• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

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

Ranger 26-2 Gary Mull 1980 Design

133 posts in this topic

Anyone know of the Gary Mull design Ranger 26-2 from 1980?

I picked one up as a salvage project and I'm looking for any information I can find on the design of the dagger board keel and trunk, removable rudder etc.

Just got done making repairs to the hull deck joint and stripped the bottom and rudder to find some previous repairs. Nothing too scary on the hull but the rudder is looking tough.

May need to replace if I can find an old one out there or rebuild what I have if I can't find anything.

Any suggestions where I might find an old sister ship or any information that is available please let me know.

 

Ranger 26-2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

appears to have butt phucked IOR azz compromise...that said...nice find !...I am sure it'll be a sweet boat to sail !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very cool boat!  Obvious IOR influence in the design, which looks like a scaled up Ranger 22, which IIRC measured in as a mini-tonner.  The builder was an iteration of the company that also built Cals.

Good luck with your build and please post pics with your progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the encouragement

This is the repaired hull deck joint photo

Ranger 26-2 hull-deck tabbing.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here is the fresh bottom

now on to the rudder...

Ranger 26-2 with fresh bottom.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may take awhile

BTW, anyone know how to get nasty old carpet glue off the inside of the hull? Planning to strip and paint bright white  but only thing I've found to work is sanding, sanding and more sanding.

Ranger 26-2 Rudder Port Side.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Klean Strip. Follow the instructions. Work in small sections and completely finish before moving on. Keep the surface wet and thick with the stuff. It's still going to take a while and a lot of paper towels.

Otherwise, camp fuel works, but blah blah blah fires.. blah blah blah ventilation... ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd try a twisted or knotted cup brush in an angle grinder. Depending on the adhesive it might just melt it and plug up but I've had it work well on some.

Be sure to clean up very thoroughly afterwards or your boat will look like it has chicken pox.

 

Cup Brush.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ILYB-Todd said:

Thanks for the encouragement

This is the repaired hull deck joint photo

Ranger 26-2 hull-deck tabbing.jpg

Good job on repairing the joint from inside, my shoulders ache just looking at that pic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hull shape looks more than a little like the  Nautica 27s that were built here in Honolulu in the late '70s - although they were fixed-keel racers,  same bow profile, and very typical 'Mull' house & windows.

Good luck on the project,  looks like you could have a good project on your hands there.

Retracting keel and an inboard rudder - you have to admit,  that's an odd combination.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the glue is hard, try a cabinet scraper with the corners rounded and dulled

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Great Red Shark said:

Hull shape looks more than a little like the  Nautica 27s that were built here in Honolulu in the late '70s - although they were fixed-keel racers,  same bow profile, and very typical 'Mull' house & windows.

Good luck on the project,  looks like you could have a good project on your hands there.

Retracting keel and an inboard rudder - you have to admit,  that's an odd combination.

 

The rudder is removable as well. Has a large triangular section above rudder that fits in a matching triangular hole in deck.

Open transom design with outboard motor on a fixed mount on centerline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An inboard cassette in 1980 ?  Mull WAS a man ahead of his time.  Pictures of that when convenient,  please.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hobot said:

Good job on repairing the joint from inside, my shoulders ache just looking at that pic.

Thank you, grinding it out was tough and dusty. Had a good NIOSH full face respirator to help keep eyes and lungs clear.

Used empty caulk cartridges filled with West System epoxy thickened with colloidal silica to shoot the gap, then three layers of 45x45 biaxial with stitched matt backing to seal the deal.  The photo shows a layer of release fabric we overlayed to make rolling the bubbles out easier. The bubbles are in the release fabric not the glass layup. Worked pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Great Red Shark said:

An inboard cassette in 1980 ?  Mull WAS a man ahead of his time.  Pictures of that when convenient,  please.

 

Has some interesting locking offset washers that pivot over top of housing once installed

IMG_0935.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cassette rudder makes perfect sense along with retractable keel. Lift the keel, pull out the rudder cassette to ramp launch or haul out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Captain Obvious  ........ apparently you didn't read the entire thread. 

Share this post


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

Captain Obvious  ........ apparently you didn't read the entire thread. 

commotion, thanks for providing the sailboatdata link. we saw that when checking the boat out to purchase. Also found some sailingtexas references of a couple other there were out there at one time, one in Montana actually,  but few resources from a design/structural perspective. Gonna be sailing on west end of Lake Erie so the retractable keel was an attractive option especially for late season when the water goes to Buffalo for the winter.

 

Share this post


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

if the glue is hard, try a cabinet scraper with the corners rounded and dulled

This. Cheapest and quickest, probably not as effective and more elbow grease than Klean Strip but how perfect does it have to be?

I scraped out the front 1/3 of a Santana 23 and then said fuck it. Glue some new fabric over the old shit (I used a thick rayon felt). Nobody will know it's there (except you).

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, ILYB-Todd said:

This may take awhile

BTW, anyone know how to get nasty old carpet glue off the inside of the hull? Planning to strip and paint bright white  but only thing I've found to work is sanding, sanding and more sanding.

Ranger 26-2 Rudder Port Side.jpg

There is a catalyzed material called DuraTec used for surfacing prep prepaint, it sands very easy and is very stable. You could probably apply with a roller or spray directly over the surface as is then sand smooth. Try a quart kit in a test area.

 

http://www.fibreglast.com/product/Duratec_Gray_Surfacing_Primer_1041/Duratec

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck with the project.  I was on one of these once back in the 80's that was sailed out of Bald Eagle State Park in Pennsylvania.

It had been struck by lightening the night before, and what saved it was that after dancing around the cabin, the lightening hit the dagger

board and grounded out of the boat leaving only black marks on the inside of the hull.  The open transom, fractional rig, and light weight

were pretty radical for its time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, ryley said:

Klean Strip. Follow the instructions. Work in small sections and completely finish before moving on. Keep the surface wet and thick with the stuff. It's still going to take a while and a lot of paper towels.

Otherwise, camp fuel works, but blah blah blah fires.. blah blah blah ventilation... ;)

 

Apparently not available in Michigan. Must be a new environmental consciousness after years of destroying the Great Lakes.

Could be time for a run to Tony Paco's and Home Depot Ohio style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

16 hours ago, ILYB-Todd said:

commotion, thanks for providing the sailboatdata link. we saw that when checking the boat out to purchase. Also found some sailingtexas references of a couple other there were out there at one time, one in Montana actually,  but few resources from a design/structural perspective. Gonna be sailing on west end of Lake Erie so the retractable keel was an attractive option especially for late season when the water goes to Buffalo for the winter.

 

ILYB-Todd Hah...just noticed you sail out of Grosse Isle. We sail a S2 7.9 out of Cedar Island Yacht in Ontario.  About twenty or so miles east from you on Lake Erie. If believe your club will be hosting an 7.9 regatta. Keep us posted on your project progress.

Edited by commotion
correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not pretty but it's a rudder / cassette assembly.

Gonna need surgery over the winter but should be good enough for her maiden voyage.

Can anyone say "a three hour tour"?

Ranger Rudder 2.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this Todd the childhood fireworks expert?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally got a good look at the dagger board. Much better than the rudder so I decided to slap a quick coat of VC17 on and plunked her in for the first time. :)

Launch day!.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary Mull, all day long!

:)

Share this post


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

Gary Mull, all day long!

:)

May the Forza be with you!

FB- Doug

Share this post


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

May the Forza be with you!

