo Polli, but KND expressed some concern about data
C ENTERBOARDS quality
13. Cookson 50 Mascalzone: Polar provided by navigator, but KND but expressed some concern about
Because centerboards dataare often not as well refined as keel fins a different drag formulation3 is adopted:
quality
14. Swan 601- Flow Polar provided by KND but expressed some concern about data quality (Thanks
Nicola) Centerboard drag = 0.006 · 12⇢V 2 · A (6.6)
cb
15. Pazza Idea Arya 415 (from 2019 Worlds)
16. Moxie X35 (from 2019 Worlds) CBT C + 2 · CBM C + CBRC
W etted Area Centerboard(Acb ) = 2 · ECM ·
17. Heat Farr 30 (from 2019 Worlds)
(6.7)
4
18. Luduan Reloaded GS 46R (from 2019 Worlds)
where
⇢ = Water density
ECM = Centerboard extension
CBT C = Centerboard tip chord
CBM C = Centerboard mid chord
CBRC = Centerboard root chord
If there is no data for centerboard chord then the following formula is applied:

W etted Area Centerboard (Acb ) = 2 · 0.6 · ECM 2 (6.8)

DAGGER B OARDS , B ILGE B OARDS

Bilge boards and dagger boards are treated as per Table 6.1 based on their area and mean chord length.
3 1987
 60

T RIM TABS
The use of a trim tab to reduce the viscous drag of the keel fin by shifting the viscous “drag bucket” to higher lift
coefficient is reflected in a formula that reduces the viscous drag coefficient for a keel with a trim tab4 .
Side f orce
CL = 0.75 (6.9)
q·A
CD = 0.0097 · CL2 + 0.00029CL + 0.0034 (6.10)
CD dif f = 0.33(CD 0.0034) (6.11)

where A is the keel area and q is the dynamic head 0.5⇢V 2 . Cd dif f is subtracted from the keel strip friction drag
coefficient.

6.2 P ROPELLER
The drag of the propeller is calculated as follows:
1 2
Dprop = ⇢V · 0.81 · P IP A (6.12)
2 s
PIPA is calculated according to the following formulae which depend on the type of installation.

6.2.1 S HAFT I NSTALLATION

For all propellers with shaft installation, IPA is calculated as follows:
✓ ◆
3 ST 4
IP A = (0.04 + sin P SA) · [P SD(ESL ST 2 P HL) + ST 4(ST 2 + P HL)] + 0.03ST 1 · ST 5
2
(6.13)

F OLDING AND F EATHERING 2 BLADE

P IP A = IP A + 0.65(0.9P HD)2 (6.14)

For a folding propeller P HD shall not be taken greater than 3.5 · P SD in the above formula.

F OLDING AND F EATHERING 3 BLADE

P IP A = IP A + 0.70(0.9P HD)2 (6.15)

For a feathering propeller P HD shall not be taken greater than 4.0 · P SD in the above formula.

S OLID 2 BLADE

P IP A = IP A + 0.10P RD2 (6.16)

S OLID 3 AND MORE BLADES

P IP A = IP A + 0.12P RD2 (6.17)

If ESL is less than P RD, P IP A shall be multiplied by 0.5.

6.2.2 S TRUT DRIVE

PIPA shall be determined as follows:
4 The form of the code reflects that the drag reduction has been reduced over time because the original formulation was regarded as too punitive
in terms of handicap
 61

F IGURE 6.3: Propeller Installation Dimensions

F OLDING AND FEATHERING 2 BLADE

P IP A = 0.06ST 1(ST 5 0.5ST 4) + 0.4(0.8ST 4)2 (6.18)

 62

F OLDING AND FEATHERING 3 BLADE

P IP A = 0.06ST 1(ST 5 0.5ST 4) + 0.42(0.8ST 4)2 (6.19)

S OLID 2 B LADE

P IP A = 0.06ST 1(ST 5 0.5ST 4) + 0.10P RD2 (6.20)

S OLID 3+ B LADES

P IP A = 0.06ST 1(ST 5 0.5ST 4) + 0.12P RD2 (6.21)

Notes:
1. For any strut drive, if EDL is less than 1.5 · P RD, P IP A shall be multiplied by 0.5.
2. The shape of the strut may be modified, but the full functionality of the standard model must be retained and
ST 1 ST 4 values may not be reduced below the unmodified standard dimensions. For handicapping purposes
ST 1 ST 4 shall not be taken bigger than the unmodified standard dimensions.
3. ST 4 shall be measured at the aft end of the hub instead of at the point of maximum projected area, better
representing the flow separation drag.
4. An upper ST 4 limit will be used for the P IP A. This limit depends on the L of the yacht. The maximum is
defined by a curve of values just above those typical of most common production units, faired over an ample
length range. The upper limit for ST4 is thus defined as the lesser of:
5
(4 · 10 · L3 0.0011L2 + 0.015L + 0.05) or 0.2 (but never less than 0.1) (6.22)

6.2.3 I N APERTURE
For propellers of any type installed in an aperture P IP A shall be taken as the least of the values determined by
the formulae:

P IP A = 0.07 · P RD2 (6.23)

✓ ◆2
AP T
P IP A = 0.07 · (6.24)
4
✓ ◆2
AP H
P IP A = 0.07 · (6.25)
1.125
✓ ◆2
AP B
P IP A = 0.07 · (6.26)
4

6.2.4 T RACTOR PROPELLERS

For tractor propellers of any type installed out of aperture P IP A shall be zero.

6.2.5 T WIN SCREWS

ORC has an input to signify twin propeller installations. If this is indicated, P IP A is doubled for any type of
installation or propeller.

6.3 R ESIDUARY R ESISTANCE

The residuary resistance is divided into resistance of canoe body and resistance of appendages:

DRESIDU ARY = Rrcanoe + Rrappendages (6.27)

 63

6.3.1 C ANOE BODY

The calculation5 of the wave-making or residuary resistance is based on the calculation of a residuary resistance
coefficient at preset values of Froude Number (F n). The F n is a non-dimensional speed based on the yachts Dynamic
Length L
V
Fn = p (6.28)
g·L
How the dynamic length is determined is explained below, see Composite Length Calculation. The hull is the main
element of the residuary resistance, with a small contribution from the appendages.
Recognizing that previous attempts to accurately calculate the effect of several hull parameters such as Prismatic
Coefficient, Longitudinal Center of Buoyancy (LCB) and water plane area coefficient have led to undesirable type-
formed hull shapes and that this trend could not be addressed within the existing model, it was decided to simplify
the input parameters accounting for 2 main parameters only: dynamic Length-Volume ratio (LV R = L/V ol1/3 ), and
Beam to Canoe-body-draft ratio (BT R) to avoid as much as possible any type-forming. The effects of hull volume
distribution are still captured by the use of the traditional integrated lengths.

