• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

AndrewE

Members
  • Content count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About AndrewE

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    UK
  1. DC Designs

    Nice sequence of John Biddle sailing Dicey. He was never slowed by the cowhorn tiller and continued to use them into the 1980s.
  2. DC Designs

    looking forward to the video!
  3. DC Designs

    Have heard from Peter Wells, who said the following "I owned 29 Solitary Snipe: max dimensions with large self draining cockpit, could be quite exciting in a sea as the cockpit filled with gallons of water. It must be remembered that under the first international rule max weight was determined by a l x b formula, which gave a perceived advantage to minimum hulls, all but 23 and 24 all were built to max length. 30 Radiant was the first to be fully decked. " and further on "I doubt if 27 Anitra ever existed beyond someone’s dream." and "26 Zenith was imported from Scandinavia, no match against British designs." The new facts that emerge are Brilliant 25, Gallant 28 and Solitary Snipe 29 were all different designs, so my assumption based on building dates was wrong. If the SA boat were Solitary Snipe then I am sure that Peter would have recognised it, and indeed if Anitra had ever been built Peter would have known this also. This suggests the list of possibilities is 22,25 or 28. Peter did not mention whether either 25 or 28 had more than one centreboard, but I would see no reason why this would be the case. Lets hope the owner has sufficient interest to get back in touch so we can confirm which boat he owns!
  4. DC Designs

    The list of possibles can be refined from that given be Jim, to: 22, East Anglian, recorded as broken, but could be wrong as it might have been hearsay. I've been in touch with Peter Wells, and he agrees that the photos do look like the boat could be East Anglian. He says he cannot recall why she was recorded as having been destroyed, and it could just be a case of no-one being able to find her! Which, of course, would have been the case if she had gone to South Africa. She apparently never sailed on the Thames but was sailed on Chichester Harbour, so not in the immediate purview of the RCC historians. Peter said that originally her cockpit floor was flat so some modifications must have been done, if the photos are really her. They could possibly have been done when the modern hatch covers were installed, do they look mid 1960S?, 25, Brilliant, unknown whereabouts, probably 16 ft as built the same year as Defiant and Britomart, is there a record from of LOA the RCC archive? Probably not her. 27, Anitra, unknown whereabouts 28, Gallant, unknown whereabouts 29, Solitary Snipe, unknown whereabouts, Gallant and Solitary Snipe were built the same year, so most probably to the same line plan. The Photo of Solitary Snipe in Uffa's book put the forward cockpit bulkhead adjacent to the mast step, rather than some distance behind it. So probably neither of these two All later boats had the modern style of dished deck, so could not be any of these. It seems to me that the boat is most likely to be East Anglian or 27, Anitra. My money, at the moment, is on East Anglian, but this really does need some more confirmatory data.
  5. DC Designs

    In the last post I said maybe K22. I meant the immediate follow up to the East Anglian/ Valiant series. Not sure what number that would have been if registered in UK but may not have been registered with the RCC anyway.
  6. DC Designs

    After Roger and Uffa won the NYCC trophy there was quite a flurry of building. If my memory is correct about nine boats in the three years between East Anglian/Valiant and Wake. I don't remember getting anything interesting on these boats, but relying on Uffas books which mention Defiant and Gallant. Either of these designs would probably be fairly easy to identify, if built without modification, as Defiant was 16 ft and Gallant had a high boom. The photos look like one of the earlier canoes, with a high stern. Sterns got lower over the period from East Anglian/Valiant and Wake. A measurement of the stern height will almost certainly suggest how far along the lineage from East Anglian to Wake this boat is. I think that Graham Mackereth has Valiant, and it would be worth asking him if he could give measurements which could verify or deny that this canoe is to the same design. Looking at the Uffa Fox website it would appear that Wake is the oldest design for which the plans are available, but it may be that Tony Dixon has older plans in the archives. Might be worth a try! I know nothing about K22, which would seem a likely candidate? She looks in immaculate condition, I would love to see her on the water.
  7. DC Designs

    Steve. Thanks for the comments. They were very much what I had thought, but I couldn't identify how a different result could come about from the drive data I had. It was also a very simplified attempt at a VPP, with lots of approximations. Having said that the drive data which the references gave seems to be lower that I expected for the downwind part of the plot. It may, of course, be that I applied their data incorrectly. More data such as that from Jim C would help things along! Are comments on the comparative performance of String Theory and the Nethercot would also be good.
  8. DC Designs