FB- Doug

How Improbable!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Careful - he's Gonnagitcha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IOR or MORC, both did funny things to boats that meant their fleets would be limited.

If you need new sails, I'd go masthead if you can afford it. Like my Zap (Bruce King 26) of the same era, the frac rig is limiting in off the wind performance. 
I wish I had gone masthead and just spent the money.

You are fairly close to Competition Composites. Contact them. http://www.fastcomposites.ca/site/contact-us/

I know several people that have used them for new rudder assemblies and are very happy with price and quality.
You can ship them the whole thing and get a new one back. I looked a new rudder but with shipping from the west coast, just too much. You'll even get a better more modern shape.

Mull did good things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Meat Wad said:


Mull did good things.

I raced occassionally on a Ranger One Ton, we were on a distance race slugging upwind in about 25kts (the boat loved it), we turned the corner and set the chute and we all looked at each other and said, NOT IT.  Upwind great, downwind?  Not even close to great.  Gary Mull designed some of my favorite boats, the original Rangers 22, 26, 29, and 33 are all classics.  He figured out IOR pretty quickly and had many winners.  Horrible boats, but winners.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is picture of dagger board on launch day.

All it needed was a quick sanding and a coat of VC to get us in the water.

First sail yesterday :)

Ranger 26-2 dagger board.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2017 at 11:19 AM, Cal20sailor said:

I raced occassionally on a Ranger One Ton, we were on a distance race slugging upwind in about 25kts (the boat loved it), we turned the corner and set the chute and we all looked at each other and said, NOT IT.  Upwind great, downwind?  Not even close to great.  Gary Mull designed some of my favorite boats, the original Rangers 22, 26, 29, and 33 are all classics.  He figured out IOR pretty quickly and had many winners.  Horrible boats, but winners.  

Blame IOR for that downwind shit, it wasn't just the Ranger. I remember the Tonne Cup in SD during the late 70's and early 80's. Lots of upwind machines.
We had a Ranger 37 in our area, Grey Eagle. typical IOR of the time.

Share this post


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

Blame IOR for that downwind shit, it wasn't just the Ranger. I remember the Tonne Cup in SD during the late 70's and early 80's. Lots of upwind machines.
We had a Ranger 37 in our area, Grey Eagle. typical IOR of the time.

Don't blame the rule - blame the designers.  Especially North American ones.

The same rule book in the hands of Group Finot back in 1973 produced Revolution, which IIRC was selected to the French  team in 3 separate ACs

In the same year, a little known kiwi named Bruce Farr designed Gerontius without much consideration to IOR which two years later was selected to represent New Zealand in the 1975 AC.

Of course after that came the wave of Farr/Davidson/Whiting designs which pretty much ruled IOR for the rest of the 70's.  Same rule - different take.

Here's a link to info on Gerontius courtesy of RB Sailing Blog: http://rbsailing.blogspot.ca/2016/09/gerontius-farr-42.html

ajaxnetphoto1973-solentengland-admirals-cup-championship-the-french-fc3xw0.jpg

Gerontius J Eastland.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/09/2017 at 5:23 PM, 12 metre said:

Don't blame the rule - blame the designers.  Especially North American ones.

The same rule book in the hands of Group Finot back in 1973 produced Revolution, which IIRC was selected to the French  team in 3 separate ACs

In the same year, a little known kiwi named Bruce Farr designed Gerontius without much consideration to IOR which two years later was selected to represent New Zealand in the 1975 AC.

Of course after that came the wave of Farr/Davidson/Whiting designs which pretty much ruled IOR for the rest of the 70's.  Same rule - different take.

Here's a link to info on Gerontius courtesy of RB Sailing Blog: http://rbsailing.blogspot.ca/2016/09/gerontius-farr-42.html

ajaxnetphoto1973-solentengland-admirals-cup-championship-the-french-fc3xw0.jpg

Gerontius J Eastland.jpg

the difference, imho, is that the french and the kiwis designed boats they believed to be fast sorta desregarding the rules or, at least, the major design trends t the rules, while the others designed boats to be seen, by the rule, as slower as they really were - hence the bumps, hollows and distortions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 1:23 PM, 12 metre said:

Don't blame the rule - blame the designers.  Especially North American ones.

The same rule book in the hands of Group Finot back in 1973 produced Revolution, which IIRC was selected to the French  team in 3 separate ACs

In the same year, a little known kiwi named Bruce Farr designed Gerontius without much consideration to IOR which two years later was selected to represent New Zealand in the 1975 AC.

Of course after that came the wave of Farr/Davidson/Whiting designs which pretty much ruled IOR for the rest of the 70's.  Same rule - different take.

Here's a link to info on Gerontius courtesy of RB Sailing Blog: http://rbsailing.blogspot.ca/2016/09/gerontius-farr-42.html

ajaxnetphoto1973-solentengland-admirals-cup-championship-the-french-fc3xw0.jpg

Gerontius J Eastland.jpg

Sure, boats like Gerontius and Revolution were at the Admiral's Cup.  They weren't competitive, but they were there.  If you wanted to win you had to have a moderate weight masthead boat

In the 1975 Admiral's Cup the Top boat was a big Frers (S&S type) NORYEMA, and the next boat was the only Peterson boat there, his first generation 2Ton YEOMAN XX.  Yeoman beat the similar sized Gerontius in every race.  Yeoman scored more than 50% more points than the similar sized Revolution.  The winning British team consisted of NOYEMA, YEOMAN, and an S&S BATTLECRY

In the 1977 Admiral's Cup the masthead, moderate weight IMP was the best boat, followed closely by the masthead, moderate Peterson MOONSHINE.  Revolution was far down in the standings.  The winning British team consisted of a Holland 44 MARIONETTE, MOONSHINE, and YEOMAN back from 1975. 

In the 1979 Admiral's Cup it was the Peterson ECLIPSE.  The winning Aussie team consisted of the Holland IMPETUOUS, the Peterson RAGAMUFFIN, and the Dubois Police Car (fractional, but still moderate weight).

In 1981 it was the Holland SWUZZLBUBBLE, a moderate weight design along the lines of Regardless, a development of IMP.  It was a fractional rig.  Next up was the Dubois moderate, masthead VICTORY.  The winning British team was led by VICTORY, with the Peterson 45 YEOMAN, and the Dubois DRAGON (fractional, moderate weight).

In 1983 finally a lightweight fractional came clear.  DIVA was top boat, but right behind was the masthead Peterson ALMAGORES.  The German team consisted of moderate weight, fractional boats SABINA, PINTA, and OUTSIDER.

1985 was the year the fractional lightweights took over at the Admiral's Cup.  The winning German team was all fractional, tending toward the lighter end of moderate.

A Farr didn't win Overall until 1987, 12 years after GERONTIUS.

 

Similar results for the top boats at the SORC.  Masthead, moderate boats dominated until the mid 80s.

1975 Stinger Peterson One Ton

1976 Williwaw Peterson 2 Ton

1977 Imp Holland 2 Ton

1978 Williwaw Peterson 46

1979 Williwaw Peterson 45

1980 Acadia Peterson 43

1981 Intuition Peterson 42

1982 Retaliation Frers 51

1983 Scarlett O'Hara Peterson 43

1984 DIVA, a J/N fractional lightweight 40.

Neither Farr, Davidson, nor Whiting ever won the SORC Overall under IOR.  The myth that the Farr/Davidson/Whiting types "ruled the IOR for the rest of the 70s" is not factual

Share this post


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

the difference, imho, is that the french and the kiwis designed boats they believed to be fast sorta desregarding the rules or, at least, the major design trends t the rules, while the others designed boats to be seen, by the rule, as slower as they really were - hence the bumps, hollows and distortions.