R ESISTANCE S URFACES
The Rr drag curve for the canoe body is formed by the extraction of drag values at 24 Froude numbers (F n) from
surfaces of BT R and dynamic LV R and ranging from F n 0.125 up to F n 0.7.
The Froude number used also incorporates dynamic length. For speeds outside this range the resistance is extrap-
olated. The BT R and LV R ranges of the surface are 2.5 to 9 and 3 to 9 respectively and outside this range the value
defaults to that of the closest point of the surface.
The LV R BT R surfaces are very similar to the example plots below and the points from which they are derived
can be downloaded in .CSV file format from www.orc.org/rules.
The CSV file is a tabulation of the coordinates of the surfaces interrogated by the VPP as it calculates the Residuary
Resistance per unit of displacement.

F IGURE 6.4: Typical Rr multiplier at fixed Froude Number

In 2014 fine tuning of RR surfaces was made in areas not very well defined (low LV R, high F n).

C OMPOSITE L ENGTH C ALCULATION

Up until 2013 2 LSM 6 length values were compounded into a single “L” value used as the reference waterline
length to calculate Froude Number. In the 2013 VPP, LSM 1 was retained, and two new sunk length values were
created, LSM 4 and LSM 6 which are used only in the determination of residuary resistance. To help with the
coding nomenclature the LSM terms used in the calculation of residuary resistance were given the pre-fix RR, i.e.
RRLSM 17 , RRLSM 4 and RRLSM 6.
5 Major
revision 2013
6 LSM:
Length Second Moment-see equation 4.5
7 RRLSM 1 = LSM 1
 64

RRLSM Flotation Planes

Height above Sailing Waterplane
RRLSM Exponent in equation 4.5 Fwd Aft
RRLSM1 0.3 0 0
RRLSM4 0.4 RRLSM 1 ⇤ 0.736 ⇤ LV R 2.15 RRLSM 1 ⇤ 1.105 ⇤ LV R 2.15

RRLSM6 0.45 RRLSM 1 ⇤ 0.093 ⇤ LV R 1.2 RRLSM 1 ⇤ 0.140 ⇤ LV R 1.2

F IGURE 6.5: Floatation planes

Recognising that the wave height, the dynamic heave and therefore the physical length itself are highly sensitive
to both Froude number and Length volume ratio (LV R), a new scheme was developed to improve the treatment of
“effective length.” Two new sunk length values were created, namely RRLSM 4 and RRLSM 6, aimed at F n > 0.35
and F n < 0.35 respectively. The height of RRLSM 4 is aimed to match wave heights at F n 0.4, while the height of
RRLSM 6 is designed to match waves heights at F n 0.3, and both depend on suitable functions of the yachts length
and LV R. RRLSM 6 has a lower length exponent than RRLSM 4, because at F n < 0.35 having a lot of volume
in the ends rather than in the middle is not as beneficial as it is at F n > 0.35. The static sailing waterplane length
RRLSM1 has also had its exponent reduced to reflect that it is now only primarily used at slow speeds. The new L is
dependent on Froude number, and based on length mixtures which are linearly interpolated in four phases:
- Phase 1: 0.125 < F n < 0.3 L is a mixture of RRLSM 1 and RRLSM 6, starting at 100% RRLSM 1 and finishing
at F n 0.3 as 100% RRLSM 6

- Phase 2: 0.3 < F n < 0.4 L is a mixture of RRLSM 6 and RRLSM 4, starting as 100% RRLSM 6 and finishing
as 100% RRLSM 4
- Phase 3: 0.4 < F n < 0.5 L is a mixture of RRLSM 4 and RRLSM 1, starting at 100% RRLSM 4 and ending as
70% RRLSM 4

- Phase 4: 0.5 < F n L is a mixture of RRLSM 4 and RRLSM 1, continuing as 70% RRLSM 4
For values of F n > 0.4 the RRLSM 6 loses relevance, but the wave length grows longer than the hull as the F n
continues to increase, resulting in a reduction of the wave height locally at the transom, so RRLSM 1 is mixed in to
reduce the effective length appropriately, representing a 30% share of L by F n 0.5 and then continuing at that ratio
for higher Froude numbers.

Froude No 0.125 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.6 0.7
RRLSM 1 1 0.6 0.3 0 0 0 0.15 0.3 0.3 0.3
RRLSM 4 0 0 0 0 0.5 1 0.85 0.7 0.7 0.7
RRLSM 6 0 0.4 0.7 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
Sum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

TABLE 6.2: L calculation scheme

 65

F IGURE 6.6: Appendage residuary resistance per unit volume at standard depth.

6.3.2 A PPENDAGES
The original Delft Series models had all been tested with a standard keel and rudder and consequently the original
MHS approach was to include the appendages as part of the total displacement for the purposes of calculating residuary
resistance. On yachts with hull forms where the appendage/canoe body interface was less than well defined this worked
satisfactorily. Over time however a more sophisticated treatment was sought, and now all of the DSYHS models have
been tested as bare canoe bodies. An algorithm for appendage residuary resistance that is sensitive to both keel volume
and depth was derived8 . The residuary resistance of an element of keel or bulb is based on 2 baseline curves shown
in Figure 6.6. These show the resistance per unit volume normalized against F n2 for an element of keel fin or bulb at
the standard depth, 0.1L and 0.2L respectively. As described in section 6.1.2, the VPP divides the keel into 5 fore and
aft strips, stacked on top of each other. The volume and average depth of each strip is calculated. The major factors
that influence the wave-making drag of an appendage “strip” are:
1. Appendage strip volume
2. Appendage strip depth below the free surface

3. Boat speed
4. Whether or not that piece of volume is a bulb or part of the vertical foil
Bulbs are more three-dimensional in nature, apparently cause less disturbance to the water flow, and have less drag
per unit volume. The drag of bulbs per unit volume is approximately half that of keel strips. The attenuation of drag
with depth is approximately linear for both keel strips and bulbs.
Currently, the VPP looks for bulbs only in the deepest strip of a keel. The test criterion is the ratio of the chord
length of that deepest strip to the chord length of the strip above it. If that chord ratio is 1.5, then the deepest strip is
considered to be a bulb. If the ratio  1.0, the strip is a keel strip. If the ratio is between 1.0 and 1.5, the drag is found
by linear interpolation over chord ratio of the two drags found by treating the strip as a bulb and as a keel.
Where the upper keel strip is determined to be greater than 1.5⇥ the average of strips 2,3, & 4 then the residuary
resistance of the strip is calculated using the “Bulb” residuary resistance line9 . For traditional style hulls where the keel
chord exceeds 50% of LSM 1 then the keel volume is added to the canoe body volume for the purposes of calculating
the residuary resistance.
8 Jim Teeters US Sailing
9 2011 To address the use of high volume keel strakes
 66

In 2011 the RR of keels having long chords has been further reduced: a reduction factor is applied to the drag of
each keel strip, proportional the ratio of the chord of the strip to LSM1. Full drag is given for keels having chords
smaller than 0.05 · LSM 1. Then a linear reduction from c = 0.05 · LSM 1 to c = 0.15 · LSM 1 is enforced. For
chords larger than 0.15 · LSM 1 it is assumed that the RR of that strip is negligible.

6.4 D RAG DUE TO HEEL

A new formulation of the heeled drag is included in the new hydro model based on calculation of heeled viscous
and residuary resistance components using the same parameters (Wetted Area, BT R and LV R) but calculated with
the boat heeled.

