Sign in to follow this  
Editor

ton fun

Recommended Posts

How do you prove that a level rating formula works?


A good way would be to take two top boats from that formula set them against each other in a decent breeze and see who comes out top.


The formula I refer to is the good old International Offshore Rule (IOR) and while the boats now race under IRC, the closeness of their ratings show IOR wasn’t so far from the mark.


The two boats were Whiplash and Swuzzlebubble. It is not only the Editor who lusts after Swuzzlebubble, as owner of a Dubois one off Quarter Tonner from the same era (a close drawing board sister to Police Car) I also think these boats are beautiful, sail well and are great fun.


Anyway back to the formula test; in the 40 Mile Coastal Race, part of the Henri Lloyd Half Ton Classics Cup after 5 hours of racing Swuzzlebubble corrected out at 5.08.47. Unfortunately Miss Whiplash came in at 5.08.41 or victory by 6 seconds or 0.04% if I have my maths correct.


What an event, 18 classic half tonners hitting the start line and their little sisters manage over 30 at the Quarter Ton Cup and not a boat under 20 years old yet many have had more plastic surgery than…. Better not say, I can’t afford a libel case but she knows who she is.


Who needs one design? (Unless you race under PHRF that is ha ha.) - -Shanghai Sailor.

ton fun.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. The closeness is largely a result of the high degree of type forming that resulted from the IOR - after a few years of it the boats were generally so similar that they had to be close in performance. Just look at the 30.5 One Tonners - you practically have to be a Yacht Designer to tell the hulls apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the best inshore racing I ever had was on 1/4 an 1/2 ton boats in the late 70's early 80's. There will always be a place in my life for these boats. There was nothing like gybing in 20+ to teach you how to do bow!

 

And.....a lot of the boats still hold up well. Sweet Okole still going strong in Hawaii races. They were posting day runs right up with us on Limitless in the Pac Cup this year.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. The closeness is largely a result of the high degree of type forming that resulted from the IOR - after a few years of it the boats were generally so similar that they had to be close in performance. Just look at the 30.5 One Tonners - you practically have to be a Yacht Designer to tell the hulls apart.

Yes, IOR did rate similar boats very well, but they were not good boats! The racing was good because they were all equally slow and cranky to sail. The trick was to fool the rule to get a low rating more than you deteriorated the hydrodynamics. But if you did too good a job, the rulemakers came down hard and the next season your rating was hammered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine aren't slow A3A.

 

As mentioned on the FP I have a Dubois One off and my wife has a David Thomas Bolero (sadly both designers are no longer with us) and they are every bit as quick as many of the more modern designs or non type formed 'non IOR boats'. We regularly are faster, particularly upwind than more modern sprit boats.

 

Of course downwind we don't plane like the more modern dishes but I wouldn't want to take one of them offshore in 38kts as we did once in the Bolero - and came out the other end unscathed (boat & crew).

 

Also they are both 'turn of the '80's boats meaning they are approaching 35 years old', I'd like to see some of the modern plastic fantastic still holding together in 35 years time.

 

Come to think of it, it would be pretty awesome if I was still around in 35 years - ha ha.

 

Each to their own I say.

 

SS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never understood the mentality of penalizing performance enhancing design factors when you are talking about a development rule like IOR.

 

Of course it makes sense in a handicapping rule but IOR wasn't that, it was a measurement rule which in my experience automatically makes it a development rule. All the negative stuff that IOR encouraged was in response to that whole concept - drop your rating faster than you slow the boat down, as A3A says.

 

Think what would have happened if performance enhancing factors had been rewarded instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS people. There's a lot of rose-coloured glasses going on here (and other IOR nostalgia threads).

 

IOR boats were giant load-generating wipeout machines that cost cubic dollars and just dug big holes in the water. They were good in their time, but boats today are way faster, way more fun, with much less work and far less deck hardware.

 

Your misplaced nostalgia is in fact for a time when the world had more free time and more disposable income, which meant that more people had more boats racing on the water. Plus, if you raced IOR boats regularly you are quite likely over 50 by now, so you are also being nostalgic for a time when *you* were younger and could drink more beer and still sail the next day.

 

I'm not discrediting IOR boats. They had their time and place, and then sailing moved on to better things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS people. There's a lot of rose-coloured glasses going on here (and other IOR nostalgia threads).

 

IOR boats were giant load-generating wipeout machines that cost cubic dollars and just dug big holes in the water. They were good in their time, but boats today are way faster, way more fun, with much less work and far less deck hardware.

 

Your misplaced nostalgia is in fact for a time when the world had more free time and more disposable income, which meant that more people had more boats racing on the water. Plus, if you raced IOR boats regularly you are quite likely over 50 by now, so you are also being nostalgic for a time when *you* were younger and could drink more beer and still sail the next day.

 

I'm not discrediting IOR boats. They had their time and place, and then sailing moved on to better things.

And those terrible boats set regatta attendance records that modern boats for poseurs can only dream of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit to Regatta Participation.

 

Events like SORC, Admirals Cup etc. had hundreds of boats. Even just the top classes had dozens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If IOR boats were so bad, why is my 1978 Gulfstar/Hood SORC racer cruiser runs circles around Beneteau/Hunter/C & C ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've never understood the mentality of penalizing performance enhancing design factors when you are talking about a development rule like IOR.

 

Of course it makes sense in a handicapping rule but IOR wasn't that, it was a measurement rule which in my experience automatically makes it a development rule. All the negative stuff that IOR encouraged was in response to that whole concept - drop your rating faster than you slow the boat down, as A3A says.

 

Think what would have happened if performance enhancing factors had been rewarded instead.

Many dead sailors?

 

?? Why ??

 

It was largely the "low rating" abuses and distortions that caused the '79 Fastnet mess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you belittle a classic car run/race coz the cars dont have power steering or up to date electrics? The halfs & quaters still rate under irc and are competitive for their sizes so what the fuck if theyre 30 odd years old and still able to keep up with likes of x302s & 332s. The bigger ior boats might have been winch farms back in the day but these arent those boats. Theres plenty of crews and even an owner or two on those half ton boats at that event who got in at the end of ior or is even so young they missed ior totally and are loving their sailing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who wants to get their heads around the differences between the distorted IOR shapes and the fair IOR shapes should read both The Shape of Speed (About Farr Yacht Design) or The Light Brigade by Gary Baigent, - with an honourable mention to Richard Blakey's A Lighter Ton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additional to the old timers quote quote quote match going on above.

An important thing to remember is that IOR existed for a long time and IOR MK1 to MKIII with letters after the Roman numerals then back to an earlier version after no internal room for crews as all the ballast was in the cabin on top of hollow keels, means that some huge variations abounded. So in a thread like this cherry picking the glory or scary types does not change the fact that the two main party and bonkfest scenes were IOR and the Hobie life movements.

 

Good to hear from someone who knows what's important. :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but they were not good boats!

 

I disagree that they were (are) not good boats. Mine (Serendipity 43) has no bad habits. NONE. We've sailed and raced it for 30 years, in all kinds of conditions, including over 450 races and 55,000 cruising miles. It is still fast and still fun to sail. We've never (NEVER) had a downwind wipe out. Maybe round-ups a few times, but never a downwind broach. Upwind its able to hold it's own against, and outpoint, similarly sized newer spirit boats with more sail area and longer waterlines. OK, they blow by us on kite reaches but if the course has a downwind leg, and the breeze is up, we bear off and square the pole and we're faster to the bottom mark. I'll never forget being on the start line with 16 two tonners, racing level under IOR, that was really exciting, but now we sail PHRF and other systems and we do fine. In the end, in mixed fleets, we win our share.