Agreed - and that was my point.

IMO it is a myth that IOR encouraged designers to come up with heavy pinched stern MH rig designs given the success of boats like Revolution and Gerontius, which fly in the face of that notion.  

And lets not forget about the Gurney designed Windward Passage, the very dinghy like Maxi (as far as Maxis go), that also wasn't designed to IOR yet was probably the most successful IOR Maxi of all time.  Ironically, it seems like Gurneys actual IOR designs (Islander 41?) were his least successful IOR designs.

Share this post


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

IMO it is a myth that IOR encouraged designers to come up with heavy pinched stern

Yeah, sorta.  What the IOR did (mathematically, anyway) was encourage designers to build a boat that "looked slow" when measured... the rule heavily taxed speed-producing elements such as waterline and beam at rest, so a lot of designs came out with low initial RM, short/pinched ends, etc. at the dock... but had shape that came into play when sailing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strictly as an interested but uneducated observer back in the late 70s it seemed to me the IOR emphasis on fine ends reflected a belief held over from previous tradition that upwind performance won races. Maybe it took a combination of Kiwi and Aussie designers and boat builders who figured out how to make a light fractional boat sail like a dinghy offshore to bring off wind performance into the picture? 

Share this post


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

Sure, boats like Gerontius and Revolution were at the Admiral's Cup.  They weren't competitive, but they were there.  If you wanted to win you had to have a moderate weight masthead boat

In the 1975 Admiral's Cup the Top boat was a big Frers (S&S type) NORYEMA, and the next boat was the only Peterson boat there, his first generation 2Ton YEOMAN XX.  Yeoman beat the similar sized Gerontius in every race.  Yeoman scored more than 50% more points than the similar sized Revolution.  The winning British team consisted of NOYEMA, YEOMAN, and an S&S BATTLECRY

In the 1977 Admiral's Cup the masthead, moderate weight IMP was the best boat, followed closely by the masthead, moderate Peterson MOONSHINE.  Revolution was far down in the standings.  The winning British team consisted of a Holland 44 MARIONETTE, MOONSHINE, and YEOMAN back from 1975. 

In the 1979 Admiral's Cup it was the Peterson ECLIPSE.  The winning Aussie team consisted of the Holland IMPETUOUS, the Peterson RAGAMUFFIN, and the Dubois Police Car (fractional, but still moderate weight).

In 1981 it was the Holland SWUZZLBUBBLE, a moderate weight design along the lines of Regardless, a development of IMP.  It was a fractional rig.  Next up was the Dubois moderate, masthead VICTORY.  The winning British team was led by VICTORY, with the Peterson 45 YEOMAN, and the Dubois DRAGON (fractional, moderate weight).

In 1983 finally a lightweight fractional came clear.  DIVA was top boat, but right behind was the masthead Peterson ALMAGORES.  The German team consisted of moderate weight, fractional boats SABINA, PINTA, and OUTSIDER.

1985 was the year the fractional lightweights took over at the Admiral's Cup.  The winning German team was all fractional, tending toward the lighter end of moderate.

A Farr didn't win Overall until 1987, 12 years after GERONTIUS.

 

Similar results for the top boats at the SORC.  Masthead, moderate boats dominated until the mid 80s.

1975 Stinger Peterson One Ton

1976 Williwaw Peterson 2 Ton

1977 Imp Holland 2 Ton

1978 Williwaw Peterson 46

1979 Williwaw Peterson 45

1980 Acadia Peterson 43

1981 Intuition Peterson 42

1982 Retaliation Frers 51

1983 Scarlett O'Hara Peterson 43

1984 DIVA, a J/N fractional lightweight 40.

Neither Farr, Davidson, nor Whiting ever won the SORC Overall under IOR.  The myth that the Farr/Davidson/Whiting types "ruled the IOR for the rest of the 70s" is not factual

Let's not confuse our remembered history with facts :rolleyes:

Share this post


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

Agreed - and that was my point.

IMO it is a myth that IOR encouraged designers to come up with heavy pinched stern MH rig designs given the success of boats like Revolution and Gerontius, which fly in the face of that notion.  

And lets not forget about the Gurney designed Windward Passage, the very dinghy like Maxi (as far as Maxis go), that also wasn't designed to IOR yet was probably the most successful IOR Maxi of all time.  Ironically, it seems like Gurneys actual IOR designs (Islander 41?) were his least successful IOR designs.

the bill lee santa cruz designs (and the west coast sleds in general) follow the same concept.

the famous sled sc 70 rated the same as an ior 80-footer but measuring a mere 68 feet loa.

Share this post


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

Sure, boats like Gerontius and Revolution were at the Admiral's Cup.  They weren't competitive, but they were there.  If you wanted to win you had to have a moderate weight masthead boat

In the 1975 Admiral's Cup the Top boat was a big Frers (S&S type) NORYEMA, and the next boat was the only Peterson boat there, his first generation 2Ton YEOMAN XX.  Yeoman beat the similar sized Gerontius in every race.  Yeoman scored more than 50% more points than the similar sized Revolution.  The winning British team consisted of NOYEMA, YEOMAN, and an S&S BATTLECRY

In the 1977 Admiral's Cup the masthead, moderate weight IMP was the best boat, followed closely by the masthead, moderate Peterson MOONSHINE.  Revolution was far down in the standings.  The winning British team consisted of a Holland 44 MARIONETTE, MOONSHINE, and YEOMAN back from 1975. 

In the 1979 Admiral's Cup it was the Peterson ECLIPSE.  The winning Aussie team consisted of the Holland IMPETUOUS, the Peterson RAGAMUFFIN, and the Dubois Police Car (fractional, but still moderate weight).

In 1981 it was the Holland SWUZZLBUBBLE, a moderate weight design along the lines of Regardless, a development of IMP.  It was a fractional rig.  Next up was the Dubois moderate, masthead VICTORY.  The winning British team was led by VICTORY, with the Peterson 45 YEOMAN, and the Dubois DRAGON (fractional, moderate weight).

In 1983 finally a lightweight fractional came clear.  DIVA was top boat, but right behind was the masthead Peterson ALMAGORES.  The German team consisted of moderate weight, fractional boats SABINA, PINTA, and OUTSIDER.

1985 was the year the fractional lightweights took over at the Admiral's Cup.  The winning German team was all fractional, tending toward the lighter end of moderate.

A Farr didn't win Overall until 1987, 12 years after GERONTIUS.

 

Similar results for the top boats at the SORC.  Masthead, moderate boats dominated until the mid 80s.

1975 Stinger Peterson One Ton

1976 Williwaw Peterson 2 Ton

1977 Imp Holland 2 Ton

1978 Williwaw Peterson 46

1979 Williwaw Peterson 45

1980 Acadia Peterson 43

1981 Intuition Peterson 42

1982 Retaliation Frers 51

1983 Scarlett O'Hara Peterson 43

1984 DIVA, a J/N fractional lightweight 40.

Neither Farr, Davidson, nor Whiting ever won the SORC Overall under IOR.  The myth that the Farr/Davidson/Whiting types "ruled the IOR for the rest of the 70s" is not factual

Okay, I'll look at AC first

1973, Revolution was the only such type boat there, the overwhelming majority were heavy S&S - just sheer numbers would say Revolution could not win unless IOR heavily favoured such a design.