    A few months ago for my own amusement I tried to develop a Velocity Prediction Programme. When Jim C posted his speed round the course data a few days ago I added it to the Polar plot, which is shown below for your entertainment. The calculations used drag data from the Added Mass theory, Which I have mentioned previously. Values assumed for aerodynamic lift and drag, are from Larsson ( Principles of Yacht Design ) and by Fossati ( Aero-Hydrodynamics and the performance of sailing yachts ). I also assumed that the canoe was sailed flat Robin Wood style, and there was a maximum heeling moment which could be balanced. If the aerodynamics gave a higher value for the heeling moment than the max possible then the maximum, determined by the crew weight and lever arm, was used. This limited the drive force, which is why the upwind speed curves all merge. No heeling was considered, even though most of us sail upwind with some. Jims data is shown in red, The Predictions for the Nethercot as dashed lines, for the four wind speeds indicated, and the solid line for String Theory, again at the speeds indicated. Any feedback would be much appreciated.
  9. DC Designs

    Steve, Thanks for your clarification. I was fully aware of what Jim C was driving at. I was saying that there are alternative descriptions. To clarify Jim's description - " hull, narrower than allowed, with bumps added" alternative description - " boat, wide enough to be allowed, with hollows scooped out" For Jims description starting with a narrow hull implies cheating, but the alternative does not necessarily imply it, and as both descriptions produce the same result, which one is used is irrelevant if the hull fits the rule. I don't think that I can add more to what I have already said. To recap my position: I felt the rule was unclear in one particular aspect, that of measurement of flairs on the hull. It has always been clear to me that it achieves your objectives to outlaw hollows and bumps, and indeed need no additional verbage. I agree with Jim that it is a nice simple to applied method which is likely to work well, even in a dinghy park, for the purpose intended. On reading the rule initially, 2009? or thereabouts, I was unsure about what was being outlawed because I could see hollows and bumps on boats which had been measured as in class, and remember that we had this same discussion around that time. I probably made the same points as I have made in this discussion. I was reluctant to re-join the discussion this time but it seemed to me that others were also experiencing difficulty with the rule and so the problem was not with me but the problem was with the rule, and felt that I should help draw this to the attention of the rule writers. Many of the problems mentioned in this recent discussion were things other than I expected or saw as problems and, I think, not discussed last time, which demonstrates the range of interpretations available, for this reason I also agree with Jim that writing rules is a difficult business. Clarifying the rule, especially as to intent and exceptions requiring one sentence at most, could well avoid having this discussion again at some future time.
  10. DC Designs

    JimC you say "Well, to attempt to make it a bit clearer what I mean, lets look again at the NS hull above with the bumps. That boat does not have the rise of floor and static stability that the rule was intended to mandate. No doubt that boat is faster than a boat that met the measurements without the lumps and bumps, but it is partly so because it evades those rules, not because its a superior intrinsic shape." Perhaps I an being very stupid, but if the rule maker wanted to mandate stability and rise of floor, then why did he mandate something totally different? Seems to me the solution was very simple. It was clearly the fault of the rule writer for specifying something he didn't want in place of something he did want! Evasion usually implies breaking the rules, but if it didn't break any rules and measured OK when tested against the rules then it evaded nothing. As for "superior intrinsic shape". What does that mean? If it is faster then it must be of intrinsically superior shape. I am assuming that going around a course faster is what we think of a superior. If not why do we give Cups to the winners? I thought it was because we considered them as superior sailors! Anglo Steve you say "The fundamental point is that the boat should be designed to be within the spirit of the rules and that is that the hull should be fair and should not have bumps within 1m of the BMS". It seemed to me that the rule could be used to outlaw things other than bumps and hollows, which was my starting point. Personally I do not like the "Spirit of the Rules" clause. Even though I have been it the class a long time and think I know what it means. It is most unhelpful to newcomers to the fleet, unless of course they have the Psychic power to know what is in the mind of the rule writers. It is apparent that in many instances what is written as rules is measurement method. In the case of the NS dinghy if the rule had been written in terms of stability and rise of floor and the measurement method to ensure this given as a separate clause then the supposed "evasion" could not have taken place. Even if the measurement method was satisfied the rule would not have been and the hull could have been rejected on those grounds. Wording such as "normally measured by... " would allow variations in the event of doubt.
  11. DC Designs