 

We sailed double handed in brutal conditions all over the world, mostly using a windvane, and never had a problem handling the boat. I could tell you stories which would make you shudder, but the boat took care of us every time.

 

Yes, the newer boats are faster in some conditions, and it's obviously more fun to go planning across the bay at 20 kts, than it is to be stuck in a big hole in the water going 9 knots, and yes we definitely need more crew to race the boat, crew who have develop skills and work well together and work hard to race; the new boats are easier to sail, but that's progress. New cars are better than old ones too, but that doesn't make the old classics bad. And these old boats are a bargain. I'd love to buy a TP52, but I can't afford it, and it wouldn't make a good world cruiser anyhow, so I'll just keep my old IOR war horse and keep buying sails, upgrading the hardware, and sailing and racing hard as we can, and the haters can just stuff it.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS people. There's a lot of rose-coloured glasses going on here (and other IOR nostalgia threads).

 

IOR boats were giant load-generating wipeout machines that cost cubic dollars and just dug big holes in the water. They were good in their time, but boats today are way faster, way more fun, with much less work and far less deck hardware.

 

Your misplaced nostalgia is in fact for a time when the world had more free time and more disposable income, which meant that more people had more boats racing on the water. Plus, if you raced IOR boats regularly you are quite likely over 50 by now, so you are also being nostalgic for a time when *you* were younger and could drink more beer and still sail the next day.

 

I'm not discrediting IOR boats. They had their time and place, and then sailing moved on to better things.

kind of like that old Chevy pickup with rusted out floorboards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additional to the old timers quote quote quote match going on above.

An important thing to remember is that IOR existed for a long time and IOR MK1 to MKIII with letters after the Roman numerals then back to an earlier version after no internal room for crews as all the ballast was in the cabin on top of hollow keels, means that some huge variations abounded. So in a thread like this cherry picking the glory or scary types does not change the fact that the two main party and bonkfest scenes were IOR and the Hobie life movements.

at least the keels stayed on those internally ballasted boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Additional to the old timers quote quote quote match going on above.

An important thing to remember is that IOR existed for a long time and IOR MK1 to MKIII with letters after the Roman numerals then back to an earlier version after no internal room for crews as all the ballast was in the cabin on top of hollow keels, means that some huge variations abounded. So in a thread like this cherry picking the glory or scary types does not change the fact that the two main party and bonkfest scenes were IOR and the Hobie life movements.

at least the keels stayed on those internally ballasted boats.

Drum in the 1985 Fastnet Race. the keel fell off and capsized. NOT a regular thing like the numerous modern keel failures though!
Drum wasn't internally ballasted, which was your complaint. It was a construction flaw in keel, not IOR related, and boat was recovered repaired and raced in the Whitbread with no further problems.

There were issues for a few years with rudders and masts breaking, but that was builders adapting to new technologies, and likely would have occurred regardless of rating rules. The 'downwind gyrations' was a holdover of the old RORC hull forms the first few years of IOR. The later designs were much more manageable. I did quite a few miles on a Holland 40 that was pretty docile downwind, and a DB2 I sailed after that was a blast downwind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drum was the first time I ever heard of it happening and it was an error by the foundry (reputedly not J'ing the bolts) rather than design flaws and pushing the envelope too hard like all the incidents now.

 

Re: the old Chevy pickup comparison - which would you rather have?

 

post-95343-0-73879300-1471489790_thumb.jpgpost-95343-0-80103400-1471489796_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok how about using a term " my observation" rather than " complaint!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" I am happily to be corrected as i learn about some history. Leadmines back in those days was something i went zooming past on the harbour or read about in mags. Now to get picky, what was the variation on IOR MKIIIalphabet ??? that saw the internal ballast take advantage then the IOR MK ??? that closed the window to get it lower?

The internal ballast came about because keels were becoming so low in volume that not all the ballast could be contained in them without making them larger and thicker. Some ballast, therefore, had to be carried in the bilge. Although some boats had 'window' cut into keel to fine tune rating, I'm not aware of any "hollow keels". This was not exclusive to IOR, as some MORC boats did the same. Rodgers 26 had a 1200# steel plate glassed into the bilge as ballast/keel structure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drum was the first time I ever heard of it happening and it was an error by the foundry (reputedly not J'ing the bolts) rather than design flaws and pushing the envelope too hard like all the incidents now.

 

Re: the old Chevy pickup comparison - which would you rather have?

 

 

attachicon.gif1979-GMC-Pickup.jpgattachicon.gif2015-chevrolet-silverado.jpg

Neither. Give me a truck with a shiny bed and tailgate that doesn't sag, I'd feel like one of those city fellows with dropped suspension and fancy lights on a truck used to carry groceries. A truck is built to haul things great and weighty. If it fails to do that its just a pretender, and should be crushed to make a spoiler for a corolla.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Google only really shows IOR MKIII & MKIIIA (1982) i am sure i read about a later ruling & another IOR MK!!!(*) (*), somewhere.

So the last generation that was required to fit more keel baallast did so via thicker and deeper keels then, RKosh?

I'm not aware of MKI and MKII ever being implemented, perhaps they were just trial runs? MKIII was the standard rule. Older heavier boats that complied with certain parameters qualified for MKIIIA, which gave them a credit to allow them to remain competitive. It was implemented about '76 or so.

The keel issue was merely that designers improved keel shapes so much that keels could be made smaller and still provide good pointing. Making them bigger to enclose all the ballast would have increased induced drag and wetted surface, requiring a larger sail area (higher rating) and also increased stability (also higher rating). Logical solution was to locate the remaining ballast in the bilge above keel, though it was very common to place it further forward to increase bow-down trim which also reduced rating. The Holland 40 I raced on had about 2000# above keel and another 2000# under forward hatch. This did cause a controversy in the '87 SORC as the RC did a secret midnight inspection of the boat after getting liquored up at the Nassau YC bar following the Miami-Nassau Race. Next day they announced public ally we were being DSQ'd for removing ballast (and not carrying anchors/chain in measurement position). None of the RC were certified measures. We had to fly in a measurer (at our expense!) to go over the boat with the RC and show them the glassed in lumps in the bilge which contained the lead, and the sail bags lashed to a fwd ring frame which held the anchors and chains. What a stupid and pointless procedure. RC was just pissed at us for kicking ass in an old, supposedly obsolete, boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok how about using a term " my observation" rather than " complaint!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" I am happily to be corrected as i learn about some history. Leadmines back in those days was something i went zooming past on the harbour or read about in mags. Now to get picky, what was the variation on IOR MKIIIalphabet ??? that saw the internal ballast take advantage then the IOR MK ??? that closed the window to get it lower?

 

Internal ballast was never encouraged per se, but other factors had a knock on effect that tended to encourage it – in all the IOR alphabet.

 

Winding back the clock, originally, there was the Centre of Gravity Factor (CGF) which was a multiplier based on inclining tests and had a minimum value of 0.968.