1975, I can't recall if Revolution was there, but again, the overwhelming majority of boats were S&S or similar type boats.  Gerontius was a 2 year old design at that time, but certainly had the overall Farr hull shape (if not rig type).  Again, sheer numbers would not favour her and she was a more Corinthian effort than many others.  However, just qualifying for the NZ team was quite an accomplishment for a design that most people at the time thought would not work under IOR.  While, she did not win, she was top scoring NZ boat

SORC?  I wasn't aware that was the pinnacle of IOR sailing (although it was up there).  Outside the US, what counted were AC and mainly the Ton Cups.  

Note: please don't edit what I say when you quote me - I did not say "ruled the IOR for the rest of the 70's", I said "pretty much ruled IOR for the rest of the 70's" 

When I said that, it was more in the context of the Ton Cups rather than SORC or AC.  Between 1975 and 1980, offhand I can't think of a single heavy (or even moderate however you define it) MH design that won a Ton Cup other than Resolute Salmon (not QT, HT, 3/4T or OT).  They were all light fat ass fracs of either kiwi or French design.

Share this post


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

the bill lee santa cruz designs (and the west coast sleds in general) follow the same concept.

the famous sled sc 70 rated the same as an ior 80-footer but measuring a mere 68 feet loa.

Yeah, and that SC-70 would be crushed by an IOR maxi in a typical triangle or random-leg course....

Share this post


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

Okay, I'll look at AC first

1973, Revolution was the only such type boat there, the overwhelming majority were heavy S&S - just sheer numbers would say Revolution could not win unless IOR heavily favoured such a design.

1975, I can't recall if Revolution was there, but again, the overwhelming majority of boats were S&S or similar type boats.  Gerontius was a 2 year old design at that time, but certainly had the overall Farr hull shape (if not rig type).  Again, sheer numbers would not favour her and she was a more Corinthian effort than many others.  However, just qualifying for the NZ team was quite an accomplishment for a design that most people at the time thought would not work under IOR.  While, she did not win, she was top scoring NZ boat

SORC?  I wasn't aware that was the pinnacle of IOR sailing (although it was up there).  Outside the US, what counted were AC and mainly the Ton Cups.  

Note: please don't edit what I say when you quote me - I did not say "ruled the IOR for the rest of the 70's", I said "pretty much ruled IOR for the rest of the 70's" 

When I said that, it was more in the context of the Ton Cups rather than SORC or AC.  Between 1975 and 1980, offhand I can't think of a single heavy (or even moderate however you define it) MH design that won a Ton Cup other than Resolute Salmon (not QT, HT, 3/4T or OT).  They were all light fat ass fracs of either kiwi or French design.

Quarter Ton Worlds:

1977 Holland Manzanita, moderate fractional

1978 Yamaha Magician, moderate fractional

 

Half Ton Worlds:

1975 Peterson Foxy lady, moderate masthead

1976 Holland Silver Shamrock, moderate masthead

1977 Farr won, but Holland Shamrock (heavy frac) was a point out of it, after losing her rig.

 

Three Quarter Ton Worlds:

1975 Peterson Saracen, moderate masthead

1976 Still Finn Fire, moderate fractional

1979 Norlin Regnbagen, moderate fractional

 

One Ton Cup:

1975 Peterson Pied Piper, medium masthead

1976 Chance Rresolute Salmon, medium masthead

1978 Holland Tilsalg, medium masthead

1979 Davidson Pendragon won, but in a weird, truncated series.  The Holland Indulgence (med frac) was the fastest boat.

1980 Vallicelli Filo da Torcere, medium (not sure about rig)

 

Two Ton Worlds:

1975 Peterson Ricochet, moderate masthead

1976 Peterson Williwaw, moderate masthead

1977 Not Sailed

1978 Holland Iorana, moderate masthead

1979 Frers Gitana, moderate masthead

1980 Not Sailed

1981 Frers Hitchhiker moderate masthead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, sledracr said:

Yeah, and that SC-70 would be crushed by an IOR maxi in a typical triangle or random-leg course....

sure, but not on the typical downwind west coast races or the transpac.

Share this post


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

Quarter Ton Worlds:

1977 Holland Manzanita, moderate fractional

1978 Yamaha Magician, moderate fractional

 

Half Ton Worlds:

1975 Peterson Foxy lady, moderate masthead

1976 Holland Silver Shamrock, moderate masthead

1977 Farr won, but Holland Shamrock (heavy frac) was a point out of it, after losing her rig.

 

Three Quarter Ton Worlds:

1975 Peterson Saracen, moderate masthead

1976 Still Finn Fire, moderate fractional

1979 Norlin Regnbagen, moderate fractional

 

One Ton Cup:

1975 Peterson Pied Piper, medium masthead

1976 Chance Rresolute Salmon, medium masthead

1978 Holland Tilsalg, medium masthead

1979 Davidson Pendragon won, but in a weird, truncated series.  The Holland Indulgence (med frac) was the fastest boat.

1980 Vallicelli Filo da Torcere, medium (not sure about rig)

 

Two Ton Worlds:

1975 Peterson Ricochet, moderate masthead

1976 Peterson Williwaw, moderate masthead

1977 Not Sailed

1978 Holland Iorana, moderate masthead

1979 Frers Gitana, moderate masthead

1980 Not Sailed

1981 Frers Hitchhiker moderate masthead

Okay, I used the wrong window.  I should have said 1976-1980

Let me fill in a few blanks though (which I'm not sure if were omitted as irrelevant or because they didn't prove your point)

QTC:

1976 Magic Bus (Whiting)

1979 Bullit (Faroux)

1980 Bullit (Faroux)

HTC:

1977 Gunboat Rangiriri (Farr)

1978 Waverider (Davidson)

1979 Waverider (Davidson)

1980 AR Bigouden (J/N)

3/4 TC:

1977 Joe Louis (Farr)

1978 Pendragon (Davidson

OTC 

1977 Red Lion (Farr)

But lists like this don't really prove a whole lot in my mind.  The best proof that IOR (as originally written) actually favoured light boats was the introduction of the Displacement Length Factor (DLF) in around 1979 which penalized boats with low D/L ratios up to a whopping 10%.

 IIRC their official position was that it was done for "safety" reasons or to counter an "unhealthy" trend, I can't recall the exact wording.  But if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I remember it the SORC was the series where all the new boats were brought out and showcased. The Admirals Cup were boats, that at least from the US, had performed well at the SORC and other regatta's to be selected for the team with the Circuit performance weighing heavily on the selection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, there was a "circuit" of sorts.... SORC was one of the first on the calendar, so a lot of new designs made their debut there.  Then there was a selection series for the US Admiral's Cup teams, which occurred later in the year, and then... a buncha other events.  Sardinia Cup, Clipper Cup, Southern Cross Cup, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 12 metre said:

Let me fill in a few blanks though (which I'm not sure if were omitted as irrelevant or because they didn't prove your point)

I only provided the results to show you that not all Ton Cup winners from 75 to 80 were "all light fat ass fracs of either kiwi or French design" as you claimed.  I know the light boats won their share.

The fact you don't know the SORC was the most important IOR regatta in the biggest IOR market (North America) in the 1970s astounds me.  There were probably 30 to 40 new boats built every year, and it was used as the trials for the USA Admiral's Cup selection.  Winning the SORC was the next biggest thing in the ocean racing world to winning the Admiral's Cup.  Many European boats would come to the SORC to gauge their speed in Admiral's Cup years.