6.5 I NDUCED D RAG

This formulation10 also takes into account the asymmetry of the heeled hull form, and then considers appendages
size (and special configurations like canards and trim tabs) so that leeway angle can be calculated and used to compute
the induced drag. The methodology implemented is as follows:

F IGURE 6.7: Induced Drag

• Formulate lift area (Coefficient of lift multiplied by projected area, abbreviated as “Cla”) versus leeway angle
slopes and axis intercepts for the hull and for the combined appendages, based on simplified lifting line theory
for the hull plus a modified version of the lift efficiency modified by BT R and LV R method already in place
in the VPP for the appendages;

• Determine from the LPP a hull yaw angle at zero leeway due to the asymmetry of the heeled hull shape. This is
based on the transverse shift of the center of buoyancy in the forward and aft end of the hull;
• Combine both hull and appendage lift Coefficient (Cl) vs Leeway lines to create a total coefficient of lift area
line (tcla) which considers areas and initial slopes (for canard or trim tab yachts, the hull share of lift is assumed
to be zero).

In the VPP solver operation the procedure is to:

• Divide applied side force by 0.5 · ⇢ · V s2 to obtain the required tcla;
• determine leeway at the applied tcla;

• determine separate hull and appendage lift shares at the leeway angle obtained;
• From effective spans of hull and appendages, determine the induced drag components DIj of both canoe body
an appendages, using the effective canoe body draft, and the M HSD respectively as the (Effective Draft) value
in equation (6.29).
10 Major changes 2013
 67

2
FHj
DIj = (6.29)
r · t · V 2 · (Ef f ective Draf tj )2
where
FHj = Heeling Force on the component j (appendages or canoe body)
DItotal = DIappendages + DIhull , with both DI components accounted for.
Along the above procedure, the appendages area is a heel dependent function, where the rudder area is taken as
zero when the boat is upright, and increases sinusoidally up to twice its physical area at 30 degrees of heel. This takes
into account the increasing contribution to lift of the rudder due to the increase of rudder angle with heel11 .

di_factor
1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2
di_factor

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

35 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
heel angle

F IGURE 6.8: Multiplier of induced drag

Moreover, for taking into account the non optimal sharing of lift between the two appendages (and even the
occurence of negative rudder angles at small heeling angles), in 2018 the induced drag calculated by means of the
above scheme is then reparametrised with heel using the multiplier plotted in fig. 6.8. This factor is fully active
upwind, then smoothly decreases up to being inactive (that is equal to 1) when the drive to side force ratios become
greater than 0.4.
The programmed structure of this method has allowed for the factors to be tuned to match closely the CFD and
tank data, and then checked against the existing fleet.

TERM Description Conventional Canting Keel Canting Keel + CL Canting Keel &
canard / dagger twin daggerboards
board
Wave Wave Trough Keel 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.0
Trough Root emergence
Hull Asym- Hull asym. angle Yes Yes Yes Set to zero regard-
metry used in canoe body less of calculated
lift hull asym. angle
MHSD Effective draft Cal- MHSD Use keel projected Use keel projected Use maximum
culation area on hull centre- area on hull centre- achievable draft ,
plane for lift calcu- plane for lift calcu- And use dagger-
lation lation, or max draft board area for lift
of canard. calculation, and
projected area for
canted keel
FunSteady FunSteady 1.0 Should always be Should always be Should always be
in credit, cut off is in credit, cut off is in credit, cut off is
M HSD = 19% M HSD = 19% M HSD = 19%
Length Length Length

11 This functions has been adjusted in 2018, up to 2017 the rudder area started from its physical area upright
 68

F IGURE 6.9: Scheme of bilgeboards and related variables

When a boat has a canting keel plus daggerboards, the transverse inclination of the daggerboard is properly ac-
counted for the calculation of effective draft at all heel angles. Taking into account the heel angle , the longitudinal
and transverse position of the canard (c xof f and c yof f respectively), the shape of the boat section at the canard
root, the canard span and its angle c angle to the longitudinal centerplane, angle, the draft of the canard when the boat
is heeled is determined as:
trmax c = t c root + c span · cos(c angle ) (6.30)
This draft is compared to the keel effective draft, and the maximum is taken for the sake of induced drag calculation.

6.5.1 C ORRECTION FACTORS

In 2013, beside the new method for assessing the induced drag, also the correction factors of the effective draft
were computed with different algorythms, which empirically accounts for the keel root proximity to water surface and
for unsteady effects that are not captured by the steady solution of the VPP.

K EEL ROOT FREE SURFACE FACTOR

A first correction is introduced for the effective span, based on the proximity of the keel root chord to the free
surface. It’s calculated as
bef f avmult = 0.5 · (bef fpeak + bef ftrough ) (6.31)
where the bef f for peak or trough is:

bef f = 0.5 + 0.5 · sin(⇡ · tratio) (6.32)

The function bef f (tratio) is plotted in Figure 6.10.

The parameter tratio is computed for both extrema of the wave (peak and trough), and is constrained within the
range [0, 0.5]:

tratiopeak = 2 · distmax /(0.15LSM 1) (6.33)

tratiotrough = 2 · distmin /(0.15LSM 1) (6.34)
 69
0.20
Span Multiplier

0.00
1.20
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
T ratio
1.00

0.80

Span multiplier
0.60

0.40

0.20
Span Multiplier

0.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.31.200 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
1.000T ratio
0.800

F IGURE 6.10: Keel root free surface factor

where

distmax = zroot + hdyn + 0.5 · hw (6.35)

distmin = zroot + hdyn 0.5 · hw (6.36)

is an estimation of the distance of the keel root chord from the free surface. This distance depends on the position
zroot of the root chord in static condition, on the correction hdyn of the free surface in dynamic conditions, and on a
wave of estimated height hw , produced by an “energy” Ew which is a function of the true wind speed T W S:

hdyn = 0.087641 · LSM 1 · f actF n · exp( 0.417 · lvr) (6.37)

 1/2
Ew
hw = 0.25 T W S · 2 · (6.38)
⇢·g
0.00248 T W S 3.5
Ew = T W S · [1 0.8375(1.174 )] (6.39)

For boats with double canard (daggerboard) no reduction is given, thus bef f avmult = 1, while for boats with single
canard the credit is halved: bef f avmult = bef f avmult + 0.5 · (1 bef f avmult ).

F UNSTEADY
The funsteady term takes empirically into account the difficulty of reaching the maximum performances after
maneuvering. It is a multiplier which is made by a term based on the ratio of wind speed and boat displacement.
 2
1 T W S 10
f unsteady = 1 · (6.40)
200 (V ol + 3)

where f unsteady is lower bounded by 0.9. V ol is the volume of the canoe body.

6.6 I MMERSED TRANSOM

The following section describes a generic wave height calculation procedure for assessing the immersed transom
areas as a function of Froude Number and the calculation of the drag due to the immersed transom. The height of the
wave at the end of the static WL was found from the wave elevation observations of 13 non appended models of the
Delft Systematic Series to be approximately
V LRmult
W HW Lend = a1 · · LSM 1 · c5vlr (6.41)
10
 70

where
" #1.5
1/3
V OLc
V LRmult = 2.1 (6.42)
LSM 1
a1 = 1.233 · log(F n) + 1.985 (6.43)
cvlr = min(V LRmult /0.15, 1.0) (6.44)

Two different stern flow conditions are considered.