 

The intent of the rule makers was twofold: 1) to discourage stripped out narrow metre like boats with low VCG and 2) to encourage beamier boats that had a decent cruising interior (which would otherwise be hampered by the high VCG of the interior accommodations).

 

So how do you make a boat with a high VCG go to weather? You increase form stability, in which case the VCG of the lead ballast becomes almost irrelevant. This lead to beamy boats and the introduction of the trapezoidal (aka Peterson) keel, which besides being an efficient planform, also had a high VCG.

 

This was shortly followed Terrorist in 1974, the Bruce King 1 Ton with twin retractable asymmetric bilge boards. She was also extremely short (34 ft) and extremely beamy (14 ft) with tumblehome and internal ballast, so a lot of form stability. All those factors made her by far the fastest 1 Ton upwind that year. She would have won except for a dismasting. The rule makers quickly moved to effectively ban her by invoking penalties for Moveable Appendages (MAF) IIRC.

 

Moving ahead a few years and skipping over Resolute Salmon you come to 1977. The kiwi keelboats tended to suffer downwind in light air because they were long, light and short on SA. To counter that, wetted surface needed to be decreased, which lead to what they liked to call a drop keel, which was usually a lightly ballasted dagger board. Where do you stuff the additional weight to measure in at the design displacement? In the bilge. So this is what lead to internal ballast, which is not the same as trim ballast which were used to usually trim the boat bow down if you wanted an easy way to gain some SA while maintaining the same rating.

 

MkIIIA brought in the Displacement Length Factor (DLF) which was a rating multiplier intended to discourage boats with low DLF. This was said to be a reaction to the breakage that occurred in the 1978 OTC to several of the kiwi light weights - but rumour had it that the Americans lobbied hard for this due to an aversion (jealousy?) of the upstart kiwi designers of the day (Farr, Davidson, Whiting, & Young) who were knocking the Americans off their perch. IDK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Google only really shows IOR MKIII & MKIIIA (1982) i am sure i read about a later ruling & another IOR MK!!!(*) (*), somewhere.

So the last generation that was required to fit more keel baallast did so via thicker and deeper keels then, RKosh?

I'm not aware of MKI and MKII ever being implemented, perhaps they were just trial runs? MKIII was the standard rule. Older heavier boats that complied with certain parameters qualified for MKIIIA, which gave them a credit to allow them to remain competitive. It was implemented about '76 or so.

The keel issue was merely that designers improved keel shapes so much that keels could be made smaller and still provide good pointing. Making them bigger to enclose all the ballast would have increased induced drag and wetted surface, requiring a larger sail area (higher rating) and also increased stability (also higher rating). Logical solution was to locate the remaining ballast in the bilge above keel, though it was very common to place it further forward to increase bow-down trim which also reduced rating. The Holland 40 I raced on had about 2000# above keel and another 2000# under forward hatch. This did cause a controversy in the '87 SORC as the RC did a secret midnight inspection of the boat after getting liquored up at the Nassau YC bar following the Miami-Nassau Race. Next day they announced public ally we were being DSQ'd for removing ballast (and not carrying anchors/chain in measurement position). None of the RC were certified measures. We had to fly in a measurer (at our expense!) to go over the boat with the RC and show them the glassed in lumps in the bilge which contained the lead, and the sail bags lashed to a fwd ring frame which held the anchors and chains. What a stupid and pointless procedure. RC was just pissed at us for kicking ass in an old, supposedly obsolete, boat.

 

 

Valid point about the partial internal ballast on keel boats due to decreasing keel volumes - I was referring more to the board boats of that era that had pretty much all internal ballast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not discrediting IOR boats. They had their time and place, and then sailing moved on to better things.

 

Better boats but not better racing. With the exception of the TP52 there's never again been a successful keelboat level rating rule & all attempts to create one have failed to gain much support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DB2

db2positronm.jpg

Wanted one of those before I bought the Dash. Just couldn't quite make the numbers work....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Google only really shows IOR MKIII & MKIIIA (1982) i am sure i read about a later ruling & another IOR MK!!!(*) (*), somewhere.

So the last generation that was required to fit more keel baallast did so via thicker and deeper keels then, RKosh?

I'm not aware of MKI and MKII ever being implemented, perhaps they were just trial runs? MKIII was the standard rule. Older heavier boats that complied with certain parameters qualified for MKIIIA, which gave them a credit to allow them to remain competitive. It was implemented about '76 or so.

The keel issue was merely that designers improved keel shapes so much that keels could be made smaller and still provide good pointing. Making them bigger to enclose all the ballast would have increased induced drag and wetted surface, requiring a larger sail area (higher rating) and also increased stability (also higher rating). Logical solution was to locate the remaining ballast in the bilge above keel, though it was very common to place it further forward to increase bow-down trim which also reduced rating. The Holland 40 I raced on had about 2000# above keel and another 2000# under forward hatch. This did cause a controversy in the '87 SORC as the RC did a secret midnight inspection of the boat after getting liquored up at the Nassau YC bar following the Miami-Nassau Race. Next day they announced public ally we were being DSQ'd for removing ballast (and not carrying anchors/chain in measurement position). None of the RC were certified measures. We had to fly in a measurer (at our expense!) to go over the boat with the RC and show them the glassed in lumps in the bilge which contained the lead, and the sail bags lashed to a fwd ring frame which held the anchors and chains. What a stupid and pointless procedure. RC was just pissed at us for kicking ass in an old, supposedly obsolete, boat.

Valid point about the partial internal ballast on keel boats due to decreasing keel volumes - I was referring more to the board boats of that era that had pretty much all internal ballast.

Until Peterson designers were designing keels around getting all the ballast into them...they were huge fat lumps of lead. Peterson switched the focus towards an efficient foil, and the evolution began towards an efficient foil than merely being a lead container. Good god the early 70s keels were atrocious. I know several early 70s boats fitted with modern keels that stayed pretty competitive for many years.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was largely the "low rating" abuses and distortions that caused the '79 Fastnet mess

No it was a force 10 storm and large breaking seas. Put any race fleet including 30-40 footers into the those conditions and the same would happen. I was in Cornwall at the time and remember it, it was a full-on winter storm in August. It won't in fact happen again because forecasting is better and race officers won't consciously send boats out into such conditions.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

DB2

db2positronm.jpg

Wanted one of those before I bought the Dash. Just couldn't quite make the numbers work....
One of the sweetest sailing IOR boats. A race I'll always remember was a Queens Cup...drag race across Lake Michigan from Milwaulkee to Grand Haven, start-finish, no marks. Broad reach in building wind and waves. 360 boats, IOR was the last start. We planed the whole way under full kite, averaged nearly 11 knots (34' boat!). Passed over 300 boats (used them like slalom marks!), we were about 15th boat across the finish. Elapsed time less than 30 minutes behind a Santa Cruz 70. Totally epic, like an overnight 505 screaming reach!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ok how about using a term " my observation" rather than " complaint!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" I am happily to be corrected as i learn about some history. Leadmines back in those days was something i went zooming past on the harbour or read about in mags. Now to get picky, what was the variation on IOR MKIIIalphabet ??? that saw the internal ballast take advantage then the IOR MK ??? that closed the window to get it lower?