Things like the DLF were introduced into the rule because that is what the owners wanted.  They were the ones paying the bills and had some say into what sort of boats they were going to sail.  Once the rule type formed to a model that most owners didn't want (around 1985) the IOR pretty much died within a couple of years.  By 1987 the IOR class in the SORC was done. 

IOR hung on for a while at the upper Grand Prix end (50s and 30.5 One Tons), often with sponsorship and owners who didn't even sail on the boats, but by the end there weren't enough boats in enough countries to even have the Admiral's Cup.  This would have happened sooner without the DLF and MAF.

Share this post


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

I only provided the results to show you that not all Ton Cup winners from 75 to 80 were "all light fat ass fracs of either kiwi or French design" as you claimed.  I know the light boats won their share.

The fact you don't know the SORC was the most important IOR regatta in the biggest IOR market (North America) in the 1970s astounds me.  There were probably 30 to 40 new boats built every year, and it was used as the trials for the USA Admiral's Cup selection.  Winning the SORC was the next biggest thing in the ocean racing world to winning the Admiral's Cup.  Many European boats would come to the SORC to gauge their speed in Admiral's Cup years.

Things like the DLF were introduced into the rule because that is what the owners wanted.  They were the ones paying the bills and had some say into what sort of boats they were going to sail.  Once the rule type formed to a model that most owners didn't want (around 1985) the IOR pretty much died within a couple of years.  By 1987 the IOR class in the SORC was done. 

IOR hung on for a while at the upper Grand Prix end (50s and 30.5 One Tons), often with sponsorship and owners who didn't even sail on the boats, but by the end there weren't enough boats in enough countries to even have the Admiral's Cup.  This would have happened sooner without the DLF and MAF.

What astounds me is how you can mangle my words.  I am fully aware of the importance of SORC, heck as a young teen I waited anxiously for SAIL magazine's SORC issue which had reviews of the newest designs and trends.  But the event itself was mainly (although not exclusively) a US phenomena participation wise and the fleet tended to reflect that.  Again sheer number of American boats.  Yes, SORC was very important, but it wasn't the AC or Ton Cups.

I won't argue whether the DLF was what the American owners wanted, but I doubt that European or Southern Hemisphere owners felt the same way.  The question is - why would American owners want to retain the type of boat everyone now complains about?

A lack of comfort with something so different, or because they were afraid of their boats being rapidly obsoleted?  IDK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ~HHN92~ said:

As I remember it the SORC was the series where all the new boats were brought out and showcased. The Admirals Cup were boats, that at least from the US, had performed well at the SORC and other regatta's to be selected for the team with the Circuit performance weighing heavily on the selection.

Back then SORC was the most important ocean racing series in North America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 12 metre said:

What astounds me is how you can mangle my words.  I am fully aware of the importance of SORC, heck as a young teen I waited anxiously for SAIL magazine's SORC issue which had reviews of the newest designs and trends.  But the event itself was mainly (although not exclusively) a US phenomena participation wise and the fleet tended to reflect that.  Again sheer number of American boats.  Yes, SORC was very important, but it wasn't the AC or Ton Cups.

I won't argue whether the DLF was what the American owners wanted, but I doubt that European or Southern Hemisphere owners felt the same way.  The question is - why would American owners want to retain the type of boat everyone now complains about?

A lack of comfort with something so different, or because they were afraid of their boats being rapidly obsoleted?  IDK.

You don't seem to know much.  The USA didn't control the ORC.  Most of the anti-lightweight sentiment came from the RORC.  They had the backing of the Germans as well.  Even the Aussie rep (Jones?) voted for the DLF.  Why not, Bondy and Syd were happily sailing Peterson boats.  The French professionals would be just as happy living in a sewer, as long as they had cigarettes, so it made no difference to them.

The SORC had participation from the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Australia, etc.  The designers were worldwide names, S&S, Carter, Peterson, Holland, Frers, Farr, Davidson, Humphries, Dubois, Norlin, etc.  The cross pollination, winning both the SORC and the Admiral's Cup, like IMP and DIVA did, proved you were the best of the best.

Many of the Ton Cup regattas ended up as local events.  I would argue that winning the 1977 SORC was a greater accomplishment than winning the 1977 One Ton Cup, or the 1982 Quarter Ton Worlds.

Share this post


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

You don't seem to know much. 

:lol: Now that is some harsh criticism.

Share this post


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

:lol: Now that is some harsh criticism.

Yup...I am devastated  

Share this post


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

You don't seem to know much.  The USA didn't control the ORC.  Most of the anti-lightweight sentiment came from the RORC.  They had the backing of the Germans as well.  Even the Aussie rep (Jones?) voted for the DLF.  Why not, Bondy and Syd were happily sailing Peterson boats.  The French professionals would be just as happy living in a sewer, as long as they had cigarettes, so it made no difference to them.

The SORC had participation from the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Australia, etc.  The designers were worldwide names, S&S, Carter, Peterson, Holland, Frers, Farr, Davidson, Humphries, Dubois, Norlin, etc.  The cross pollination, winning both the SORC and the Admiral's Cup, like IMP and DIVA did, proved you were the best of the best.

Many of the Ton Cup regattas ended up as local events.  I would argue that winning the 1977 SORC was a greater accomplishment than winning the 1977 One Ton Cup, or the 1982 Quarter Ton Worlds.

Agreed, I don't know much about the inner workings of the ORC and ITC

What I do recall was an article, or rather a rant by Jack Knight at the time about how the new breed of lightweight IOR boats were so much nicer to sail than their predecessors and that (I'm paraphrasing here) a committee comprised mainly of octogenarian American yacht designers were trying to stamp out this rather encouraging trend in IOR.

I do regret dragging myself into the whole listing of winning boats and the importance of various events - because that is all just white noise.

I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the ORC would vote on proposals put forward by the ITC, and that it was the ITC that proposed the DLF in order to fairly rate lightweight IOR designs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I appreciate the spirit of the debate...

How about the Ranger 26-2? Anybody know anything about the design that can help me in my efforts to restore her?

 

Ranger26-2 at rest.jpg

Ranger 26-2 underway.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ILYB-Todd said:

While I appreciate the spirit of the debate...

How about the Ranger 26-2? Anybody know anything about the design that can help me in my efforts to restore her?

 

Ranger26-2 at rest.jpg

Ranger 26-2 underway.jpg

It needs some color, maybe some striping. That unrelieved white is not a flattering look, although I personally really like the proportions and style of the boat. As for the IOR back-n-forth, get a blooper!

FB- Doug

Share this post


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

Okay, I used the wrong window.  I should have said 1976-1980

Let me fill in a few blanks though (which I'm not sure if were omitted as irrelevant or because they didn't prove your point)

QTC:

1976 Magic Bus (Whiting)

1979 Bullit (Faroux)

1980 Bullit (Faroux)

HTC:

1977 Gunboat Rangiriri (Farr)

1978 Waverider (Davidson)

1979 Waverider (Davidson)

1980 AR Bigouden (J/N)

3/4 TC:

1977 Joe Louis (Farr)

1978 Pendragon (Davidson

OTC 

1977 Red Lion (Farr)

But lists like this don't really prove a whole lot in my mind.  The best proof that IOR (as originally written) actually favoured light boats was the introduction of the Displacement Length Factor (DLF) in around 1979 which penalized boats with low D/L ratios up to a whopping 10%.

 IIRC their official position was that it was done for "safety" reasons or to counter an "unhealthy" trend, I can't recall the exact wording.  But if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

Nope, they were also clear on the fact that they didn't want about 7,000 boats to become uncompetitive. The same approach of closing what appeared to be loopholes allowed Farr to succeed in the first place. If they hadn't closed earlier loopholes, then everyone would have been sailing Cascade-style cat ketches, which rated the same as Tituscanby but went faster.

