• 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.  

The Jay

Members
  • Content count

    385
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About The Jay

  • Rank
    Anarchist
  1. If the Newick 38 could beat all monos under 60 ft then why did the similar Acapella finish hours behind a 45 footer in the last Fastnet? Have you got any evidence that Naga's owner is a better sailor than Acapella's owner? Naga's a fantastic boat, but those of us who have spent time inside a Newick 38 tri know that they're not what most people would call a cruiser. It hasn't even got a head, for example, so it's actually illegal in many cruising grounds. Here's some words about the accommodation in Naga, from the crew themselves; "on Naga we take our showers in the cockpit....If there is no sun, if it's a cloudy or overcast day, or if the wind shifted and the shadow of the awning rested on the bag, it's going to be a cold shower. First thing in the morning, it's a cold shower. After sunset, it's a cold shower. Left in the sun for too long, it's an unbearable scalding hot shower. And water pressure? Ha ha ha. This five gallons is for two people, and just TRY to get all that shampoo out with the trickle that comes out the nozzle. All this while crouching down in the cockpit to avoid the chilling wind and voyeuristic neighbors." "you think your kitchen doesn't have enough counter space? Naga has NONE....The galley consists of a two-burner propane stove and a 12"x14" sink with a hand pump for fresh water and a foot pump for sea water...Even the stove-top space is limited." "On Naga the refrigerator is ... inconveniently located in the sail locker far away from the rest of the galley...." "Some modern sailboats have wonderful accommodations down below, separate cabins with queen-size beds, a large dining table surrounded by plush upholstery, and plenty of head room. Naga isn't like that. Forward on Naga is the "v-berth," a bunk 46" wide, that tapers down to 30" at the foot, and just enough headroom so that when you sit up straight, you whack your head on the beams above. In the main cabin there are two more berths, 3'x6', these are out in the "wings" of the boat, therefore they slope uphill with the curves of the boat, and when you lie down you have a tendency to roll off the bed and into the sink. And again, just enough headroom for a serious concussion. When under way, Naga is very noisy. The hull is made of plywood and epoxy, very thin (but surprisingly very strong due to her design) and the sound of the waves pounding against the hull, and the flexing of the entire boat tend to keep you awake, even if you can manage to keep from being thrown out of bed. "We dine at the foldout chart table, just enough space for two people to sit comfortably, and if we have guests, we seat them in the cockpit with their plates on their laps." We've had tri cruisers that are smaller than Naga, and I've lived for years on a boat of similar size. It's a great boat. However, it's not what most people would call a cruiser (or even a comfortable cruiser/racer) and therefore you can't compare its performance to such a boat.
  2. Surely neither Kriter V or Olympus Photo were "cruisers" in 1978 by any popular definition? In the Fastnet, there was the 50' Dazcat Hissy Fit which is loaded with carbon in boat and rig. It finished 2 hours ahead of the carbon cruiser/racer Mylius 50, probably the closest comparable mono, for a 2.5% advantage. The HH66 was only just ahead of the ageing Farr CM 60. Looking at the IRC results, if a mythical "Marten 66" (or some other modern carbon cruiser/racer mono equivalent to the HH66) was there and performing as well as the HH66 did in its class, it would have finished close to the HH66 across the line. If we believe the claim of a 20% superiority in speed referred to above, for example, then the numbers show a well sailed and well equipped cheap solid 'glass, alloy rig, pinhead mainsail, heavy displacement low-rating cat (ie the cat version of a First 40) would have finished with the HH66 in the Fastnet. Hmmmm. I'm a multi owner and racer, I'm not saying the cats are inferior boats - it's just that there is a lot of evidence that some claims for the speed margins of multi cruisers are greatly exaggerated. We see the same thing looking at multihull PHRF and other results. Exaggerations like that and the friction they cause could be a significant reason why there are so few multis on the racing scene. In the straight-out race machines the multis do seem to normally have a huge advantage, but that's only a minority interest.
  3. My apologies. I had got that impression from the reaction of some other people in other places. It was wrong of me to assume that you would react in the same way. Cheers and sorry.