The internal ballast came about because keels were becoming so low in volume that not all the ballast could be contained in them without making them larger and thicker. Some ballast, therefore, had to be carried in the bilge. Although some boats had 'window' cut into keel to fine tune rating, I'm not aware of any "hollow keels". This was not exclusive to IOR, as some MORC boats did the same. Rodgers 26 had a 1200# steel plate glassed into the bilge as ballast/keel structure.

MORC penalized light weight. By glassing the weight in it became part of the boat. If you used 1200lbs. of lead blocks one only got credit for 75% of weight.

 

MORC International champion back in the 90's had a large Westerbeake (sp?) diesel generator in it. 30 foot boat weighed 10,000 lbs.

 

Donovan's Custom MORC 27 footers hull weighed 750 lbs IIRC and put a 22 Hp 3 cylinder diesel in the boat to get the overal weight up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It was largely the "low rating" abuses and distortions that caused the '79 Fastnet mess

No it was a force 10 storm and large breaking seas. Put any race fleet including 30-40 footers into the those conditions and the same would happen. I was in Cornwall at the time and remember it, it was a full-on winter storm in August. It won't in fact happen again because forecasting is better and race officers won't consciously send boats out into such conditions.

I agree. None of the boats were what I'd call 'extreme'. IOR had already effectively 'banned' the daggerboarders. All the boats that rolled righted themselves. In many cases shit below came loose, like stoves and batteries. That's not IOR, that's just poor construction. Most of the abandoned boats remained afloat.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It was largely the "low rating" abuses and distortions that caused the '79 Fastnet mess

No it was a force 10 storm and large breaking seas. Put any race fleet including 30-40 footers into the those conditions and the same would happen. I was in Cornwall at the time and remember it, it was a full-on winter storm in August. It won't in fact happen again because forecasting is better and race officers won't consciously send boats out into such conditions.

 

 

Then why did they change the regs after the inquiry? It was a lot more than just the big storm - many rule driven design trends were demonstrated to be unseaworthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ok how about using a term " my observation" rather than " complaint!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" I am happily to be corrected as i learn about some history. Leadmines back in those days was something i went zooming past on the harbour or read about in mags. Now to get picky, what was the variation on IOR MKIIIalphabet ??? that saw the internal ballast take advantage then the IOR MK ??? that closed the window to get it lower?

The internal ballast came about because keels were becoming so low in volume that not all the ballast could be contained in them without making them larger and thicker. Some ballast, therefore, had to be carried in the bilge. Although some boats had 'window' cut into keel to fine tune rating, I'm not aware of any "hollow keels". This was not exclusive to IOR, as some MORC boats did the same. Rodgers 26 had a 1200# steel plate glassed into the bilge as ballast/keel structure.
MORC penalized light weight. By glassing the weight in it became part of the boat. If you used 1200lbs. of lead blocks one only got credit for 75% of weight.

 

MORC International champion back in the 90's had a large Westerbeake (sp?) diesel generator in it. 30 foot boat weighed 10,000 lbs.

 

Donovan's Custom MORC 27 footers hull weighed 750 lbs IIRC and put a 22 Hp 3 cylinder diesel in the boat to get the overal weight up.

Yes. In the Rodgers case the plate was claimed to be a keel structure, not ballast. But that was quickly corrected. Charley Morgan did similar in SORC winner Paper Tiger under CCA rule. Fiberglass hull, had a huge steel I-beam running down centerline of most of the boat for 'structure'. The CCA-era centerboarders were heavy displacement, with deep hulls. Even though they had fairly low ballast % numbers, the interior pieces, motor, tankage, etc was below the waterline and contributed to stability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It was largely the "low rating" abuses and distortions that caused the '79 Fastnet mess

No it was a force 10 storm and large breaking seas. Put any race fleet including 30-40 footers into the those conditions and the same would happen. I was in Cornwall at the time and remember it, it was a full-on winter storm in August. It won't in fact happen again because forecasting is better and race officers won't consciously send boats out into such conditions.

Then why did they change the regs after the inquiry? It was a lot more than just the big storm - many rule driven design trends were demonstrated to be unseaworthy.

Race regulations changed, but the IOR rule didn't make any big changes. That had already been done by heavily penalizing the daggerboard boats, which occurred prior to the Fastnet. I don't think there were even any daggerboard boats entered. There was a capsize screening formula adopted, but that was a race requirement, and wouldn't have affected many boats.

Look at the '96 Sydney-Hobart...many years later, bigger boats. There still were a shitload of capsizes and structural failures. The big difference is that there weren't 30' half-tonners out there, and safety gear/crew prep was generally better...though it did point out need for better harness tethers and life rafts. And again, weather forecasting/communication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. The closeness is largely a result of the high degree of type forming that resulted from the IOR - after a few years of it the boats were generally so similar that they had to be close in performance. Just look at the 30.5 One Tonners - you practically have to be a Yacht Designer to tell the hulls apart.

so ture and yet i found the stern to be the signature of most designers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree. The closeness is largely a result of the high degree of type forming that resulted from the IOR - after a few years of it the boats were generally so similar that they had to be close in performance. Just look at the 30.5 One Tonners - you practically have to be a Yacht Designer to tell the hulls apart.

so ture and yet i found the stern to be the signature of most designers?

 

 

The sterns were the most easily identifiable, I recall reading some comments by Farr on one of his 80's 1 tons and he said the stern was a few inches wider than optimal, but he wanted to retain some of his signature stern treatment.

 

Bow shapes and profiles were another albeit more subtle clue. Davidson and Frers tended to have a bow shape associated with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It was largely the "low rating" abuses and distortions that caused the '79 Fastnet mess

No it was a force 10 storm and large breaking seas. Put any race fleet including 30-40 footers into the those conditions and the same would happen. I was in Cornwall at the time and remember it, it was a full-on winter storm in August. It won't in fact happen again because forecasting is better and race officers won't consciously send boats out into such conditions.

 

 

Then why did they change the regs after the inquiry? It was a lot more than just the big storm - many rule driven design trends were demonstrated to be unseaworthy.

 

 

 

As others have commented, there were changes to ORC special regs but not afaik to IOR. RORC also implemented crew qualification regulations. The boat that was especially criticised for the number of failures wasn't really an IOR boat at all, it was the OOD34 although arguably, the OOD34 fleet just happened to be in the worst place at the worst time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i sailed on one of the last IOR 1/2 tonners built, a humphreys design called Half Hour

won the Sydney -Southport race ,great boat ,wet sailing and scary downwind in a blow and swell

sailed on it for years out of royal sydney yacht club

used to sail rings around beneteaus and other 30 to 35 footers

but i think a previous writer said it ,"looking through rose coloured glasses",much better boats now easier on the body

and twice as fast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy - scanning through this thread there is so much scuttlebutt about the Fastnet by people who weren't even around then. IOR did not cause the Fastnet '79 disaster. One or two designs (as mentioned in the significant post race report) had issues but by far and away it was the extreme weather conditions that caused the problems

 

If you read either Fastnet Force 10 by John Rousmaniere or The Fastnet Disaster and After by Bob Fisher (or you actually experienced the weather that August) you would know that the two main factors for loss of life were OBVIOUSLY the non-seasonal weather caused by, in effect, two lows coming together producing an incredible cross sea and IN THE DARK and people getting into liferafts when they shouldn't. This second point is more than clearly evidenced by the fact that a large proportion of abandoned boats which were found still afloat after the storm abated.