I loved the Farrs, but part of the reason they caused such a sensation was that in 1977 the major events were held without a single up-to-date heavy boat in the fleet. Even before the DLR was put in, heavier boats like Tilsalg, Manzanita and Smokey Bear were winning or getting very close. And that's in northern Europe - in light air places like the Med or USA the heavier boats were just plane faster a lot of the time.

Personally I think they got it right, because for years we had a situation where a wide variety of boats could win. Knights was a cool guy but lots of people didn't want to spend their days struggling to get downwind in light airs with a hull with more wetted surface and a smaller spinnaker; by allowing Petersons, Kaufmans etc to remain competitive, the changes allowed people to choose the style of boat they wanted and to win. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

...octogenarian American yacht designers were trying to stamp out this rather encouraging trend in IOR.

A minor (and perhaps apocryphal) datapoint, but the story has long been told that Olin Stephens lobbied against giving Merlin an IOR cert before the 1977 Transpac, arguing that Merlin was "too light to be safe"....

Share this post


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

Agreed, I don't know much about the inner workings of the ORC and ITC

What I do recall was an article, or rather a rant by Jack Knight at the time about how the new breed of lightweight IOR boats were so much nicer to sail than their predecessors and that (I'm paraphrasing here) a committee comprised mainly of octogenarian American yacht designers were trying to stamp out this rather encouraging trend in IOR.

I do regret dragging myself into the whole listing of winning boats and the importance of various events - because that is all just white noise.

I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the ORC would vote on proposals put forward by the ITC, and that it was the ITC that proposed the DLF in order to fairly rate lightweight IOR designs.

 

The reps from the RORC had a proposal that was much more harsh than what eventually passed.  The guys on the ITC, no octogenarians (Mull, Holland, Peterson included), talked them down.  The octogenarians were the members at the RORC who had owned boats since the 1950s or 1960s and wanted to get back to the dual purpose boats of those days.

You have to remember that by the late 1970s the people who could afford to do things like the SORC and Admiral's Cup were 60 year olds who wore bespoke suits during the week.  Shitting in a bucket wasn't something that was particularly interesting to them.

If you look at the 1977 One Ton Cup, every competitive boat was a lightweight daggerkeeler.  So 7 boats were in the first fleet.  Of those 7, the Peterson cracked her hull in the first race.  Smirnoffagen cracked her frames.  Jenny H also cracked frames in the Hobart and had to drop out before the bow caved in.  Red Lion also later had structural issues.  The Whiting boat broke up while returning from Hobart, killing Paul Whiting.

So if you were a potential boat owner in 1978, you knew that under the rule of the time you needed to have a boat that could disintegrate under your feet if you wanted to be competitive. 

Owners didn't want that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, sledracr said:

A minor (and perhaps apocryphal) datapoint, but the story has long been told that Olin Stephens lobbied against giving Merlin an IOR cert before the 1977 Transpac, arguing that Merlin was "too light to be safe"....

Olin Stephens had an outsized influence on the IOR - he was by far the preeminent designer in the world when IOR was created.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the splices myself including the lashing line. 

Hike harder bitches!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, I really like this boat!  Looks very similar to my new to me 1988 Dehler 34 that is in need of restoration that I am working on, but having too much fun sailing it right now.  Have fun with it!

It was an IOR design also, complete with weird "chines" below the waterline but thankfully, a somewhat full stern and void of weird curves around the ass end.  Guess I should start my own thread but if anyone knows anything about the Dehlers, I would appreciate the info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2017 at 8:05 PM, ILYB-Todd said:

While I appreciate the spirit of the debate...

How about the Ranger 26-2? Anybody know anything about the design that can help me in my efforts to restore her?

 

Ranger26-2 at rest.jpg

 

Sweet boat.  Given how light it is it might be worth getting a Naval Architect to look at filling in the IOR style stern hollows with foam to get a better run aft for more downwind fun.  Playing with hull forms does risk upsetting balance so defs needs a Naval Arch to look over it and run the numbers but the results could be very cool and much faster offwind.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DickDastardly said:

Sweet boat.  Given how light it is it might be worth getting a Naval Architect to look at filling in the IOR style stern hollows with foam to get a better run aft for more downwind fun.  Playing with hull forms does risk upsetting balance so defs needs a Naval Arch to look over it and run the numbers but the results could be very cool and much faster offwind.

 

Paging Bob Perry to the White courtesy phone....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly have considered that same thing. Have a few Navarch friends and family that have the talent. 

For now I'm focused on the fundamentals, safety, hull integrity, foils, rig setup and condition, sails down the road interior condition.

In particular I would like to learn more about the dagger-board trunk design and how to go about dropping the board out to inspect it and if necessary replace guides on inside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Moonduster said:

No, a naval architect.

In only 4 words that comment perfectly demonstrates your complete and utter lack of understanding of the difference.

Well done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ILYB-Todd said:

Certainly have considered that same thing. Have a few Navarch friends and family that have the talent. 

For now I'm focused on the fundamentals, safety, hull integrity, foils, rig setup and condition, sails down the road interior condition.

In particular I would like to learn more about the dagger-board trunk design and how to go about dropping the board out to inspect it and if necessary replace guides on inside.

You may have to blueprint it yourself. I bet there aren't any diagrams available now. Good idea to proceed carefully, rebuilding the inside of the trunk is a PITA but worth it in the long run. What kind of guides does it have, can you tell? The Delrin blocks used as guides in the Melges 24 keel are kind of a weak point.

Focusing on fundamentals is a great idea for now. Make sure there's a way to secure the keel, a knockdown with it loose can ruin your whole weekend.

Personally I don't think there is much to gain by re-shaping the hull. This will change the displacement, the center of buoyancy, and probably the stability too; at best for a trivial gain in speed and more likely a loss of speed in most conditions. Gary Mull was not a dummy; those hulls strong suite is light air speed so that will be the first thing to go.

Excellent wok on the lifelines BTW, are you planning on re-rigging the backstay tackle?

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yo, Jonny,

Trust me, I really do understand the difference between a Naval Architect and the-drawer-of-boats-who-shall-not-be-named, namely that one understands naval architecture while the other understands drawing.

 

Share this post


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

Yo, Jonny,

Trust me, I really do understand the difference between a Naval Architect and the-drawer-of-boats-who-shall-not-be-named, namely that one understands naval architecture while the other understands drawing.

 

I can draw boats and took a semester of Naval Architecture.  Does that count? 

 

Based on your comments I do not think that you know anything about the discipline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if it counts, let's find out:

Todd, here, has some old IOR boat and wants to fill the hollows in its rear end. Let's imagine he's chatted up his local (Michigan) PHRF committee and they tell him he's going to get a 3, 6 or 9 second per mile hit, but they don't know which yet. The local yard quoted him $10000 to fill, fair, skin, fair, barrier coat and paint, presuming that the entire job is below the water line.

What will you charge Todd to:

  • Determine whether his upgrade will outperform the rating hit in his average summer time Friday night series
  • Design the foam and skin lamination details
  • Work with the yard as required during the modifications

Finally, would you support Todd if he decided to do the work himself?

Share this post


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

Based on your comments I do not think that you know anything about the discipline much of anything.

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It takes about 15 seconds to check out that almost all of that hollow is above the waterline so fairing it out would have almost zero effect on static buoyancy.