1. In the case of the flow separation from the profile of the overhang the wave height at the transom with a standard
overhang length of 0.135 · LSM 1c is calculated by linear interpolation from the wave height at the end of the
static waterline W HW Lend and the point of separation which is defined as the non-dimensional length a2
✓ ◆
1
W HstdOverhLength = W HW Lend · 1 (6.45)
a2

where

a2 = min(56(F n(L) 0.20)1.75 · OverhseparP t(F n=0.3) , 1.0) (6.46)

✓ ◆4
0.115
OverhseparP t(F n=0.3) = 0.30 + (6.47)
V LRmult

being the overhang separation point at Fn=0.3

2. In the case of transom flow separation, which occurs when a2 is becoming 1 or greater, the wave height at the
transom with a standard overhang length of .135 ⇤ LSM 1c is calculated as

W HstdOverhLenghth = W Hend · a3 · a4(i + x) x = 0, . . . , 3 (6.48)

with
(1.1 F n)
a3 = (6.49)
0.975
and with a4 being a degradation factor with increasing F n’s and (i) denoting the F n index at which a2
becomes 1.

a4(i) = 0.25
a4(i + 1) = 0.5
a4(i + 2) = 0.75
a4(i + 3) = 1 (6.50)

The wave height at the real transom is again calculated by linear interpolation as
✓ ◆
0.15LSM 1c Overhang
W Hstern = dW H · + W HstdOverhLength min(ztran , 0) (6.51)
0.15LSM 1c

where ztran is the height of the transom lower edge above the static waterplane, and

dW H = W HW Lend W HstdOverhLength (6.52)

Overhang = LSM 5c LSM 1c (6.53)

LSM 5c being the LSM of the boat sunk to the lowest point of the transom, if above W L. In 2011 the wave height at
the transom was reduced by the trim effect of shifting the crew 10% of LSM 1 forward12 .
In 2012 the transom height (above or below the waterline) used for the calculation of the immersed transom drag
has been modified taking into account the possibility of moving the crew toward the bow for minimizing it.
This is done by an iterative process: first the immersed transom drag is calculated, and evaluated at F n = 0.350.
If there is any transom drag at that velocity, the transom height above the waterline is increased by an amount cor-
responding to a crew shift forward of 0.01L. Then the check is performed again. If there is still a non zero drag,
the transom height is increased again by the same amount. The process continues up to a maximum shift of the crew
 71

F IGURE 6.11: Principle of estimating transom immersion

toward the bow of 0.15L. At that stage, any nonzero immersed transom drag is considered the most reliable estimate
of this resistance component.
The immersed transom area is the area below a horizontal plane of the height W HaboveW L .

W HaboveW L = W Lstern + HT prof (6.54)

with HT rprof being the intersection of the transom and the regression line from the profile points of the afterbody of
the hull.
The viscous drag component due to an immersed transom is calculated by means of Hoerner‘s formula for the base
drag of a fuselage with a truncated tail end.

(Atr AM S1c)1.5
Cdhull = 0.029 · (6.55)
Cdhull
where
Atr = the immersed transom area as calculated by the above outlined procedure
AM S1c = the midship section area in sailing trim
Cdhull = Rfhull /(⇢/2 · v 2 · AM S1c)
Rfhull = the frictional resistance of the canoe body

6.7 R AIL - UNDER DRAG

Rail-under drag is not intended to calculate the drag of immersing the lee rail, it is an artifice intended to prevent
the VPP finding equilibrium sailing conditions at high heel angles. Rail-under drag is zero up to a heel angle of 30
degrees. Above this value the upright residuary resistance is multiplied by a factor and added to the total drag.

DRU = 0.0004 · DRESIDU ARY · ( 30)2 (6.56)

6.8 A DDED R ESISTANCE IN WAVES , RAW

The addition of an added resistance in waves (RAW) module to the VPP13 was brought about by the fact that
cruising yachts, with outfitted interiors, were disadvantaged relative to their “stripped out” racing rivals. This is not
12 This was done to discourage the adoption of extreme stern down trim
13 1990
 72

surprising, since reducing the yacht’s moment of inertia by concentrating weight close to the centre of gravity will
yield a performance gain when sailing in waves. The US Sailing funded project to introduce this feature into the VPP
had three aims which tackled the fundamentals of predicting RAW :
1. Define a sea spectrum (wave energy density function) appropriate to the sailing venue
2. Devise a plausible and appropriately sensitive physical model of how parametric changes to the yacht affect
RAW when sailing in the sea state defined in 1
3. Devise a method by which a yacht’s pitch inertia could be determined directly by a physical test, in the same
way that stability is measured by an inclining test.

6.8.1 WAVE C LIMATE

As part of the research prior to introducing the RAW module, US Sailing funded the deployment of a wave height
measuring buoy at several popular sailing venues. The buoy was deployed during typical races and the water surface
elevations were recorded together with the wind speed. On the basis of these measurements a single definition of
wave climate was derived in the form of a wave energy spectrum normalised for a true wind speed of one knot. This
approach has the merit that it is relatively easy to apply, because, whilst the significant height becomes a function of
wind speed the modal period remains fixed at 5 seconds. When this experimentally-derived linear variation of wave

25
linear

1999
20
2020-45'
sea state factor - f(Vt)

2020-25'
15
2020-75'
TWS f(Vt)_25 f(Vt)_45 f(Vt)_75
10 6 1.063 0.483 0.193
8 2.866 1.698 1.061
10 6.108 4.200 3.054
5 12 9.975 7.481 6.096
14 13.462 11.046 9.389
16 15.981 14.063 12.305
0
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 18 17.999 16.199 14.399
True Wind Speed 20 20.000 18.000 16.000

F IGURE 6.12: Wave Energy as a function of True Wind Velocity

energy with wind speed was implemented it was found that the magnitudes of RAW were too high. Added resistance
effects were seen to be dominating handicaps in 6 to 8 knots of wind when the sailors could see that no waves were
present on the race course. In order to correct this, a “bubble” (or more correctly a dimple) was put in the curve that
defined the wave energy as a function of wind speed.
In 2017 and then in 2020 the bubble has been further decreased, and a length dependency has been introduced.
This has been done by defining three baselines for length of 25, 45 and 75 feet. For any length in between the energy
if found by liner interpolation of the baselines. For length exceeding the maximum or lengths below the minimum, the
energy of the baseline curve is used.
Figure 6.12 shows on the left the original linear sea-state factor together with the 1999 reduction and 2020 base-
lines, and on the right the numerical values of the three baselines for 2020.