 

It was only after the '79 Fastnet that people started to coin the phrase "Only get into a liferaft when you have to step up into it".

 

Add to that a couple of relatively benign races previously, and people were perhaps were not quite as "in awe" of the race as they should be.

 

I consider Fastnet '79 to be my luckiest ever escape as I had been approached to navigate a yacht that suffered loss during the storm, even though I was not on board it is still a painful memory. If you read the piece in Bob's book about Flashlight you may understand why it still lives on in my mind. I know what big seas are having been out there in 80kts plus (thankfully on a Royal Navy ship) but an angry sea is an awesome ting.

 

IOR was not responsible for the loss of life and several IOR boats blitzed the course, notably the likes of Police Car but the smaller boats took a kicking.

That storm took 19 lives but the changes that started to happen in the aftermath have probably saved countless others.

 

I remember one race in one of my own IOR boats, the Bolero (1979), as mentioned on the site previously, barrelling downwind in 38 knots of breeze with the bow wave starting around the mast and extending upwards at least a foot and a half above the lifelines, the speedo against the stop, even in the lulls. The crew consisted of me, my daughter (aged 14) and buddy 'Big Jim' and helming the boat with two fingers on the tiller extension. Something I shall never forget.

 

Compare that to the modern fat arsed cruiser racer (which often needs 2 rudders to stay in a straight line) I know which boat I would feel safer in.

 

Anyway, it is an argument that the two sides will probably never agree on but fun to remember and discuss.

 

More immediate, w have 4 medal races tonight, 2 gold medals already as good as decided. I wonder who will win the other two :-)

See ya on the water

 

SS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Google only really shows IOR MKIII & MKIIIA (1982) i am sure i read about a later ruling & another IOR MK!!!(*) (*), somewhere.

So the last generation that was required to fit more keel baallast did so via thicker and deeper keels then, RKosh?

I'm not aware of MKI and MKII ever being implemented, perhaps they were just trial runs? MKIII was the standard rule. Older heavier boats that complied with certain parameters qualified for MKIIIA, which gave them a credit to allow them to remain competitive. It was implemented about '76 or so.

The keel issue was merely that designers improved keel shapes so much that keels could be made smaller and still provide good pointing. Making them bigger to enclose all the ballast would have increased induced drag and wetted surface, requiring a larger sail area (higher rating) and also increased stability (also higher rating). Logical solution was to locate the remaining ballast in the bilge above keel, though it was very common to place it further forward to increase bow-down trim which also reduced rating. The Holland 40 I raced on had about 2000# above keel and another 2000# under forward hatch. This did cause a controversy in the '87 SORC as the RC did a secret midnight inspection of the boat after getting liquored up at the Nassau YC bar following the Miami-Nassau Race. Next day they announced public ally we were being DSQ'd for removing ballast (and not carrying anchors/chain in measurement position). None of the RC were certified measures. We had to fly in a measurer (at our expense!) to go over the boat with the RC and show them the glassed in lumps in the bilge which contained the lead, and the sail bags lashed to a fwd ring frame which held the anchors and chains. What a stupid and pointless procedure. RC was just pissed at us for kicking ass in an old, supposedly obsolete, boat.

 

Not entirely true. IOR Favoured displacement and penalised stability heavily so there was and obvious incentive to limit stability by placing weight in the bilge. One of the loopholes the light (e.g. Jenny H etc.) and heavyweight (Resolute Salmon, Bay Bea etc.) centreboarders of the late 70s exploited was to place essentially all their ballast in the bilge and only enough weight in the centeboard to give it negaive buoyancy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i sailed on one of the last IOR 1/2 tonners built, a humphreys design called Half Hour

won the Sydney -Southport race ,great boat ,wet sailing and scary downwind in a blow and swell

sailed on it for years out of royal sydney yacht club

used to sail rings around beneteaus and other 30 to 35 footers

but i think a previous writer said it ,"looking through rose coloured glasses",much better boats now easier on the body

and twice as fast

Actually, modern boats are much harder on the body as they are lighter and more stable so their motion is a lot more violent than the old IOR clunkers. Believe me, a TP52 is hard work in a big sea upwind, just hanging on! Three days of that and you are in agony as your core muscles wear out trying to keep your body in place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It was largely the "low rating" abuses and distortions that caused the '79 Fastnet mess

No it was a force 10 storm and large breaking seas. Put any race fleet including 30-40 footers into the those conditions and the same would happen. I was in Cornwall at the time and remember it, it was a full-on winter storm in August. It won't in fact happen again because forecasting is better and race officers won't consciously send boats out into such conditions.

 

 

Then why did they change the regs after the inquiry? It was a lot more than just the big storm - many rule driven design trends were demonstrated to be unseaworthy.

 

 

With all respect due to Sloop, I fully agree with Dog.

 

The key things were finding how to handle such unknown conditions and being lucky not to meet a rogue wave.

Several extreme boats went through, more reasonable ones got lost. The story would be the same today.

And .... yes, I then went through it :(

 

As for the regs change, I have always thought that it was a matter of the ruling bodies having to show that they were on top of the situation and retaining their independence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Google only really shows IOR MKIII & MKIIIA (1982) i am sure i read about a later ruling & another IOR MK!!!(*) (*), somewhere.

So the last generation that was required to fit more keel baallast did so via thicker and deeper keels then, RKosh?

I'm not aware of MKI and MKII ever being implemented, perhaps they were just trial runs? MKIII was the standard rule. Older heavier boats that complied with certain parameters qualified for MKIIIA, which gave them a credit to allow them to remain competitive. It was implemented about '76 or so.

The keel issue was merely that designers improved keel shapes so much that keels could be made smaller and still provide good pointing. Making them bigger to enclose all the ballast would have increased induced drag and wetted surface, requiring a larger sail area (higher rating) and also increased stability (also higher rating). Logical solution was to locate the remaining ballast in the bilge above keel, though it was very common to place it further forward to increase bow-down trim which also reduced rating. The Holland 40 I raced on had about 2000# above keel and another 2000# under forward hatch. This did cause a controversy in the '87 SORC as the RC did a secret midnight inspection of the boat after getting liquored up at the Nassau YC bar following the Miami-Nassau Race. Next day they announced public ally we were being DSQ'd for removing ballast (and not carrying anchors/chain in measurement position). None of the RC were certified measures. We had to fly in a measurer (at our expense!) to go over the boat with the RC and show them the glassed in lumps in the bilge which contained the lead, and the sail bags lashed to a fwd ring frame which held the anchors and chains. What a stupid and pointless procedure. RC was just pissed at us for kicking ass in an old, supposedly obsolete, boat.

Not entirely true. IOR Favoured displacement and penalised stability heavily so there was and obvious incentive to limit stability by placing weight in the bilge. One of the loopholes the light (e.g. Jenny H etc.) and heavyweight (Resolute Salmon, Bay Bea etc.) centreboarders of the late 70s exploited was to place essentially all their ballast in the bilge and only enough weight in the centeboard to give it negaive buoyancy.
IIRC, centerboard boats got a draft credit, permitting deeper and narrower foils that were more efficient. Lifting them to reduce wetted surface downwind was a bonus. While giving up stability for a lower rating was a loophole, point remains that if the daggerboards had been fixed keels of solid lead they still couldn't have held all the ballast. I sailed DB and keel minitons, and even the keel boats had over 50% of the ballast internal...there simply wasn't enough keel volume. When the Farr DBers converted to keels they still carried internal ballast, and as I noted even the heavy displacement masthead keelboat Holland 40 carried about 50% of the ballast internally. Look at how much smaller keels became between the early 70s and early 80s...much thinner, too.

