• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.
Pewit

Boring, Slow, Hard

44 posts in this topic

Which boat do you think most fits the description and why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Catboat upwind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, duncan (the other one) said:

This new forum interface.

Yes but its not a boat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This.......

7342527-travel-ship-in-a-bad-time-weather.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually, that identifies very heavy boats that are set up for cruising. Especially those with lots of crap above the VCG and lots of windage, like dinghies on davits, air craft carrier bimini tops with solar arrays and farms (really!), huge cockpit enclosures, mast steps and baggywrinkle, radars way up the rig, roller furling mains, full keels, lots of weight in the ends, with essentially no thought about ergonomic deck layouts where sailing work can actually be performed.

Oddly, some very cruisey boats like the Formosa 41 do NOT fit this definition -- those things can sail very well once cracked off just a bit, and the sail handling controls are effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Any trip upwind in an outboard powered sailboat.

I didn't know J/29s are slow upwind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Pewit said:

Which boat do you think most fits the description and why?

IOR boats.

Distorted hulls = slow.

Daft all-headsail rigs = hard to handle

Slow and hard = boring

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take "What is a Catalina 22?" for $200, Alex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2017 at 6:23 AM, Pewit said:

Which boat do you think most fits the description and why?

The boat in the photo at your desk while you do your boring paerwork, the clock ticks ever more slowly and the longing to be out on the wawa is hard to take: how can you hack on any boat, regardless, while you sit at your desk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, 12 metre said:

I didn't know J/29s are slow upwind.

I meant *under power* :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, TwoLegged said:

IOR boats.

Distorted hulls = slow.

Daft all-headsail rigs = hard to handle

Slow and hard = boring

By the numbers slow and boring got more boats out then than fast and exciting does now :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

By the numbers slow and boring got more boats out then than fast and exciting does now :rolleyes:

There were many other factors getting people out racing in those days -- it wasn't the attraction of slow and hard boats.

Look at how huge the J/24 became within a short time from its launch.  It was much easier and faster than the IOR boats of that era, and when it appeared it way outsold the IOR slugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOR boats were fast and exciting when they came out - there's been nearly 1/2 century of development since then - which people seem to forget.

Share this post


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

The IOR boats were fast and exciting when they came out - there's been nearly 1/2 century of development since then - which people seem to forget.

Huh? I am having a difficult time remembering an example...do you mean boats that simply HAD an IOR rating or boats the were designed TO the Rule?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a C&C 33 or a Peterson Two Tonner or Kialoa III or.....

In the 70's the IOR boats were the pinnacle of sailboat design.

They weren't all distorted rule beaters by any means. In fact most weren't - except for the stinger sterns anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your view of IOR boats, designed to the rule or otherwise, is boring then you clearly never sailed them. And yes, compared to today's boats, slow, but in the same way as you could say 1975 cars are slow compared to today. And they most certainly were hard, hard to sail and hard on the human.........

Share this post


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

In the 70's the IOR boats were the pinnacle of sailboat design.

No, IOR boats were the pinnacle of sailboat racing.  Not of design, but racing. 

The major events all used IOR, so IOR attracted the most attention.  The big money flowed into IOR boats, creating hot racing in high profile competitions such as Cowes Week, and the Sydney-Hobart.  Stunning photography gave a high public profile to the IOR boats, with their huge lurid spinnakers and bloopers broaching the way around race courses.

But designers working outside the constraints of IOR were producing lighter, faster boats which were easier to sail.

Bill Lee's Merlin was only the most prominent of a swathe of designers who picked up on the concepts pioneered in the 1950s by Uffa Fox, of light boats with planing hulls.  ULDBs were the real cutting edge of design in the 1970s.  And in 1977, the J/24 took a heavily diluted form of the concept to the mass market.  The J/24 was actually closer to the IOR boats than the ULDBs, with high beam and high CoG, but it was lighter and simpler than the IOR boats and had an undistorted hull.

By 1978, the J/24 was giving half-tonners a run for their money, planing away at 14 knots while IOR boats under 30' were broaching at 9 knots.

The irony was that innovative designs had begun to appear under IOR, with Bruce Farr and others developing hulls which had much more in common with the ULDBs.  The IOR response was to preserve the existing fleet by penalising the light, slim Kiwis, and favouring what Farr denounced as the "heavy beamies".

The heavy beamies lived on for nearly another decade, but the long-term showed that Farr was mostly right.  Narrower, light boats with low CoG and planing hulls became the dominant form by the end of the century, and the IOR's heavy beamies became museum pieces.  And the sailors who had cut their teeth in the J/24 in the late 70s and early 80s went on to become big players in the faster boats which emerged.