  4. For one, it's not my assertion. I never claimed that Amaryllis was banned. It's your claim and therefore I don't have to back it up. Secondly, surely it's better for you to simply type a search term and make your own judgement rather than rely on my judgement. However, here we go..... Here's a report of the Empire YC's race with cat class; http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B00E6D7103CE731A25756C0A96F9C946990D7CF Here's a report of the National Yachting Association's regatta, with cat class; http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C05E7DC153BE033A25753C1A96E9C94619FD7CF Here's a report of the Jersey YC's race with a cat class in 1885; http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9900E3DE1E3EEF33A25753C1A9609C94649FD7CF Here's a brief mention of the New Jersey YC's regatta of 1884, with four cats in the cat class; https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924019100324;view=1up;seq=217 Here's the Vespers YC racing in 1884/5, with a cat class; https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924019100324;view=1up;seq=218 andhttps://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924019100324;view=1up;seq=218 New Jersey YC in 1882; https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015048401601;view=1up;seq=144;size=150 Cats were not banned; simple fact. They were not an underclass; they were owned by men like the rear commodore of Boston YC (Nat), the commodore of the Brooklyn YC, and the treasurer of the Royal Corinthian (I think). The man who got the trophy after Amaryllis was DSQd was an immigrant saloon keeper/boatbuilder; if it was down to snobbery then the educated and aristocratic Herreshoff wouldn't have been banned. The same sort of myth seems to have been adopted in a different way by later multi sailors like Piver and the supporters of Nicol who also wrote a lot of stuff that was greatly exaggerated to say the least. It must have hurt the credibility of the cause of multi sailing and caused a lot of anti-multi feeling. Piver, for example, claimed that his 30 foot Nimble could surf on a wave for 300 or 400 hundred miles a day. Nicol claimed that his 1960s cruiser/racer tri could do over 25 knots upwind, which if true means that it's probably faster than a modern tri. Morwood from the AYRS claimed that Nicol had beaten all the best Australian maxis when in fact his boat had beaten some slow old cruisers that other races proved to be no faster than a standard 36 foot cruiser/racer monohull of the day. The AYRS actually confessed that they had concealed some deaths that occurred in early multis. If a corporation hid the deaths of people using its products there would be an outcry. I love multis; my family has had nine, we currently have four. But we have let ourselves believe our own publicity and that is IMHO one very big reason why we have not taken the world, if not by storm, at least by moderation.
  5. Yep, Amaryllis was DSQd from that one race; no doubt about it. After that, she and the other cats that Rohr, Fearon and Herreshoff built in NY were treated just like every other type; they were given their own class. It's simply indisputable historical facts. As "The World" (the paper in your first quote) said on June 24 1876, p 4 "it is clearly unfair to race boats of radically different models, and built for entirely different purposes, against each other.” Cat sailors don't race normally against kitefoilers and windsurfers, and mono sailors didn't race to race cats for the same reasons.
  6. Proa Sailor, why rely on an unsourced, unreferenced article by someone who wasn't there, never asked anyone who was there, and has no claim to having any special knowledge - and is proven to be wrong by Herreshoff himself and by the NYT and other contemporary newspapers? If people really are open-minded, in search of knowledge and looking for new ways of thinking and new information, why not use the new newspaper archives we can access and simply type in "catamaran" for the appropriate dates? To be honest, the main reason I can think of is that some people want to feel that they are part of an underprivileged underclass.
  7. That's complete rubbish, though. It simply did not happen. Amaryllis was not banned; she was chucked from one race but was given a special prize, basically the same as the winning prize. In those days they didn't have class rules so when a boat that no one had thought of came to the start line, the committees often said "so sorry, too bad", and they chucked some monos as well as some multis. The claim that Amaryllis and cats were banned after that completely wrong. For a start, it didn't happen. In fact in the 1870s we have published interclub organisation manuals that say that there had to be a cat class in every one of their regattas. Secondly, it is bizarre that anyone would be silly enough to think that a ban in New York could affect every other country, as is often implied. There is more than one corner of the USA and there is more than one country in the world. There were cats that were developed independently around that time in other parts of the USA and in other parts of the world. Thirdly, we know it didn't happen. Anyone can go to the Library of Congress newspaper archives, the New York Times archives or international newspaper archives, type in catamaran, and start reading about the later Herreshoff boats, the cats that Rohr and others built, the one exported to the UK, the ones sailed in Australia, San Francisco, etc. Cats raced in their own class for years in NY and also in New Orleans and San Francisco for years in the late 1800s. The myth seems to have started with one line that Francis Herreshoff wrote, and with the Seawanhaka Cup controversy. Neither indicate a general ban. When Amaryllis, Tarantella and hte other early cats raced there was pretty much only class racing in NY; catboats raced catboats, open sloops raced open sloops, cabin sloops raced cabin sloops, schooners raced schooners, so it was only logical that they simply gave the cats their own class. That was, in fact, what Herreshoff himself wanted. The other type of sailing that erupted on the scene about the same time was canoe sailing, and from the start the canoes almost always raced other canoes, just as when windsurfers and kites arrived they normally just raced other windsurfers and kites. The cats were treated like every other type of boat. The myth that cats were banned has probably done immense harm to multi sailing. The really interesting thing is how many multi sailors claim to be open-minded and techy, but adamantly refuse to go on the newspaper archives and read the evidence that the cats were not banned and were not discriminated against.
  8. Great boat, but does accommodation like this really qualify as good? It makes some 30 foot racing monos (Farr IMS 31, to use one example) like a palace. I've done 600 mile+ races on boats without headroom and offshore racing on a tri of similar design, and the lack of space drove me batty. To me one of the reasons multis are not more popular is that they tend to be pushed a bit too far into each corner; most of the racing boats are too small down below and most of the cruising boats are too clunky. The Farrier's a great boat, no doubt; all I'm saying is that there are a whole host of matters that get down to personal taste that seem to drive most people to monos; it's not conservatism or prejudice but just different tastes.