And saying the IOR favored heavy displacement isn't entirely accurate, as the ORC had to keep penalizing the lightweights because they were much more competitive. The trend even worked its way to the big boats, as Ceramco New Zealand showed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Google only really shows IOR MKIII & MKIIIA (1982) i am sure i read about a later ruling & another IOR MK!!!(*) (*), somewhere.

So the last generation that was required to fit more keel baallast did so via thicker and deeper keels then, RKosh?

I'm not aware of MKI and MKII ever being implemented, perhaps they were just trial runs? MKIII was the standard rule. Older heavier boats that complied with certain parameters qualified for MKIIIA, which gave them a credit to allow them to remain competitive. It was implemented about '76 or so.

The keel issue was merely that designers improved keel shapes so much that keels could be made smaller and still provide good pointing. Making them bigger to enclose all the ballast would have increased induced drag and wetted surface, requiring a larger sail area (higher rating) and also increased stability (also higher rating). Logical solution was to locate the remaining ballast in the bilge above keel, though it was very common to place it further forward to increase bow-down trim which also reduced rating. The Holland 40 I raced on had about 2000# above keel and another 2000# under forward hatch. This did cause a controversy in the '87 SORC as the RC did a secret midnight inspection of the boat after getting liquored up at the Nassau YC bar following the Miami-Nassau Race. Next day they announced public ally we were being DSQ'd for removing ballast (and not carrying anchors/chain in measurement position). None of the RC were certified measures. We had to fly in a measurer (at our expense!) to go over the boat with the RC and show them the glassed in lumps in the bilge which contained the lead, and the sail bags lashed to a fwd ring frame which held the anchors and chains. What a stupid and pointless procedure. RC was just pissed at us for kicking ass in an old, supposedly obsolete, boat.

 

Not entirely true. IOR Favoured displacement and penalised stability heavily so there was and obvious incentive to limit stability by placing weight in the bilge. One of the loopholes the light (e.g. Jenny H etc.) and heavyweight (Resolute Salmon, Bay Bea etc.) centreboarders of the late 70s exploited was to place essentially all their ballast in the bilge and only enough weight in the centeboard to give it negaive buoyancy.

 

THIS is the real reason for bilge lead in IOR boats. There was never a design (in that era) that could not fit enuff lead into the keel Designers were playing with stability vs displacement. So if keel lead was removed to make the boat less stable it had to be added back in the bilges to keep the boat on her design lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it makes sense in a handicapping rule but IOR wasn't that, it was a measurement rule which in my experience automatically makes it a development rule.

 

The fundamental problem, it seemed to me, was that it never figured out what it wanted to be. There were elements in the rule administrators who wanted it to be a development rule, elements who wanted it to be a handicap rule, those who wanted it to encourage a healthy cruising boat, whatever that was/is, all sorts of completely incompatible aims...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an IOR measures. From 1980 on, and still measuring the newer designs, there were some weird things tried. There was a lot of money in it for the designer to draw the fastest boat for its rating, no mater how it really sailed or looked. But that was really just a few, conspicuous boats. Why far, most were good sailing, stout boats. Not as fast down wind as today's sport boats, but much more comfortable.

My old '84 Peterson 1 toner rates the same as a j 105 or Melges 24. But which would you rather sail in some seas and wind? Or cruise with family and friends in the San Juans? I know my choice. And 32 years later it still is winning and looks good.

Sure, a Melges 32 is faster for its size, and off wind speed is great (that's what I sail dinghies for), but upwind is so much easier on the body. No hanging on a 1/4" line hiking out.

There are definitely some advantages to some of the newer boats, which there should be as designs evolve, but calling them shit boats is a bit overboard. Besides, one could get into racing one so much cheaper than a new design, even with new sails and gear. Believe me, I did it twice.

So is a dragon a shit boat compares to say a soling? Just cause it is heavier and older, does not make it a shit boat. Just more options for more people to get on the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an IOR measures. From 1980 on, and still measuring the newer designs, there were some weird things tried. There was a lot of money in it for the designer to draw the fastest boat for its rating, no mater how it really sailed or looked. But that was really just a few, conspicuous boats. Why far, most were good sailing, stout boats. Not as fast down wind as today's sport boats, but much more comfortable.

My old '84 Peterson 1 toner rates the same as a j 105 or Melges 24. But which would you rather sail in some seas and wind? Or cruise with family and friends in the San Juans? I know my choice. And 32 years later it still is winning and looks good.

Sure, a Melges 32 is faster for its size, and off wind speed is great (that's what I sail dinghies for), but upwind is so much easier on the body. No hanging on a 1/4" line hiking out.

There are definitely some advantages to some of the newer boats, which there should be as designs evolve, but calling them shit boats is a bit overboard. Besides, one could get into racing one so much cheaper than a new design, even with new sails and gear. Believe me, I did it twice.

So is a dragon a shit boat compares to say a soling? Just cause it is heavier and older, does not make it a shit boat. Just more options for more people to get on the water.

 

Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something for the youngsters who scorn those days, to really consider, is that these IOR boats that any many are still around, were built for the ocean, not windward leeward with racing cancelled if the white caps got scary! Not only that but travelled on the world circuits sailing on their own hulls, not as cargo!

The Holland 40 I raced on in '87 had by that time made 8 transatlantic crossings to race in Admiral Cups, Sardinia Cup, and one-ton worlds. I doubt any sportboat has done that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

but they were not good boats!

 

I disagree that they were (are) not good boats. Mine (Serendipity 43) has no bad habits. NONE. We've sailed and raced it for 30 years, in all kinds of conditions, including over 450 races and 55,000 cruising miles. It is still fast and still fun to sail. We've never (NEVER) had a downwind wipe out. Maybe round-ups a few times, but never a downwind broach. Upwind its able to hold it's own against, and outpoint, similarly sized newer spirit boats with more sail area and longer waterlines. OK, they blow by us on kite reaches but if the course has a downwind leg, and the breeze is up, we bear off and square the pole and we're faster to the bottom mark. I'll never forget being on the start line with 16 two tonners, racing level under IOR, that was really exciting, but now we sail PHRF and other systems and we do fine. In the end, in mixed fleets, we win our share.

 

We sailed double handed in brutal conditions all over the world, mostly using a windvane, and never had a problem handling the boat. I could tell you stories which would make you shudder, but the boat took care of us every time.

 

Yes, the newer boats are faster in some conditions, and it's obviously more fun to go planning across the bay at 20 kts, than it is to be stuck in a big hole in the water going 9 knots, and yes we definitely need more crew to race the boat, crew who have develop skills and work well together and work hard to race; the new boats are easier to sail, but that's progress. New cars are better than old ones too, but that doesn't make the old classics bad. And these old boats are a bargain. I'd love to buy a TP52, but I can't afford it, and it wouldn't make a good world cruiser anyhow, so I'll just keep my old IOR war horse and keep buying sails, upgrading the hardware, and sailing and racing hard as we can, and the haters can just stuff it.

