• 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.  

sledracr

Members
  • Content count

    3,243
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About sledracr

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Profile Information

  • Location
    PNW, ex-SoCal

Recent Profile Visitors

9,229 profile views
  1. I believe "Somebody Else" and I reduced Francis' displacement by the equivalent of 2 inches of Bruichladdich last month in Ludlow. Happy to help in this way again, if needed ;-)
  2. I was somewhere on the edges of the conversation (I was one of the few "big boat" sailors on the team at the time). The varsity dinghy studs (Kern, Kornbluth, Washburn ("chirp"), Wilson... ) threw plenty of perspective into the mix. Great fun when Steve brought "Odysseus" (Tuna-35 #1, IIRC) for us to play with at an intercollegiate regatta in Long Beach.
  3. What a clever solution!
  4. Glad to. The thing that's bugging me is (and I'll preface this by saying I don't know anything and can generally prove it)... is it reasonable to think that 19 of the original Ranger-26s (built 1969-1975) would have current IOR certificates in 1984? Or is it possible that those are 26-2s, and the IOR master file just doesn't categorize them correctly? Probably rhetorical, but thought I'd throw it out there.
  5. My master-file is dated 2/84 It lists 19 Ranger-26s (no reference to a 26-2), all Mull designed. IOR IIIA ratings for the 19 boats range from 18.62 to 21.04. Most are around 385-395 square feet of RSAT, a couple are up over 400, one is at 435. B is identical for all of them at 8.37 Most appear to have been measured without an outboard aboard - EW is 0.000 for 14 of the 19.
  6. Somewhere in the recesses of my garage I have an IOR master file, probably from around 1982. If anyone is interested, I can drag it out and see if any Ranger 26s are listed with an IOR rating...
  7. ...and then there were the owners that didn't. One of my favorite (?) stories from that era was "Scandalous", the S&S 50 built by the Pascoe family to replace their successful "Saudade". Boat was beautifully built out of aluminum according to S&S's latest thinking about the IOR, along with a predicted rating that many thought would make it a giant-killer. Then it was launched, and measured... and the rating came out *much* higher than S&S had expected. Story was that they had completely donked the aft measurement points. Boat was hauled back to the Sparcraft yard, lines were re-drawn, and eventually the aft third (!) of the underbody was cut off and re-built to a new design. Ahh, the IOR days...
  8. I was 20-ish, too, but already tired of going hungry between rigging jobs and deliveries, so... getting a few extra 20s here and there meant I could buy myself a beer to go with my 50-cent tacos at Malarkey's...
  9. You're correct, there were no trial certificates. If you wanted to tweak your rating, you made the change, paid USYRU $500 (IIRC), waited for the measurer to come measure your boat, and you'd get a new certificate. If you didn't like the new rating you made another change (or undid one), paid another $500, got measured again, and got a new cert. So... I helped <grin> Back in... dunno, '80 or '81 I built a 1-2-3 spreadsheet with all the formulae from the IOR handbook. Put in the right inputs, it did the math. It even "looked" like a certificate, but with my phone number on it instead of USYRU's And then I went into business, me and my Compaq "luggable" computer, working out of my rigging shop. For 50 bucks I'd plug your current certificate into my system, and then for 20 bucks a question I could tell you what would happen to your rating if you made a change. Want to add a penalty pole? here's what your new rating will be. Want to get rid of that pesky over-length batten penalty? here's what your new rating would be. Etc. Was a pretty good income stream... for a while... And, yeah, "bumps" were a very common mod. At least, very common on the So-Cal tonners and Choate-boats of the day.
  10. True. But if the hollow is filled and faired, the center of buoyancy will move aft when heeled, and could result in putting the bow knuckle deeper when under sail. That could make things "interesting" in the traditional IOR spin-out zones (DDW, pole-on-headstay reaching, etc.)
  11. curious, what kinda boat is this going on?
  12. +1 Rule #1 of hurricanes is "be somewhere else"
  13. 24.5 is about what a non-turbo SC-70 boom measures There've got to be a few of those sitting around..... right?
  14. I got mine from Ullman. Very happy with it, and probably less $$$ by the time UK currency and shipping come into play...
  15. In general (?) sailing enough of an angle to keep flow attached (and generate apparent wind) is always going to be faster than going DDW How much of an angle depends on boat, sails, conditions. But DDW is always slower.