IOR was a brave attempt to create an international rule for competition in dual purpose cruiser-racers, taking the old RORC and CCA rules into the new era of composite hulls, alloy masts and synthetic sails.  But the dual-purpose boat was uncompetitive within a few years of the rule's birth, so the IOR's core purpose was defeated within a few years of its birth. Its overly-crude measurement framework drove design into plain daft pathways of low stability and wildly distorted hulls, with inefficient rigs which were horrible to handle.

These follies did produce great racing for a while, but no way was it good design.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TwoLegged said:

No, IOR boats were the pinnacle of sailboat racing.  Not of design, but racing. 

The major events all used IOR, so IOR attracted the most attention.  The big money flowed into IOR boats, creating hot racing in high profile competitions such as Cowes Week, and the Sydney-Hobart.  Stunning photography gave a high public profile to the IOR boats, with their huge lurid spinnakers and bloopers broaching the way around race courses.

But designers working outside the constraints of IOR were producing lighter, faster boats which were easier to sail.

Bill Lee's Merlin was only the most prominent of a swathe of designers who picked up on the concepts pioneered in the 1950s by Uffa Fox, of light boats with planing hulls.  ULDBs were the real cutting edge of design in the 1970s.  And in 1977, the J/24 took a heavily diluted form of the concept to the mass market.  The J/24 was actually closer to the IOR boats than the ULDBs, with high beam and high CoG, but it was lighter and simpler than the IOR boats and had an undistorted hull.

By 1978, the J/24 was giving half-tonners a run for their money, planing away at 14 knots while IOR boats under 30' were broaching at 9 knots.

The irony was that innovative designs had begun to appear under IOR, with Bruce Farr and others developing hulls which had much more in common with the ULDBs.  The IOR response was to preserve the existing fleet by penalising the light, slim Kiwis, and favouring what Farr denounced as the "heavy beamies".

The heavy beamies lived on for nearly another decade, but the long-term showed that Farr was mostly right.  Narrower, light boats with low CoG and planing hulls became the dominant form by the end of the century, and the IOR's heavy beamies became museum pieces.  And the sailors who had cut their teeth in the J/24 in the late 70s and early 80s went on to become big players in the faster boats which emerged.

IOR was a brave attempt to create an international rule for competition in dual purpose cruiser-racers, taking the old RORC and CCA rules into the new era of composite hulls, alloy masts and synthetic sails.  But the dual-purpose boat was uncompetitive within a few years of the rule's birth, so the IOR's core purpose was defeated within a few years of its birth. Its overly-crude measurement framework drove design into plain daft pathways of low stability and wildly distorted hulls, with inefficient rigs which were horrible to handle.

These follies did produce great racing for a while, but no way was it good design.

 

That is a good point - IOR odd distortions and rapid obsolescence was one of the driving factors of PHRF. OTOH many of the not-too-odd IOR boats were very solid boats that are sailing today and their keels don't fall off either. I actually don't think ANY of the rules have a lot to do with the decline of racing, but do remember CCA got a lot of boats out there, IOR did too, and PHRF at one time was booming. People in the 1960-1990 era were not sitting around suffering.........we were all out sailing ;)

BTW - a close quarters spinnaker duel back then was anything but boring! Especially when the other boat wasn't in your class :rolleyes::angry:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leggs - you sound like you read a book on the history of IOR rather than experienced the times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of the diamond-shaped extreme IOR shape although I like the way they sail, especially upwind. Downwind control is another matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Leggs - you sound like you read a book on the history of IOR rather than experienced the times.

I was there, tho only as a youngster club racing in the late 70s. I didn't take many rides on IOR boats.  There wasn't much fun in working hard to go slow.

Anyway, do you really stand by that claim that:

13 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

In the 70's the IOR boats were the pinnacle of sailboat design.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that an IOR maxi was a more advanced design than Bill Lee's Merlin?

Or that an IOR quarter tonner was more advanced than a J/24?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IOR was the Windows of boat design. Useful? Yes. Popular? Yes. But like Windows it held development back twenty years. Inelegant. Buggy. Frequent updates made it worse. And the regular crashing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, daddle said:

IOR was the Windows of boat design. Useful? Yes. Popular? Yes. But like Windows it held development back twenty years. Inelegant. Buggy. Frequent updates made it worse. And the regular crashing...

Brilliant, Daddle.