6.8.2 D ETERMINATION OF ADDED RESISTANCE RESPONSE

Equation 6.57 shows how the added resistance is calculated from the product of the wave energy spectrum and
the RAW RAO. The wave spectrum in each wind speed is defined by a constant multiplied by f (Vt ), the modulation
function discussed in the previous section, that depends on the true wind speed Vt . The task facing the handicappers
was to produce RAO values for parametric variations of sailing yacht hull forms.
Z 1
RAW
RAW = 2 · · S⇣ (!)d! (6.57)
0 ⇣a2
 73

Equation 6.58 shows the formulation14 and the baseline parametric values are shown in Table 6.3.
RAW = fs · 2⇢gL · f (Vt ) · 0.55 · f ( T )f (L30 ) [0.00146+ (6.58)
+f (F n) + f (KY Y ) + f (L/B) + f (B/T ) + f (LCB LCF )]
In 2017 the influence of the term depending on LCB and LCF has been removed. In 2020 the GY R term has been
reduced by 33% by changing the constant term from 0.01575 to 0.010395. The active terms are defined as
L = 0.3194 · (2 · LSM 1 + LSM 4) (6.59)
f (F n) = 0.00191(F n 0.325) (6.60)
f (kY Y ) = 0.010395 · (GY R 0.25) (6.61)
L/B 3.327
5.23 5.23
f (L/B) = (6.62)
8.494
✓ ◆
B
f (B/T ) = 0.000166 4.443 (6.63)
TC
✓ ◆
L
f (L30 ) = 0.5059 log +1 (6.64)
30
cos T
f( T) = (6.65)
cos 40
(6.66)
In equation 6.58 the fS factor provides a means to adjust the added resistance values and perhaps can be thought of

PARAMETER SERIES RANGE BASE VALUE

GYR 0.2-0.32 0.25
L/B 2.77-4.16 3.327
L3 /r 103-156 125
LCB 0.50-0.56 0.53
LCF 0.54-0.60 0.57
B/TC – 4.443
Fn – 0.325

TABLE 6.3: Added Resistance in Waves; parametric limits and base values

as a sea energy or strength coefficient. A value of 0.64 is used.

The 0.55 factor represents the wave direction function, necessary because the RAW calculations for the series were
done in head seas, while yachts sail at approximately 45 degrees to the prevailing wind and sea direction.
The f ( T ) function makes the added resistance a cosine function of heading with 40 degrees true wind (wave)
heading as the basis.
The remaining functions in equation 6.58 take the difference between the boat and the base boat and then eval-
uate the increase or decrease in RAW . The calculation of RAW is done using the physical parameters (L, B, TC )
appropriate to the sailing heel angle.

D ETERMINATION OF P ITCH R ADIUS OF G YRATION (K YY )

The third element of the added resistance calculation is the determination of the pitch inertia of the yachts hull and
rigging.
A yachts base radius of gyration is calculated from equation 6.67, and then other declared features of the yachts
construction and rig accrue adjustments (Gyradius inc) to this base gyradius.
LSM 4 + LSM H
KY Y = 0.222 (6.67)
2
where
LSM H = 0.3194 · (2LSM 1 + LSM 4) (6.68)
KY Y
GY R = + Gyradius inc (6.69)
LSM H
14 1999
 74

Adjustments are made to the base gyradius according to the following recorded characteristics of the yacht:
1. If Mast Weight (M W T ) and Mast Center of Gravity (M CG) have been recorded, the gyradius contribution of
the mast is assessed as compared to that of a hypothetical base aluminum mast (Default mast weight – DM W )
and a corresponding mathematical gyradius adjustment is made; since 2019 this mast gyradius adjustment term
is then multiplied by 0.5;
Default Mast Weight:

DM W = (((.00083 · IG · (IG + HBI)) + (.000382 · IG · T M L))) · (Y P )0.5 (lbs)

Default Mast VCG:

DM V CG = 0.415 · (IG + P + BAS)/2 BAS (ft) above BAS

Default Rigging Weight:

DRW = LRW + JRW (lbs)

Default Rigging VCG:

DRV CG = (0.372 · IG · LRW + 0.5 · (P + BAS + 0.85 · IG) · JRW )/DRW BAS (ft) above BAS.

Default Mast+Rigging Weight:

DM W + DRW (lbs)

Default Mast+Rigging VCG above BAS:

(DM W · DM V CG + DRW · DRV CG)/(DM W + DRW )(ft).

where:

LRW (Lower Rigging Weight) = 0.000155 · IG · Y P (lbs)

JRW (Jumpers Rigging Weight) = 0.000027 · (P + BAS 0.85 · IG) · Y P (lbs) (0 for masthead)
YP = (((RM 25 · 25) + CARM · CW · cos(25 ))/(CP/2))
TML (Top Mast Length) = 0 on masthead and P + BAS IG on fractional
RM25 = Righting Moment per degree at 25 degrees of heel
CARM = Crew Righting Arm
CW = Crew Weight
CP = Calculated Chainplate Width : max(0.46 · J, 0.135 · IG)
Masthead is defined as a rig with IG 0.95 · (P + BAS).

2. For estimate a yacht with a carbon mast, where M W T and M CG are not recorded, the base gyradius shall be
adjusted taking as mast weight:

M W T = DM W · SQRT (70000/170000)

The mast weight for carbon mast is decreased of the square root of the ratio of the Young Modulus of aluminum
(70000 Mpa) and that of a very high modulus carbon mast (170000 Mpa) If the boat is fitted with fiber rigging
(PBO, carbon or similar) the rigging weight will be taken as: Rigging Weight = 0.2 · DRW , being 20% of a
conventional normal rod rig the weight of an aggressive fiber weight.
3. Where M W T and M CG are not recorded, the number of spreader sets (including jumpers –one or zero), ad-
justable inner forestays and running backstays (see 810.2I) are totaled. Gyradius is increased by 0.002 multiplied
times the number by which the above total is less than 6. This total is not taken less than zero;
4. If a yacht has a mizzen mast, Gyradius is increased by 0.002.
5. If the yacht has Forward Accommodation, F W DADJ = 0.004 (see 9 below);
6. If the yacht’s rudder construction is carbon fiber, 0.003 is subtracted from Gyradius;
 75

7. If the yacht is in the cruiser/racer division and complies with IMS Appendix 1, C/R ADJ = 0.006 (see 8
below);
8. Any FWD ADJ (5 above) and any C/R ADJ (7 above) shall be added together and the sum reduced according
to an indicator of performance potential, i.e., sail area /volume ratio. The resulting Accommodation Gyradius
Increment is calculated as follows:

ACC GY R IN CR = (C/R ADJ + F W D ADJ) · ((0.6763 · L + 19.6926

SA/V OL)/(0.2263 · L + 2.6926)). The term multiplying (C/R ADJ + F W D ADJ)
shall be neither negative nor greater than 1.0.
SA/V OL = (AREA M AIN + AREA GEN OA)/(DSP S/1025)2/3 .
ACC GY R IN CR is added to Gyradius.

9. If there is light material such as titanium or carbon used in lifeline elements (stanchions, pulpits, pushpits, etc.)
the gyrad inc f raction of L is decreased by 0.005.

C RUISER /R ACER PITCH GYRADIUS ALLOWANCE SCHEME

This credit scheme is intended to allow for the greater pitching inertia of boats that race with anchor and chain in
the bow (anchor and chain should be located in the forward 30% of the boat and should be lodged in forepeak fully
reachable from deck.
The total gyradius increment due to the anchor and chain shall not be taken as more than 0.013. The gyradius
increment will be added to the gyradius derived in.