 

 

And they keep winning races too, as mentioned on Wed.: http://www.latitude38.com/lectronic/lectronicday.lasso?date=2016-12-14#.WFRRcqIrK1s

 

Here's a 1982 cruising conversion Serendipity 43 for sale. http://www.sailboatlistings.com/view/54312

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

but they were not good boats!

 

I disagree that they were (are) not good boats. Mine (Serendipity 43) has no bad habits. NONE. We've sailed and raced it for 30 years, in all kinds of conditions, including over 450 races and 55,000 cruising miles. It is still fast and still fun to sail. We've never (NEVER) had a downwind wipe out. Maybe round-ups a few times, but never a downwind broach. Upwind its able to hold it's own against, and outpoint, similarly sized newer spirit boats with more sail area and longer waterlines. OK, they blow by us on kite reaches but if the course has a downwind leg, and the breeze is up, we bear off and square the pole and we're faster to the bottom mark. I'll never forget being on the start line with 16 two tonners, racing level under IOR, that was really exciting, but now we sail PHRF and other systems and we do fine. In the end, in mixed fleets, we win our share.

 

We sailed double handed in brutal conditions all over the world, mostly using a windvane, and never had a problem handling the boat. I could tell you stories which would make you shudder, but the boat took care of us every time.

 

Yes, the newer boats are faster in some conditions, and it's obviously more fun to go planning across the bay at 20 kts, than it is to be stuck in a big hole in the water going 9 knots, and yes we definitely need more crew to race the boat, crew who have develop skills and work well together and work hard to race; the new boats are easier to sail, but that's progress. New cars are better than old ones too, but that doesn't make the old classics bad. And these old boats are a bargain. I'd love to buy a TP52, but I can't afford it, and it wouldn't make a good world cruiser anyhow, so I'll just keep my old IOR war horse and keep buying sails, upgrading the hardware, and sailing and racing hard as we can, and the haters can just stuff it.

 

And they keep winning races too, as mentioned on Wed.: http://www.latitude38.com/lectronic/lectronicday.lasso?date=2016-12-14#.WFRRcqIrK1s

 

Here's a 1982 cruising conversion Serendipity 43 for sale. http://www.sailboatlistings.com/view/54312

$84K for a 35 year old war horse?! Better still have a kilo of coke in the chart table for that price!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016-08-17 at 2:23 PM, Nice! said:

IOR boats were giant load-generating wipeout machines that cost cubic dollars and just dug big holes in the water.... I'm not discrediting IOR boats.

Oh please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KC64000 said:

They were awesome machines.

 

evergreen wipeout.jpg

Evergreen_cover - Copy.jpg

 

Awesome, except for the 14 Stearns hydro cylinders, including for outhaul in the boom; or is that pic of an earlier boat, than the one I worked on just before '82 SORC? I think that one had a different paint scheme?  And the trampoline cockpit floor, that we had to reinforce by glassing in aluminum tubes underneath.  Was fun to sail though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got laid a lot on IOR boats, occasionally on IMS boats and hardly ever on IRC boats. Bring back the IOR!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Last Post said:

I got laid a lot on IOR boats, occasionally on IMS boats and hardly ever on IRC boats. Bring back the IOR!

As the saying goes "Remember when sex was safe and diving was dangerous?"  Just a change in culture...and advancing age.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2016 at 8:10 PM, SloopJonB said:

Drum was the first time I ever heard of it happening and it was an error by the foundry (reputedly not J'ing the bolts) rather than design flaws and pushing the envelope too hard like all the incidents now.

 

Re: the old Chevy pickup comparison - which would you rather have?

 

post-95343-0-73879300-1471489790_thumb.jpgpost-95343-0-80103400-1471489796_thumb.jpg

Sloop you Dumb ass you need to go read up on the Drum inquiry then come back and comment after you have done your reading. Also those Peterson Serendipity era boats are pretty much bombproof offshore.  Wngs has always been a favorite also La Pantera / Chimera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Country, I was just remembering what was reported at the time - hence the "reputedly" in my comment.

Since you are much more knowledgeable, perhaps you could enlighten us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, billy backstay said:

 

Awesome, except for the 14 Stearns hydro cylinders, including for outhaul in the boom; or is that pic of an earlier boat, than the one I worked on just before '82 SORC? I think that one had a different paint scheme?  And the trampoline cockpit floor, that we had to reinforce by glassing in aluminum tubes underneath.  Was fun to sail though!

The Evergreen in the picture is the 1978 C&C Two Tonner that won the Canada's Cup.

For the '82 SORC it would have been the Frers 45.  That boat was painted white with green stripe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Country, I was just remembering what was reported at the time - hence the "reputedly" in my comment.

Since you are much more knowledgeable, perhaps you could enlighten us?

Drum had an aluminum spacer box between the hull and the lead.  The spacer was not welded per the specification, and the assembly came apart.

Without doubt the keel bolts were still in the lead, and still bolted snugly to the bottom plate of the spacer box, even as it came to rest on the seafloor.

Now Charley, a different Holland design, supposedly had straight keelbolts sticking out from the hull after the lead left the boat.  Maybe you are conflating the two.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AlR said:

The Evergreen in the picture is the 1978 C&C Two Tonner that won the Canada's Cup.

For the '82 SORC it would have been the Frers 45.  That boat was painted white with green stripe.

 

For some reason I thought that Brendan Dobroth designed that 45, not Frers?  But you are probably correct.  Brendan was inovlved though, IIRC?  Perhaps he blueprinted the keel fairing; he was very good at that!  It was hysterical to have two full time guys on Tim Stearns, (Don Green's) payroll, with a van full of hydro cylinder spares, and 55 gallon drums of hydraulic fluid, to service and replace, the 14 cylnders that were constantly failing!!  It was a running joke amongst us, BN's that were day workers on the boat.  Stearns was dating Don''s daughter Sharon (famous photog) at the time.  I remember the Pas a Grille race on Evergreen that year.  On a beam to broad reach we hooked onto the quarter wave of a slightly longer and faster boat, and got a fast tow for several miles on the last leg, IIRC

 

 

 

 

bN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

 

For some reason I thought that Brendan Dobroth designed that 45, not Frers?  But you are probably correct.  Brendan was inovlved though, IIRC?  Perhaps he blueprinted the keel fairing; he was very good at that!  It was hysterical to have two full time guys on Tim Stearns, (Don Green's) payroll, with a van full of hydro cylinder spares, and 55 gallon drums of hydraulic fluid, to service and replace, the 14 cylnders that were constantly failing!!  It was a running joke amongst us, BN's that were day workers on the boat.  Stearns was dating Don''s daughter Sharon (famous photog) at the time.  I remember the Pas a Grille race on Evergreen that year.  On a beam to broad reach we hooked onto the quarter wave of a slightly longer and faster boat, and got a fast tow for several miles on the last leg, IIRC

 

 

 

 

bN

Dobroth did the 2nd Coug, for the ‘84 Canada’s Cup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billy backstay said:

 

For some reason I thought that Brendan Dobroth designed that 45, not Frers?  But you are probably correct.  Brendan was inovlved though, IIRC?  Perhaps he blueprinted the keel fairing; he was very good at that!  It was hysterical to have two full time guys on Tim Stearns, (Don Green's) payroll, with a van full of hydro cylinder spares, and 55 gallon drums of hydraulic fluid, to service and replace, the 14 cylnders that were constantly failing!!  It was a running joke amongst us, BN's that were day workers on the boat.  Stearns was dating Don''s daughter Sharon (famous photog) at the time.  I remember the Pas a Grille race on Evergreen that year.  On a beam to broad reach we hooked onto the quarter wave of a slightly longer and faster boat, and got a fast tow for several miles on the last leg, IIRC

 

 

 

 

bN

Frers, not Dogbreath.  Had a similar, nearly chined aft section like the Dogbreath/Irwin boats (Razzle Dazzle, R2D2, Slick).  Could have/should have been faster.