    Jim C, you say "To me there is no point in having a rule that can be evaded. " Entirely agree. That is why rules should be clear. It may not sound it, but I do appreciate the work Steve has and indeed does put in, AND I would like to ensure that there is a point to the rules, so that his work is not wasted. Having said that I think it a little disingenuous to suggest that people try and beat the rule writers for the sake of beating the rule writers. I believe they have ideas which they think will make their boat faster and try to see how those ideas can be developed WITHIN the rules. There is no point in building a boat if it doesn't comply with the rule, neither is there any point if it ends up slower than other boats in the fleet. At least I cannot see how beating the rule makers but producing a slower boat would be any pleasure. If however the design ideas prove faster then it may benefit the fleet to have the ideas tested. It can always be outlawed later anyway. The canoe fleet, in the UK at least has a long history of dispensations and rule changes to outlaw unpopular practices. Sliding seat was outlawed in the UK rules sometime just after the start of the twentieth century, reading between the lines of history this was largely because Baden Powell didn't like them, and was looking for a more substantial boat because of his age. Linton Hope's Tritonelle with the first chined stern, so successful it gave up racing, but also the cause of the minimum radius rules being introduced (B Class). Uffa Fox's Mederka, Rannoch and their sister boat didn't measure and had to have bumps added. I think I remember dispensations occurring in the 1980 as well but I could be wrong. Of these Tritonelle was trying new ideas that took 35 years to become incorporates into the rules. Mederka/Rannoch were I think built without much regard for the rules, or certainly with insufficient care in checking the boats fitted within the rules. Uffa Fox's Valiant and East Anglian designed to two rules so pushed the envelope in many ways, achieved a unified Anglo-American rule, demonstrating the pushing the envelope can achieve beneficial results.
  12. DC Designs

    Thanks Steve. We all know that you are trying to do the best for the class as you have for many years, and we are all very grateful for that. I do think that your last few posts have been so useful and clarifying that it might be helpful to have them included in the rules. Maybe as a Frequently Answer Questions section as an addendum. Would then free us all from having to revisit these question again (and again). I take your point about using a nail being used to satisfy the rules, and yes the boat in the photo is not the prettiest, but that is only a personal view. (Even though we both agree on it). I think your choice of tape rather than batten/spline was very sensible. It would otherwise be difficult to produce a chined boat. Incidentally Amati's tape fixed at the keel on the BMS and rotated would pick up all hollows within the span of the tape.
  13. DC Designs

    Thanks Anglo Steve for the post. It is all good information, but perhaps only to be expected. reduction in wetted area of a underweight Nethercot should improve light weather performance. where as the wave drag will be less affected as it depends on the hull shape which is not changed. I would agree that the extra drag is probably due to what I would describe as the rocker which will be greater in the nethercot and less fine bow waterline. Acceleration is proportional to net force and inversely to mass. Reduction in mass will result in probably 25% more acceleration, assuming DC displacement is about 0.8 times Nethercot displacement. Added to that the reduction in drag to give better accn.
  14. DC Designs

    Steve (USA) thanks for the diagram, I liked Chris Maas interpretation. and seems a very reasonable way to proceed, even though its different to the two methods I put forward. I entirely agree that the simpler the rules the better, but part company with you about the "limit to attempting to apply a simple and fairly self explanatory rule to every conceivable permutation of shape". Firstly it is self evident from the number of contributions to this thread that what to you is "self explanatory" is far from that to others. Your short description of the aim ie " This is all intended to make sure people build boats that are REALLY 750 wide and not 600 wide with 75mm bumps on each side to make them measure in " makes so much more sense than the rule itself. A problem, I see, is that unless one is in the class it may opaque as to what the rule is trying to outlaw. Bumps are one obvious thing but what about wings as on Tin Teardrop. See Pic below Obviously, I, know that TT was legal but that may not be the case for other prospective designers who may never have seen the Tin Teardrop. Your comment about designs, "Many of which seem to have been thought up just to see if he can frustrate the rule, even if they are silly, complicated, impossible to sail, slow and ugly." seems unnecessary. As the canoe is a development class we can expect variation. I think you really mean frustrate the rule MAKERS, not the rule. Anyway does it matter if someone creates a slow ugly boat? If its slow it will be so far behind you in the races that you will not see it and so its ugliness will not matter. If it is impossible to sail then it will not even be on the water. I have seen some ugly canoes which I would not sail, but as they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so with ugliness. I would never tell someone their canoe was ugly, it is simply rude. The only criterion is does it fit the rules?
  15. DC Designs

    Using vertical and horizontal planes as measuring lines would produce problems. For one thing a tape on the hull surface will not follow one of these lines, but a geodesic, that is the shortest lines between the end points. Better to define any measurements by the hull surface. As I see it there are two choices, either define the angle between the BMS and the two metre tape ( I would suggest 90 degrees) or have the tape lying such that its end points are both the same distance from the keel line, as measured across the hull surface. The two could give different results, depending on the hull shape. As the IC is long and thin the differences are likely to be small, and is unlikely to affect much, unless flairs start fairly low down.