6.9 C ONSTRUCTION MATERIAL LENGTH FACTOR

In 2017 the approach to the construction material changed. Before, a credit or penalty were given in terms of
gyradius. The ITC agreed in removing the gyradius credit or penalty because in recent years the weight saved by a
light construction is placed down in the bulb and no more in the bilge. Therefore it’s not obvious that the masses are
more concentrated around the genter of gravity and that the gyradius decreases.

Construction Length Factor

CARBON 1.000
LIGHT 0.995
CORED 0.990
SOLID 0.985

TABLE 6.4: Length factor for construction material

On the other hand, a stiffer material makes the boat stiffer. This means that it keeps longer when the forestay is
in tension, bending less. Following this argument, a length factor is applied only upwind, based on the construction
material. The length used to enter in the Fn-Residuary Resistance tables is shortened based on the construction material
as shown in Table 6.4
7 E NVIRONMENT

7.1 W IND T RIANGLE

ORC INTERNATIONAL CERTIFICATE SAMPLE
The wind triangle relationships as implemented in the VPP include the effects of heel and the assumed wind
gradient. The VPP resolves the total aerodynamic force relative to the fore and aft center plane of the mast, a lift force
normal to it and a drag force in the plane of the mast. Therefore in order to introduce the effect of heelSpace
the true
for wind
vector is modified as follows. Rating Office
First, the true wind vector is resolved into components perpendicular and parallel to the yacht’s velocity
address and vector.
logo
Only the perpendicular component is multiplied by the cosine of the heel angle. To account for the variation in true
wind velocity with height, both components are multiplied by a factor representing this change. Once this is done,
the now modified True wind vector can be used in the normal vector analysis to yield the apparent wind vector at the
centre of effort of the sails. ⇣ ⌘
log zz0
VT z = VT zref · ⇣ ⌘ (7.1)
z
log zref
ORC RATING SYSTEMS

where
z = height above water plane
zref = 10.0 m, reference height for VT measurements
z0 = 0.001 m

The apparent wind angle ( A) is calculated from the following formula.

✓ ◆
1 VT · sin T · cos
A = tan (7.2)
VT · cos T + Vs

The corresponding apparent wind speed (VA ) is calculated as follows.

p
VA = (VT · sin T · cos )2 + (VT · cos T + Vs ) 2 (7.3)

7.2 S AILING A NGLES

The VPP calculates the sailing speed at the following true wind angles and wind speeds:

TABLE 7.1: VPP True wind angle and wind speed matrix

76

24
 77

The calculations are done for the upwind sails (mainsail and jib) and downwind for the mainsail with each declared
off wind sail type.
The results are polar curves for each true wind speed, and the program then chooses the sail combination to produce
best speed and uses this in the table of handicaps.

7.2.1 V ELOCITY M ADE ALONG THE C OURSE . (VMC)

The VMC1 concept is similar to the VMG for upwind or downwind sailing. The goal is to reach the mark, which
is at an hypothetical prescribed heading, in the minimum time. This is accomplished sometimes by a course different
from the straight, shortest one. Sometimes a course made of two legs, one closer to the wind and the other farther from
it, is faster than the direct one. The implementation of this concept is made by calculating the best VMC for the (TWS,
TWA) printed in the certificate, but using a splined continuous polar of the best performance of the boat evaluated at
two degree intervals.

1 2011
 ORC RATING SYSTEMS
8 H ANDICAPPING

8.1 VPP RESULTS AS USED FOR SCORING

8.1.1 V ELOCITY PREDICTION
All the calculations performed by LPP and VPP after taking into account Dynamic and Age allowances are even-
tually used in calculations of speed predictions for 7 different true wind speeds (6-8-10-12-14-16-20 knots) and 8 true
wind angles (52 60 75 90 110 120 135 150 ), plus the 2 “optimum” VMG (Velocity Made
Good) angles: beating (T W A = 0 ) and running (T W A = 180 ), which are calculated obtaining an optimum angle
at which the VMG is maximized. The calculations are done for the upwind sails (mainsail and jib or headsail set
flying) and downwind for the mainsail with each declared largest off wind sail type (symmetric, asymmetric on pole,
asymmetric on centerline and headsail set flying), where the program then chooses the sail combination to produce
best speed.

TABLE 8.1: Velocity prediction printed on the 1st page of the ORC International certificate

8.1.2 T IME ALLOWANCES

The unique feature of ORC Rating system, making it fundamentally different from any other handicap system and
much more 24precise, is its capacity to give and rate different handicaps for different race conditions because yachts do
not have the same performance in different conditions. For example, heavy under-canvassed boats are slow in light
airs but fast in strong winds. Boats with deep keels go well to windward and light boats with small keels go fast
downwind.
This means that yachts will have a variable time allowance in any race depending on the weather conditions and
the course configuration for that particular race as managed by the Organizer.
For the purpose of the Performance Curve Scoring as defined in the ORC Rating Rule 402, velocity predictions
are also expressed as time allowances in s/NM where T A = 3600/v.
From the time allowances calculated for 9 wind angles and 7 wind speeds, two types of pre-selected courses are
also available:
1. Windward/Leeward is a conventional course around windward and leeward marks where the race course con-
sists of 50% upwind and 50% downwind legs;

78
 Space for
Rating Office
address and logo
79

TABLE 8.2: Time Allowances and Selected Courses on the second page of the ORC International certificate

2. All Purpose (formerly named Circular Random) is a hypothetical course type in which the boat circumnavigates
a circular island with the true wind velocity held constant;

W IND AVERAGING
When calculating the GPH, the “wind averaging” operator is aplied to the all purpose course, that smooths the
individual performance curves for each yacht, taking into account not only each considered wind speed as calculated
by the VPP, but a normal distribution across the range that accounts for the 23.58% of the accounted wind speed,
19.8% for 2 kts above and below, 11.73 for +-4 kts, 4.89 for +-6 kts, and 1.79Space for
for +-8 kts.
The wind averaging is not used for the constructed course method. National Rating Office
Scoring options

8.2 S IMPLE SCORING OPTIONS

ORC International and ORC Club certificates are also providing simple scoring options using the ratings deter-
SpacePurpose
mined as a single number. The first number is GPH (General for Handicap), which is as an average representation
of all time allowances for simple comparisons between boats and
Rating Office possible class division. It is calculated as an average
of the time allowances of 8 and 12 knots true wind speed for the all purpose course.
address and logo
Then two basic simple scoring options are offered in the ORC certificate by default: the All Purpose and the
Windward/Leeward.

TABLE 8.3: Simple scoring options on ORC International & ORC Club certificate
ORC RATING SYSTEMS

8.2.1 T IME ON D ISTANCE (T O D)

Corrected time = Elapsed time (T oDDelta ⇥ Distance) (8.1)

where
T oDDelta = T oDBoat T oDLowest (8.2)
 80

T oDLowest is the lowest coefficient in the fleet (that of the fastest, scratch boat). The scratch boat will have a corrected
time equal to its elapsed time.
The All Purpose and Windward Leeward Time on Distance coefficients are calculated as a weighed average over
wind speeds of the handicaps of the respective course model (all purpose or windward leeward). The weights for each
wind speed are as follows:

TWS (kt) 6 8 10 12 14 16 20
weight (%) 5 10 20 30 20 10 5

8.2.2 T IME ON T IME (T OT)

Corrected time = T oT ⇥ Elapsed time (8.3)

Time on Time coefficients are calculated as 600/ToD.