That sort of thing and much more radical "bumping" things were done during the IOR wars and didn't require the services of an NA, just remeasurement afterwards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that the update will or won't overcome the rating hit in his local conditions, you seemed to have missed that part.

And if you think any "bumping" was done on high-end IOR programs without a full set of lines, trial certificates and before-and-after VPPs to be sure the owner knew what to expect, you're just out of your mind.

Share this post


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

You may have to blueprint it yourself. I bet there aren't any diagrams available now. Good idea to proceed carefully, rebuilding the inside of the trunk is a PITA but worth it in the long run. What kind of guides does it have, can you tell? The Delrin blocks used as guides in the Melges 24 keel are kind of a weak point.

Focusing on fundamentals is a great idea for now. Make sure there's a way to secure the keel, a knockdown with it loose can ruin your whole weekend.

Personally I don't think there is much to gain by re-shaping the hull. This will change the displacement, the center of buoyancy, and probably the stability too; at best for a trivial gain in speed and more likely a loss of speed in most conditions. Gary Mull was not a dummy; those hulls strong suite is light air speed so that will be the first thing to go.

Excellent wok on the lifelines BTW, are you planning on re-rigging the backstay tackle?

FB- Doug

Thanks,

I replaced the backstay 4:1 line with something less organic and it seems to function adequately for now. Any recommendations?

Share this post


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

It takes about 15 seconds to check out that almost all of that hollow is above the waterline so fairing it out would have almost zero effect on static buoyancy.

True.  But if the hollow is filled and faired, the center of buoyancy will move aft when heeled, and could result in putting the bow knuckle deeper when under sail.  That could make things "interesting" in the traditional IOR spin-out zones (DDW, pole-on-headstay reaching, etc.)

Share this post


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

Are you saying that the update will or won't overcome the rating hit in his local conditions, you seemed to have missed that part.

And if you think any "bumping" was done on high-end IOR programs without a full set of lines, trial certificates and before-and-after VPPs to be sure the owner knew what to expect, you're just out of your mind.

Yeah, you're right Moon - I strongly recommend that everyone read and follow your advice to the letter

It's so obviously based on decades of experience and not simply rehashing bits of Internet wisdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sledracr said:

True.  But if the hollow is filled and faired, the center of buoyancy will move aft when heeled, and could result in putting the bow knuckle deeper when under sail.  That could make things "interesting" in the traditional IOR spin-out zones (DDW, pole-on-headstay reaching, etc.)

If anything it would lessen it - rolling and spinning out was largely caused by the concentration of buoyancy in the middle of the boat with little to support the ends - the boats just flopped around in the hole they dug.

And anyway, its absurdly hypothetical - those hollows aren't voluminous enough to have that much effect - certainly not as much as a crew member moving about the boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While there are hints of it in profile, I doubt the Ranger 26-2 was ever conceived as an IOR boat:

- Beam is too narrow at 8 ft and relatively slab sided

- Board boats had been penalized out of IOR prior to 1980

- Doesn't fit into any rating band: too big and heavy for a QT, too small and heavy for a HT.

- IOR had fallen out of favour in the US by 1980 especially under 30 ft where MORC filled the hole nicely.  Actually, I don't think IOR ever really gained much traction in North America in this size range

- As for the stern, the hollow is the natural consequence of trying to marry a long stern overhang with a flattish stern profile above the WL - while still retaining some useful sailing volume below the WL.

 If you extended the lines of the canoe body near the stern WL as seen in the photo below, the bottom of the stern profile would end up near or around deck level, kind of like an Ericson 35-2.  Instead, Mull has pulled the stern profile and adjacent stern buttock lines down (which creates the hollow) in an attempt to give back some sailing length upwind.  Nobody other than Bill Lee and his Santa Cruz cohorts gave much consideration to planing in those days.

If you want to do anything useful to the stern to help downwind ability, some sculpting won't do it - a chain saw would probably be called for.  Which would be ridiculous for a salvage project - unless you really, really enjoy doing such mods.

I would say leave it, it is fine the way it is.

 

59a8457623d44_Ranger26-2withfreshbottom.thumb.jpg.36f1bf6b8fefa6e0eb0a820885a6c72b.jpg

Share this post


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

Are you saying that the update will or won't overcome the rating hit in his local conditions, you seemed to have missed that part.

And if you think any "bumping" was done on high-end IOR programs without a full set of lines, trial certificates and before-and-after VPPs to be sure the owner knew what to expect, you're just out of your mind.

I don't think SJB had the high-end programs of the later days of IOR in mind.  In the 70's VPPs were still very much in their infancy IIRC.  By "bumping" I am thinking of micro balloon filler and the like.  It was done often on "low-end' programs to optimize performance - i.e. trade off heavy air performance for more SA.  I am not aware IOR had trial certificates.  My understanding is you had to be remeasured each time to the tune of $1,000 or something like that.  Few if any "low-end" programs could afford that.

I do agree that VPPS are most useful for predicting how changes will affect a given boats performance - much less useful in comparing one boat with another.

My understanding of "low-end programs" is you would take your existing cert and adjust some numbers that you were seeking to trade off and see what the end result would be, then fiddle around some more until you got the desired end number. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 12 metre said:

I am not aware IOR had trial certificates.  My understanding is you had to be remeasured each time to the tune of $1,000 or something like that.  Few if any "low-end" programs could afford that.

 

You're correct, there were no trial certificates.  If you wanted to tweak your rating, you made the change, paid USYRU $500 (IIRC), waited for the measurer to come measure your boat, and you'd get a new certificate.  If you didn't like the new rating you made another change (or undid one), paid another $500, got measured again, and got a new cert. 

So... I helped <grin> Back in... dunno, '80 or '81 I built a 1-2-3 spreadsheet with all the formulae from the IOR handbook.  Put in the right inputs, it did the math.  It even "looked" like a certificate, but with my phone number on it instead of USYRU's

And then I went into business, me and my Compaq "luggable" computer, working out of my rigging shop.  For 50 bucks I'd plug your current certificate into my system, and then for 20 bucks a question I could tell you what would happen to your rating if you made a change.  Want to add a penalty pole?  here's what your new rating will be.  Want to get rid of that pesky over-length batten penalty?  here's what your new rating would be.  Etc.

Was a pretty good income stream... for a while...

And, yeah, "bumps" were a very common mod.  At least, very common on the So-Cal tonners and Choate-boats of the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, sledracr said:

 

You're correct, there were no trial certificates.  If you wanted to tweak your rating, you made the change, paid USYRU $500 (IIRC), waited for the measurer to come measure your boat, and you'd get a new certificate.  If you didn't like the new rating you made another change (or undid one), paid another $500, got measured again, and got a new cert. 

So... I helped <grin> Back in... dunno, '80 or '81 I built a 1-2-3 spreadsheet with all the formulae from the IOR handbook.  Put in the right inputs, it did the math.  It even "looked" like a certificate, but with my phone number on it instead of USYRU's

And then I went into business, me and my Compaq "luggable" computer, working out of my rigging shop.  For 50 bucks I'd plug your current certificate into my system, and then for 20 bucks a question I could tell you what would happen to your rating if you made a change.  Want to add a penalty pole?  here's what your new rating will be.  Want to get rid of that pesky over-length batten penalty?  here's what your new rating would be.  Etc.

Was a pretty good income stream... for a while...

And, yeah, "bumps" were a very common mod.  At least, very common on the So-Cal tonners and Choate-boats of the day.