  9. The Atlantic Yachts piece doesn't seem to be unbiased, albeit the bias is probably unconscious. Just one tiny example is that they say that multis have an advantage because you can "sit on the swim platform". WTF? Since when are they restricted to monos? That's such a silly point that it makes one doubt the writer's claim to be unbiased. It's also rather odd to see the AY piece say that multis don't point as well. Many multi fans get really upset if anyone suggests that. Either the AY piece is wrong or some multi fans are wrong. The claim that cats will probably make their port safely if holed by debris requires a lot of qualifications. There have been several cruiser or cruiser/racer cats around our shores that have filled hulls over the last few years, one a 52 footer that capsized about three weeks ago. I know of a few multi fans (and I am one) who are concerned about complacency because many cats are not floating high when capsized or holed. Obviously a mono is in a worse position if holed, no doubt. It's not a bad piece overall, but perhaps not as objective as he claims.
  10. Anyway, I won't read this thread any more because I want to stop the hijack that TC and other multi fans started a couple of pages back.
  11. Other mono races have existed for 170 years. That hasn't changed. Tornadoes are now slower than N20FCS, little N17s and tiny kitefoilers. Does that mean that they bore you? If Tornadoes don't bore a Tornado sailor then why should monos bore mono sailors? Yes, four out of 35 winners were the fastest of the time, You could add Reliance and a few more that were marginally quicker than other boats in normal inshore conditions. That means that about 25 out of 35 winners or more were NOT the fastest boats of the time at all or by a significant margin. That means that anyone trying to claim that he AC is all about the fastest boats is talking shit. For 40 years or so, there were much faster boats. For decades before that, there were boats that were as fast, almost as fast, or faster in some conditions.
  12. Yeah, sorry, some people who have never caught on to the bleeding obvious started complaining that foiling monos were not in the spirit of the Cup 70 posts back and it went on from there. It could be highly relevant, though, if PB and GD sat down and got someone to work out how to create a boat that followed the tradition of the AC. Arguably if they did that they wouldn't go for a radical full foiler, but something more like a fixed-keel WOXI or Comanche with DSS. So that's one guess at what a foiling mono could look like.
  13. It's relevant to AC 36 because some people keep on claiming that the AC has always been about having the fastest possible boat within the Deed. The fact that they required the Js to be tough hulls with good accommodation is just one more of many pieces of evidence that proves it's not true. If we're going to have a boat for AC 36 that follows the tradition of the Cup it would be very different from the ones in AC 33, 34 and 35.
  14. Surfsailor; With respect, in this case I'll have to disagree with you and agree with Vanderbilt, who owned and ran the boats. He said that the accommodation that had to go in after the rule change weighed seven tons, or about 5% of the displacement of Enterprise. The more substantial mast that was required by the new rules was only 1/10th as much. At that level of competition, adding 6.5% to the total displacement is enough to destroy a boat's chance. That's why Enterprise was scrapped. So let's look at the challenges in the 1900s to see what men like Vanderbilt were doing. We get Reliance, and Herreshoff and everyone else says "this is all too silly, the boats are too extreme" and Herreshoff creates the Universal Rule to get back to more conservative designs. Then we get the 1920 Resolute challenge under the Universal Rule, and we see a much more conservative boat. After just one challenge, they change the rules again, bringing in the tighter requirements of the Js and ending the career of Resolute, Vanity and Shamrock IV. Resolute and Vanity rated okay under the rule and raced as trial horses, but they were banned from the Cup because their hulls were not built to Lloyds requirements as required by the new rules which were brought in to make the boats tougher and more useful. We have one more challenge, and then they tighten the rules again to make the boats still tougher and more useful, ending the career of Enterprise. Two challenges after that, and we move to the 12s. So in the six challenges from 1901 to 1945, they'd tightened the rules three times, every time to make a more "sensible" boat and every time reducing the potential speed. And then they brought in the 12s, dramatically reducing the speed of the boats and the design envelope. And of course the 12s themselves had the rule tightened on several occasions; cockpit rules, mid-girth mainsail rules, certificate rules etc. Time and time again, they tightened the rules, reducing potential boatspeed. That is not the actions of a bunch of people who believe that the goal is to make the fastest possible boat. That is the actions of a bunch of people who followed the tradition of Galatea, Genesta, Valkyrie II and other boats that were just typical big boats of their day.
  15. Sorry, I wasn't disputing that America had a sailcloth advantage with her flat cotton sails compared to the baggy British flax sails, and that the USA didn't maintain that for many years (although later in the 1800s Ratseys got close or maybe ahead). I was just saying that I don't know whether sails and sailcloth had to be CiC until after Gretel's challenge. The Ratsey loft sounds great. I just found that there's a book on the history of R & L I'll have to buy.