"It's not a bug, it's a feature".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a myth that IOR encouragedbeamy heavy masthead pintail designs.  It was a design path designers thought was encouraged, basically started in the early 70's by Kirby (SJ 24) and Peterson (Ganbare).  My guess is this was influenced more by an all upwind all the time philosophy for the RTB racing prevalent in the Ton Cups

By '76 or '77 led by the NZ designers and Magic Bus in particular in '76 (although it could be argued it was 45 Deg South in '75), it was realized that in fact beamy lightweight, wide ass, fracs actually worked better under IOR, even in light air.  Actually, in '75 IIRC the other designers at the QT Cup laughed when they saw the boats the Kiwis had brought in.  The thinking was they might be fast reaching and running, but would have their asses handed to them upwind.  Even after winning the cup, the thinking was "okay, they can work in a breeze but not in the light stuff" (which was true with the Farr 727 design).  Then in '76, MB and Fun proved they could work in light air as well (even a keeler like MB).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:

I was there, tho only as a youngster club racing in the late 70s. I didn't take many rides on IOR boats.  There wasn't much fun in working hard to go slow.

Anyway, do you really stand by that claim that:

Are you seriously trying to tell me that an IOR maxi was a more advanced design than Bill Lee's Merlin?

Or that an IOR quarter tonner was more advanced than a J/24?

If you wanted to go upwind they were. Comparing a sled like Merlin to a Maxi is pointless, the only thing they have in common is length. Now that Lee has a modern keel on Merlin it might be able to go upwind some. Would you prefer Merlin for a RTW?

The J-24 was an advancement in offwind speed but my old QT was still the most fun boat I've ever owned and a lot better looking too.

And besides, both those boats came along in the late 70's - nearly a decade into IOR - part of that 1/2 century of advancement I mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

If you wanted to go upwind they were. Comparing a sled like Merlin to a Maxi is pointless, the only thing they have in common is length. Now that Lee hast a modern keel on Merlin it might be able to go upwind some.

The J-24 was an advancement but my old QT was still the most fun boat I've ever owned and a lot better looking too.

And besides, both those boats came along in the late 70's - nearly a decade into IOR - part of that 1/2 century of advancement I mentioned.

Agreed,

I realize Merlin is an icon to many, but she was a one trick pony.  Perfect for Transpac and the like, but turn the leeward mark and any maxi of the day would have smoked her.  I don't recall her doing Clipper or Kenwood Cup against the fleet of Maxi's that would often show up - but it would be a waste of time for her to even bother.  Of course todays sailing "pop culture" seems to feel that upwind speed isn't as important as planing ability.

The boat that actually pointed the way and predates Merlin by almost a decade is Windward Passage.  Not truly a ULDB and not even an IOR design but a step in the right direction and was still able to hold her own (and usually better) upwind against IOR Maxis even into the 80's (with a few rig updates and such).

As for the J/24 vs QT thing, the only thing they had in common was LOA.  The J/24 measured in as a very short Half Ton under IOR, so it comes as no surprise she would be almost as fast as one (which shows that as a rule, IOR worked pretty well) although not fast enough to enter a J/24 (with a proper cabin added) in any high level HT event.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't every measurement rule type-forming?

I sailed a Dragon - essentially a 30 foot meter boat - and she went upwind like a hot knife through butter. Downwind - ah how to phrase this with respect to the old girl - a bit of a challenge, those boats ROLL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TwoLegged said:

No, IOR boats were the pinnacle of sailboat racing.  Not of design, but racing. 

The major events all used IOR, so IOR attracted the most attention.  The big money flowed into IOR boats, creating hot racing in high profile competitions such as Cowes Week, and the Sydney-Hobart.  Stunning photography gave a high public profile to the IOR boats, with their huge lurid spinnakers and bloopers broaching the way around race courses.

But designers working outside the constraints of IOR were producing lighter, faster boats which were easier to sail.

Bill Lee's Merlin was only the most prominent of a swathe of designers who picked up on the concepts pioneered in the 1950s by Uffa Fox, of light boats with planing hulls.  ULDBs were the real cutting edge of design in the 1970s.  And in 1977, the J/24 took a heavily diluted form of the concept to the mass market.  The J/24 was actually closer to the IOR boats than the ULDBs, with high beam and high CoG, but it was lighter and simpler than the IOR boats and had an undistorted hull.

By 1978, the J/24 was giving half-tonners a run for their money, planing away at 14 knots while IOR boats under 30' were broaching at 9 knots.

The irony was that innovative designs had begun to appear under IOR, with Bruce Farr and others developing hulls which had much more in common with the ULDBs.  The IOR response was to preserve the existing fleet by penalising the light, slim Kiwis, and favouring what Farr denounced as the "heavy beamies".