8.2.3 T RIPLE N UMBER

Corrected time = T oT (Low, M edium or High) · Elapsed time (8.4)

Triple number scoring coefficients are given are given for three wind ranges:
1. Low range (less than 9 knots)
2. Medium range (equal or more than 9 but less than 14 knots)

3. High range (14 or more knots)

The ToT’s displayed on the certificate are derived as follows. The three wind velocity ranges (High, Medium,
Low) are each comprised of weighted averages of several Time Allowances (s/NM) selected from the familiar seven
ORC wind speeds. The “cookbook” recipe for proportions in each of the three wind ranges is given in Table 8.4. The
result is a form of wind-averaging for each of the three Triple Number wind ranges:

Wind Speed: 6 kt 8 kt 10 kt 12 kt 14 kt 16 kt 20 kt
Low Range 50.0 % 50.0%
Med Range 8.33% 33.3% 33.3% 25.0%
Hi Range 25.0% 37.5% 37.5%

TABLE 8.4: Time allowance weighing table

Once a single weighted average sec/mi Time Allowance has been calculated for each of the three wind ranges,
these are converted to a ToT by the formula ToT = 600/TA.
Offshore Triple Numbers coefficients are calculated using time allowances for the Circular Random type of pre-
selected course.
Inshore Triple Numbers coefficients are calculated using time allowances for the Windward/leeward type of pre-
selected course.

8.2.4 C LASS D IVISION L ENGTH (CDL)

In 2014 ITC noted two fundamental issues related to class divisions based on GPH:
1. the low possibility to design fast yachts in lower divisions without being compelled to make them too small
to fit in the GPH limits. The consequence is that the winners of the lower divisions are always medium/heavy
displacement boats, usually the largest in their class.
2. the first windward leg of the inshore races is a fundamental part of the race and it should be better to have as
many boats as possible with similar windward speed in the same class.
 81

In the past, to solve the first issue the smallest boats of the larger class were moved according to a fixed length
limit, or conversely pushed up into the larger class with boats exceeding a certain length, but this caused complaints.
To answer the second issue, ITC decided to select the Windward12 (UP 12) handicap instead of using GPH to
group boats with similar upwind speeds into the class. To also maintain similar dimensions it was decided to couple
the windward speed at TWS=12 kts with the sailing length (IMS L) of each boat.
To couple the two factors (UP12 and IMS L) it was decided to transform the WW12 allowance (that is a speed) in
a length and average the obtained length with IMS L. The final factor was named CDL (Class Division Length)
The transformation in length of the UPWIND12 allowance is obtained with the following formulation:

3600
V M GU P 12 = · 0.5144 where V M GU P 12 is boat upwind speed in m/s at 12 kts wind
U P 12
V M G2U P 12
RL = where RL is rated length and F n is Froude number set at 0.28
F n2 · 9.81

The RATED LENGTH is the length that you should have at F n = 0.28 with the V M GU P 12 speed, so it is
transforming a speed into a length. Froude number of F n = 0.28 for upwind VMG was fixed using Fn=0.4 (that is
the Froude number at around which maximum displacement speed is obtained) multiplied by cos(45 ), 45 being the
average true wind angle upwind.
The Class Division Length is then calculated as follows:
IM SL + RL
CDL = (8.5)
2
The CDL, coupling a speed (or a handicap in sec/mi) and a length, is addressing the problem of mixing handicap
and dimensions of boats returning more homogenous classes in terms of dimensions and speed.
A PPENDIX A O FFSETS F ILE (.OFF) F ORMAT

A.1 I NTRODUCTION TO OFFSET FORMAT 2.0

F IGURE A.1: Offsets editing through ORC-Manager application

The traditional offset file format (see below for a detailed description) has been changed in 2021, and a new XML
format has been designed. This gives the flexibility of adding new features to the offsets file, like a more detailed
description of appendages and superstructures.
The user interacts with the offset file by means of the ORC Manager software, that is handling the user interface
offered for any editing and change to the hull and appendages.
The transition from old to new format is transparent to the user: once an offsets file will be modified, it is saved by
default in the new format.

A.2 O FFSET FORMAT - PRE 2021

Offset file describes the shape of the hull together with appendages as a sequence of point measurements arranged
in transverse stations. Points along the selected stations are taken from the bottom up with an ORC approved hull
measurement device capable to produce a list of the points in the co-ordinate system as follows:
1. X axis – longitudinal with 0 at stem and positive towards the stern
2. Y axis – transverse with 0 at the centerline and positive towards the beam

3. Z axis – vertical with 0 at an arbitrary waterline and positive upwards

Stations are taken at 5% intervals, doubled to 2.5% in the front 15% of the hull. The measurements taken on port
and starboard sides are collapsed in the OFF file as if they were on a single side, but they are identified by a station
code, which is 1 for starboard and 2 for port. Freeboard stations are measured from both sides. Appendages such as
keel and rudder are measured along transverse stations as any other, and extra stations need to be placed at any vertex
of appendage in its profile.
Moveable appendages as centerboards, daggerboards and bilgeboards if fitted, don’t need to be measured. There is
a maximum limit in the LPP of 180 points per station and 180 stations. The LPP may add points and stations internally.

82
 83

Units may be in decimal feet*100, or integer millimeters.

OFF file is an ASCII file format with the fields separated by commas and in the required character positions as
follows:
First 4 lines are header with general hull data as follows:

HH:MM:SS, DD/MM/YY,MEAS#,MACH, FILE,CLASS ,1MMYY

0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000
0.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000
NST, LOA , SFJ, SFBI

L INE 1
Label Columns Explanation
HH:MM:SS 1-9 Time of measurement
DD/MM/YY 11-20 Date of measurement
MEAS# 22-26 Measurers code
MACH 28-31 Machine code. (If  0 measurements are in ft*100)
FILE 33-39 File name
CLASS 41-64 Class
1MMYY 66-70 Age date with month and year. “1” in front is added for 2000 and fol-
lowing years

L INE 2&3 (M ETRIC S YSTEM )

SFFPs, FFPVs, SAFPs, FAPVs
SFFPp, FFPVp, SFFPs, FAPVp

Label Columns Explanation

SFFPs, SFFPp 1-8 Distance from stem to the forward freeboard station (port & starboard)
FFPVs, FFPVp 10-16 Vertical distance from the forward freeboard station uppermost point to
the sheerline where sheer point can not be taken (port & starboard)
SAFPs, SAFPp 18-24 Distance from stem to the aft freeboard station (port & starboard)
FAPVs, FAPVp 26-32 Vertical distance from the forward freeboard station uppermost point to
the sheerline where sheer point can not be taken (port & starboard)

L INE 2&3 EXPLANATION (US OPTION )

-99,FFLAP,FALAP,FGOLAP
LBGLAP,KLEPFG,dummy,dummy

In this alternative format that is associated with a number of HMI US machines in line 2 field 1 is a negative
number, which means also that measurements are in ft*100. This is followed by IOR existing freeboard measurements
and locations, and the “wing keel” indicator, that usually is defined by a code “4” applied in the wing/bulb widest point.
This is obsolete after 2005 due to a different treatment of the wing/bulb keel aerodynamics. The last 2 fields of line 3
are just spare in this optional formatting.

