[Jeff_H]

John

I look at this differently, while there were a lot of IOR boats built during the period 1970 through the late 1980''s, most boats built during that period, that are suitable for cruising, especially aimed at coastal cruising or specifically aimed at offshore cruising, were built with little or no regard for the IOR rule except perhaps for the fad of tiny mainsails and huge genoas which really was a carry over from earier race rules as well.

I think that most IOR boats are overrated rather than under rated as cruising boats. They are tender, wet and a bear to sail without an army of gorillas. While I am sure that there are a number of IOR boats that have sailed around the world, I doubt that they represent a very large portion of the cruising population and in most cases they certainly do not represent a reasonable decision for a distance cruiser without an enormous amounts of heavy modification and a certain willing to take risks and live uncomfortably while doing so.

By the very nature of the rule anything built after IOR-1 was anything but "heavier, less extreme, moderate and seakindly". The rule explicitly discouraged that so a boat built that way was by definition not an IOR boat.

I also disagree with your statement, "The overhangs.....[were] Less extreme than those of CCA boats but offering greater reserve bouyancy forward than many of the plumb bow designs popular today." Actually one of the advantages of the plumb bows of today is that they actually have more reserve buoyancy forward than bows with overhangs and they use that reserve buoyancy sooner and more gently than a boat without a more plumb bow. That is the reason that traditional working watercraft in areas with rough conditions typically have plumb or near plumb bows. Plumb bows are less likely rather than more likely to submarine as they start to lift the bow sooner.

Respectfully,
Jeff