The heavy beamies lived on for nearly another decade, but the long-term showed that Farr was mostly right.  Narrower, light boats with low CoG and planing hulls became the dominant form by the end of the century, and the IOR's heavy beamies became museum pieces.  And the sailors who had cut their teeth in the J/24 in the late 70s and early 80s went on to become big players in the faster boats which emerged.

IOR was a brave attempt to create an international rule for competition in dual purpose cruiser-racers, taking the old RORC and CCA rules into the new era of composite hulls, alloy masts and synthetic sails.  But the dual-purpose boat was uncompetitive within a few years of the rule's birth, so the IOR's core purpose was defeated within a few years of its birth. Its overly-crude measurement framework drove design into plain daft pathways of low stability and wildly distorted hulls, with inefficient rigs which were horrible to handle.

These follies did produce great racing for a while, but no way was it good design.

 

I don't know much about IORs or ULDBs but one thing I know is that J24s don't plane. They can from time to time surf down a wave, but they don't plane. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 12 metre said:

As for the J/24 vs QT thing, the only thing they had in common was LOA.  The J/24 measured in as a very short Half Ton under IOR, so it comes as no surprise she would be almost as fast as one (which shows that as a rule, IOR worked pretty well) although not fast enough to enter a J/24 (with a proper cabin added) in any high level HT event.  

Actually, a J/24 had more in common with a QT than LOA. The J/24 was about the same length and beam as a QT, similar sail area, but was a bit lighter.

You're right, a J/24 was nearly as fast as a half-tonner.  And that's my point: the J/24 was a first design from a man off a correspondence course, and it was way faster than an IOR boat of the same size, even if that IOR boat was off the board of a highly-accomplished designer.  The IOR boats were slow designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Plumber said:

I don't know much about IORs or ULDBs but one thing I know is that J24s don't plane. They can from time to time surf down a wave, but they don't plane. 

Call it planing or surfing or whatever you like, but sustained bursts of 14 knots was commonplace on a J/24 in a blow.  It didn't happen on the IOR boats of that era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:

Actually, a J/24 had more in common with a QT than LOA. The J/24 was about the same length and beam as a QT, similar sail area, but was a bit lighter.

You're right, a J/24 was nearly as fast as a half-tonner.  And that's my point: the J/24 was a first design from a man off a correspondence course, and it was way faster than an IOR boat of the same size, even if that IOR boat was off the board of a highly-accomplished designer.  The IOR boats were slow designs.

You are still missing the point about chronology - when the San Juan 24 came out it was a rocket - nothing in the mid-20' range could touch it except for pure day racers like Stars.

When the J-24 came out the 1/4 Pounders became old news. That doesn't mean they were bad design, it just means they got out-designed years later - by a boat that would lose badly to them under the rule of the day  ;).

Keep in mind that IOR was originally supposed to create true racer cruisers - which it did - originally. How'd you like to sail a 250 mile race on a J-24?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent many summers cruising a J/24.  Way more than 250 miles, and more fun than heavy slow boats.

J/24 was a 1975 design. That's not years later.  It's only 5 years after IOR was born, but still some time after racer-cruisers became uncompetitive under IOR.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right - I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most racing in the 70s was around the buoys and, for that purpose, the IOR influenced designs were a significant, even radical, performance upgrade over what had been around before. Compare a Ranger 37 with Ganbare and you'll see what I mean. The fact that newer, non-IOR influenced designs quickly pushed the design and performance envelope further doesn't change that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us just agree that IOR boats were usually faster than CCA boats, but IOR rule distortions made them slower than they could have been otherwise :)

 

* after sailing a Condor 40 racing tri, ANY monohull could be seen as slow and boring :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Let us just agree that IOR boats were usually faster than CCA boats, but IOR rule distortions made them slower than they could have been otherwise :)

* after sailing a Condor 40 racing tri, ANY monohull could be seen as slow and boring :D

Yes, I agree with all of that!  And multis are so much faster than monos that it's amazing monos still hold so much market share.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well having to pay for 2 slips and a pile driver to yank the center piling(s) out is one drag on multi sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe there is also the disproportionate effect of weight on performance. Adding weight, whether in the form of stores, accommodations or just plain people to a monohull has far less impact than it would on a multi. Or so I'm told. I could learn to like cruising a Corsair 31 but I'm pretty sure my wife wouldn't go for it. Once you bulk up to one of the charter or cruising cats it's pretty much game over unless blowing 20+ on the beam. That rarely happens around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now