L INE 4
Label Columns Explanation
NST 6-8 Number of stations
LOA 10-16 Length overall
SFJ 18-24 Distance from the stem to the forward end of J
SFBI 26-32 Stem to mast distance, SFJ + J. This is used to locate the mast to get
HBI (Height of sheer at the Base of I).

Note: SFJ and SFBI are set to zero in most files and are not relevant.
 84

S TATIONS DEFINITIONS
The stations are arranged from bow to stern (increasing X) regardless of being port or starboard. The first station
should be placed so the stem of the yacht is at X=0.0. X should never be a negative number. Stations should be taken
so that a plot in elevation view of the bottom points of the stations defines all discontinuities in the underwater profile.
Stations are needed at all knuckles, where the keel and rudder meet the canoe body, the bottom corners of the keel,
bulb and rudder. The maximum thickness of the appendages should also be defined, and a double station in way of the
keel is recommended. A station should be taken close to the stem and the extreme aft end of the boat.
Line 5 and the following lines contain information about each section in the following sequence:

X,NPT,SID,SCD,sta#
Z(1), Y(1),PTC
Z(2), Y(2),PTC
Z(3), Y(3),PTC
Z(4), Y(4),PTC
...
...
Z(NPT), Y(NPT),1

F IRST LINE OF EACH STATION

Label Columns Explanation
X 1-10 Distance from the stem for each station in millimeters for metric units,
in hundredths of feet for imperial units
NPT 12-14 Number of points in a section. Important to be correct.
SID 16-18 Side code: 1-Port; 2-Starboard; 3-Both
SCD 20-22 Station label: 1-Forward freeboard; 2-Aft freeboard; 3-Station contains
prop shaft exit point; 4-Station contains propeller hub point
sta# 24-27 Station count, not necessary, but included for convenience

S TATION POINTS DEFINITION

Label Columns Explanation
Z(n) 1-10 Vertical co-ordinate for points on a half section, positive up, negative
down in millimeters for metric units, in hundredths of feet for imperial
units
Y(n) 11-21 Horizontal distance from the centerline for points on a half section.
Negative only in the gap in section for example, between the canoe
body and the trailing edge where point code PTC is set to 2.
PTC 23-25 Point code as explained below
 85

P OINT CODES :
0 - Normal hull point.
1 - Sheer point. If no point on a station has a point code of 1, the top point
on the station becomes the sheer point.
2 - Poke-through (empty space in a gap bounded by the point immediately
above and below. More commonly represented by a Y (transverse off-
set) of less than -0.3 feet.
3 - Propeller or shaft exit point (the appropriate station code having already
been entered).
4 - Maximum width points of a wing keel.
5 - US measurement machine centerline points (has no rating effect).
6 - Propeller aperture bottom point (may exist in some old US offset files).
7 - Propeller aperture top point (may exist in some old US offset files).
8 - Poke-through on the leading edge of an appendage. Most of the time,
the program can decide automatically if one or more stations with poke-
throughs are leading or trailing edge. If an appendage with leading edge
poke-throughs plots incorrectly, this may help.
9 - Poke through on the trailing edge of an appendage. If an appendage
with trailing edge poke-throughs plots incorrectly, this may help.
10 - Poke-through in a closed hole through an appendage. There is no auto-
matic recognition of holes.
11 - Poke-through in a contiguous set of stations that all have poke-throughs
which completely sever the appendage from the hull. This code
will limit the appendage profile to only those points below the poke-
throughs.
12 - Do NOT clip at this specific point. Use on points which are the inside
corner of a left turn while scanning down the section. This is typically
used to prevent clips at hard chines with lips or lapstrake type construc-
tion.
13 - Prevent clipping of entire stations narrower that 3 percent of BMAX by
setting this code on any point in the station. This would be typically
used on the very tip of a transom that comes to a point. This code will
not prevent a clip at a left turn or poke through in the station.
14 - If this code is set on any point in the station, you force clipping of
the entire station even though it may be wider than 3% of BMAX, and
regardless of any poke-throughs and left turns.
15 - Do not clip this station in any way, either entirely or at any point if this
code is set on any point in the station.
16 - Force a clip at this point.

D OUBLE RUDDER
Data on the double rudder are entered as an extra input line in the .OFF file. Data input can be made by means of
the ORC Manager application.

r yoff r xoff r span r chordroot r chordtip r thicknessroot

Y offset X offset Rudder Span Root Chord Tip Chord Root thickness
r thicknesstip Angle y off r xoff angle
Tip Thickness the stagger from CL longitudinal position lateral inclination an-
of the root. if =0 of centroid. gle compared to ver-
means single rudder. tical
B IBLIOGRAPHY

Kerwin J.E. and Newman J.N., A Summary of the H.IRVING PRATT Ocean Race Handicapping Project Proc. of 4th
Chesapeake Sailing Yacht Symposium ,pp 19-34, Annapolis, MD, 1979;

Strohmeier D.D, The Measurement Handicapping System of USYRU Proc. of 4th Chesapeake Sailing Yacht Sympo-
sium ,pp 35-46, Annapolis, MD 1979;
Hazen G., A Model of Sail Aerodynamics for Diverse Rig Types Proc. New England Sailing Yacht Symposium ,New
London, CT, 1980;

Gerritsma I.J., Keuning I.J. and Onnink A.R., The Delft Systematic Yacht Hull (Series II) Experiments, Proc. of 11th
Cheasapeake Sailing Yacht Symposium,Annapolis, MD, 1993;
Ranzenbach R. and Teeters J., Aerodynamic Performance of Offwind Sails attached to Sprits, Proc. of 15th Cheasa-
peake Sailing Yacht Symposium, Annapolis, MD, 2001;

Teeters J., Ranzenbach R. and Prince M., Changes to Sail Aerodynamics in the IMS Rule, Proc. of 16th Cheasapeake
Sailing Yacht Symposium, Annapolis, MD, 2003;
Teeters J., Pallard R. and Muselet Caroline, Analysis of Hull Shape Effects on Hydrodynamic Drag in Offshore
Handicap Racing Rules, Proc. of 16th Cheasapeake Sailing Yacht Symposium, Annapolis, MD, 2003;
Fossati F., Claughton A., Battistin D., Muggiasca S., Changes and Development to Sail Aerodynamics in the ORC
International Rule Proc. of 20th HISWA Symposium, Amsterdam, 2008;
Poor C., The IMS, a description of the new international rating system, Washington DC, 1986;
Claughton A., Developments in the IMS VPP formulations, Proc. of 14th Cheasapeake Sailing Yacht Symposium,
Annapolis, MD, 1999;

Hoerner F., Fluid Dynamic Drag, Hoerner Fluid Dynamics , Bakersfield, CA, 1965;
World Sailing, Equipment Rules of Sailing, , 2016;

86