Yeah. I received a little Timex Sinclair computer (basically a box you plugged into an old TV set) as a gift around that time.  Figured out the basics of whatever dialect of BASIC the Timex used and set up an IOR rating progrm using all the cert numbers as variables.

Never turned it into a commercial enterprise because I was only about 20 years old at the time, and hadn't really thought of that end of it.  I was just having fun.

Share this post


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

Never turned it into a commercial enterprise because I was only about 20 years old at the time,

I was 20-ish, too, but already tired of going hungry between rigging jobs and deliveries, so... getting a few extra 20s here and there meant I could buy myself a beer to go with my 50-cent tacos at Malarkey's...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no such thing as a "trial certificate". In the office we would do multiple inter office certs as we played with the measurement points. Every office doing IOR boats did that. The bulk of IOR boats were designed before VPP programs were available.  VPP's of that time would not have even noticed an IOR sized bump. That is just plain stupid. I don't think bumps were drawn on hull lines. I think boats were built to a set of lines, measured and then adjusted, sometimes, by adding bumps. I have never seen bumps on a drawing and I've seen a lot of drawings. Another stupid comment.

Mooner has never designed a boat. He's just throwing out terms he thinks sound right and he's wrong.

Islander%2028%20lines_zpsgoj9mlnu.jpg

Share this post


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

There was no such thing as a "trial certificate". In the office we would do multiple inter office certs as we played with the measurement points. Every office doing IOR boats did that. The bulk of IOR boats were designed before VPP programs were available.  VPP's of that time would not have even noticed an IOR sized bump. That is just plain stupid. I don't think bumps were drawn on hull lines. I think boats were built to a set of lines, measured and then adjusted, sometimes, by adding bumps. I have never seen bumps on a drawing and I've seen a lot of drawings. Another stupid comment.

Mooner has never designed a boat. He's just throwing out terms he thinks sound right and he's wrong.

 

You are correct about the VPPs of the IOR days being woefully inadequate to determine actual performance.  Some were using VPPs on IOR boats, and of course the 12 meters.  If VPPs were accurate, why weren't all the 12s winners?  Even when the ACC boats were racing for the Cup, and VPPs had come a long way, most of the boats were not competitive.  The VPPs were not accurate enough.

Of course there were drawings of bumps.  Most IOR hulls were designed with the forward and mid depth bumps in place on the lines.  For example, you can easily see the transition below the B measurement point on most IOR hulls.  You can also see the transitions at the forward and mid depth points.

If additional bumping was decided upon later, the design office would send out a bump drawing.  This generally showed the location and dimension of the bump in relation to the waterlines and the bodyplan.  The bump radius would be drawn in and dimensioned in both views.

Bumps were not like a half golf ball stuck on the hull.  Longitudinally they had to be faired in to the shape, for speed.  Bumps eventually had minimum radii.  After that was added to the rule you would not really see an added bump very easily as they were very faired in transversely as well.

Share this post


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

While there are hints of it in profile, I doubt the Ranger 26-2 was ever conceived as an IOR boat:

- Beam is too narrow at 8 ft and relatively slab sided

- Board boats had been penalized out of IOR prior to 1980

- Doesn't fit into any rating band: too big and heavy for a QT, too small and heavy for a HT.

- IOR had fallen out of favour in the US by 1980 especially under 30 ft where MORC filled the hole nicely.  Actually, I don't think IOR ever really gained much traction in North America in this size range

 

I don't think Ranger ever advertised this boat as an IOR boat, but I believe it's genesis was in one of the Mull QTs of that era.  Look for his QTs in Asia and Australia in the late 70s.

Many QTs outside of North America had beams not to exceed 8ft 2in to meet trailer regulations.  I believe the parent design for the Ranger 26 was originally sold overseas.

Boards could be pinned down and rated the same as a keel.  The Ranger keel is not a lifting keel while sailing, only for trailering.

It is right in the dimension range for a QT of the era, length and DSPL.

QT racing was fairly strong in NA until about 1977.  It really fell off in 1978, and was non-existent afterward.  The Ranger 26-2 was not a MORC design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AIR:

Right. I was specifically talking about the Jerry Milgram type bumps, small cones added at measurement points., pre minimum radii bumps. 

I have a question for you: When do you think was the earliest use of the VPP program with IOR boats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Bob Perry said:

I was specifically talking about the Jerry Milgram type bumps,

Gosh he could make a big ugly boat rate next to nothing.  Even after they closed a loophole here or there, he just got out the chainsaw and made Cascade's rating drop back to about where it was but even uglier.  Got to work with him in the late 80's on a radar ship wake detection project.  Bill Koch had recently endowed a chair (I hope that's the right term) for him at MIT and it was about the same time he broke his leg falling off his bike riding it to work in the snow.  Hearing that news, none of us even blinked.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cal:

What I had in mind when I heard "bumps" was those little cones, kind of like the type they put on the road, about 6" in diameter and maybe 1.5" high. I recall a photo of a C&C festooned with those cones on the depth measurement points as applied by Milgram. It was one of those, "please don't let this be fast" moments. Soon the IOR gave minimum radius dims for the bumps. Those I could see on a drawing. Not the cone types. Got to hand it to Milgram, he was an outside the box thinker.

Share this post


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

AIR:

Right. I was specifically talking about the Jerry Milgram type bumps, small cones added at measurement points., pre minimum radii bumps. 

I have a question for you: When do you think was the earliest use of the VPP program with IOR boats?

I have never seen a "small cone" shaped bump.  That would not have passed muster for the "no hollows in the transverse measurement" part of the rule.  Early, pre-min radius bumps were often a very tight radius transversely, faired longitudinally for many feet.  I'm thinking about the BWL bumping that looked like a chine had been added amidships.

I believe George Hazen was probably offering his VPP services to IOR owners by the late 70s.  I know by about 1980 there were two or three companies offering VPP studies.  None of that mattered, because the VPPs just weren't precise enough.  Tank testing wasn't any better.  Yet many owners spent the money on that stuff.

Here is  a heavily bumped IOR hull.  Can you see the added bumps?

4998640655_281f8a4413_o.jpg

Share this post


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

Yet many owners spent the money on that stuff

...and then there were the owners that didn't.

One of my favorite (?) stories from that era was "Scandalous", the S&S 50 built by the Pascoe family to replace their successful "Saudade".

Boat was beautifully built out of aluminum according to S&S's latest thinking about the IOR, along with a predicted rating that many thought would make it a giant-killer.

Then it was launched, and measured... and the rating came out *much* higher than S&S had expected.  Story was that they had completely donked the aft measurement points.

Boat was hauled back to the Sparcraft yard, lines were re-drawn, and eventually the aft third (!) of the underbody was cut off and re-built to a new design.

Ahh, the IOR days...

Share this post


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

...and then there were the owners that didn't.

One of my favorite (?) stories from that era was "Scandalous", the S&S 50 built by the Pascoe family to replace their successful "Saudade".

Boat was beautifully built out of aluminum according to S&S's latest thinking about the IOR, along with a predicted rating that many thought would make it a giant-killer.

Then it was launched, and measured... and the rating came out *much* higher than S&S had expected.  Story was that they had completely donked the aft measurement points.

Boat was hauled back to the Sparcraft yard, lines were re-drawn, and eventually the aft third (!) of the underbody was cut off and re-built to a new design.

Ahh, the IOR days...

Neither a VPP nor a tank test would have addressed the issue you describe.  No VPPs even existed when Scandalous was designed in 1972.  I would imagine S&S wasn't even using a programmable calculator to run that rating.

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