By '82 wasn't Stearns Sailing Systems gone?

How do you think TS earned the nickname "Timmy Tubesteak"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, sunseeker said:

Dobroth did the 2nd Coug, for the ‘84 Canada’s Cup

That boat was pretty much a copy of the Irwin 42s like Razzle Dazzle and Slick.  Some say in the CC conditions it wasn't any faster than the previous Coug, the '81 winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, AlR said:

Frers, not Dogbreath.  Had a similar, nearly chined aft section like the Dogbreath/Irwin boats (Razzle Dazzle, R2D2, Slick).  Could have/should have been faster.

By '82 wasn't Stearns Sailing Systems gone?

How do you think TS earned the nickname "Timmy Tubesteak"?

We called him Timmy Twintues for his headfoil system. IIRC?   He  was dating, or engage to Don Greens daughter at the time.  

but this was 24 years ago, and the memories fade....

but this 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

We called him Timmy Twintues for his headfoil system. IIRC?   He  was dating, or engage to Don Greens daughter at the time.  

but this was 24 years ago, and the memories fade....

but this 

In the industry he was Timmy Twinstay.

Once he started in with the MUCH younger daughter of one of his customers he earned "Timmy Tubesteak".

Sharon was so hot just looking at her would burn your retinas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/08/2016 at 6:10 AM, dogwatch said:

 

No it was a force 10 storm and large breaking seas. Put any race fleet including 30-40 footers into the those conditions and the same would happen. I was in Cornwall at the time and remember it, it was a full-on winter storm in August. It won't in fact happen again because forecasting is better and race officers won't consciously send boats out into such conditions.

Bingo.

A read of 'Fastney Force 10' would suggest otherwise. With the exception of the lost boats (no crew qualification then so some boats had relatively inexperienced crews) the boats proved remarkably seaworthy. Some experienced crews didn't drop into survival mode but kept racing. 

The one design that gained a poor reputation was the OOD 34 but as a one design fleet its possible they were tightly grouped and probably got the worst of the weather.

Not really relevant but interesting (maybe)...

One boat in particular proved that the best liferaft was the boat.

'Grimalkin' which, abandoned (complete with injured crew member),  was found happily bobbing about post storm. 

Interestingly a yacht listed as lost in the storm just sold in Plymouth (UK). 

'Polar Bear' looks in very good health and has been extensively cruised. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Richard 4073 said:

I quite like this pic (an old North Sails ad) of what Fast used to look like, breeze on and bow wave fully developed!  Possibly from the 1982 Clipper Cup.

North Sails_Fast.jpg

Margaret Rintoul, became Tomahawk,  yes, '82 CC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, longy said:

Margaret Rintoul, became Tomahawk,  yes, '82 CC

Ahh ...the mighty "Maggie spent tool". Yep '82 was a ripper...probably the best!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Last Post said:

I got laid a lot on IOR boats, occasionally on IMS boats and hardly ever on IRC boats. Bring back the IOR!

Quote of the year.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about Serendipty 43s being bombproof. I knew Burt Benjamin, the owner of several boats named Lone Star pretty well and asked him once why he dumped his 43 so fast for a NM 55. He said two years in all the winches were pulling the decks and cabin trunk up and everything leaked like a sieve. Now that could have been because he elected to go with a trunk cabin version but still...........I think he was very happy with his NM. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kinardly said:

I don't know about Serendipty 43s being bombproof. I knew Burt Benjamin, the owner of several boats named Lone Star pretty well and asked him once why he dumped his 43 so fast for a NM 55. He said two years in all the winches were pulling the decks and cabin trunk up and everything leaked like a sieve. Now that could have been because he elected to go with a trunk cabin version but still...........I think he was very happy with his NM. 

Meaning what?  The winches were pulling the deck off the hull??  The winches were pulling the cabin house off of the deck??  That boat is still out there sailing with her original deck.

So after 2 years Burt was surprised he had to do some maintenance like re-bedding the deck hardware?

Two S43s have done circumnavigations.  Hull #1 (Wings) has been a live aboard home, cruising the Pacific for more than 25 years.  Most of the other boats are still racing today.

The S43 was built with a solid laminate hull.  That means no issues with core shear or core turning to mush.  Bombproof compared to most Grands Prix boats of that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, AlR said:

Meaning what?  The winches were pulling the deck off the hull??  The winches were pulling the cabin house off of the deck??  That boat is still out there sailing with her original deck.

So after 2 years Burt was surprised he had to do some maintenance like re-bedding the deck hardware?

Two S43s have done circumnavigations.  Hull #1 (Wings) has been a live aboard home, cruising the Pacific for more than 25 years.  Most of the other boats are still racing today.

The S43 was built with a solid laminate hull.  That means no issues with core shear or core turning to mush.  Bombproof compared to most Grands Prix boats of that time.

Yes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, AlR said:

Meaning what?  The winches were pulling the deck off the hull??  The winches were pulling the cabin house off of the deck??  That boat is still out there sailing with her original deck.

So after 2 years Burt was surprised he had to do some maintenance like re-bedding the deck hardware?

Two S43s have done circumnavigations.  Hull #1 (Wings) has been a live aboard home, cruising the Pacific for more than 25 years.  Most of the other boats are still racing today.

The S43 was built with a solid laminate hull.  That means no issues with core shear or core turning to mush.  Bombproof compared to most Grands Prix boats of that time.

 

S 43 in eastern Long Island Sound had a new Britt Chance keel installed, and for years the previous owners brought home pickle dishes from Off Sounding, often with a penalty. They were of course excellent sailors in their own right. I crewed on it once or twice with the current owner, and it was a pleasant boat to work on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2018 at 11:23 AM, kinardly said:

I don't know about Serendipty 43s being bombproof. I knew Burt Benjamin, the owner of several boats named Lone Star pretty well and asked him once why he dumped his 43 so fast for a NM 55. He said two years in all the winches were pulling the decks and cabin trunk up and everything leaked like a sieve. Now that could have been because he elected to go with a trunk cabin version but still...........I think he was very happy with his NM. 

That's the only negative comment I've ever heard about Nawlins Marine build quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

That's the only negative comment I've ever heard about Nawlins Marine build quality.

That's because it is pure BS.  Winches pulling the deck off of the hull.  Complete nonsense, from a guy with a history of posting BS.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tan ton full of fun.

Dick Carter, the Father with Olin Stephens of the I.O.R rule is finishing his book. I cannot wait. A very slice of ocean racing when everything  was still possible.  

YdraDC.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites