Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Steve Clark

125 ft^2 development class

Recommended Posts

c015148.jpg

Photo of an early 60's boat sailing in Miami.

Class started in 20s by Billy Atkin in Huntington LI with next to no rules.

125 ft^2.

22.5 max LOA

beam min 3.5'

Beam max 5.6

Free board min 6"

No ballast, one centerboard one rudder, pointed bow.

Weight was defined by materials used, so small boats were lighter than big ones, but about 200 lbs was about as good as anyone did.

They tried adding a trap as they were dropping dead.

Sailwriter reports that these things routinely tore FDs apart and only became obsolete when beach cats proved faster.

Anyone know more about where the 50 or so last boats ended up and or anything else?

Very cool boats that ought to be brought back.....

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

never seen one before - cool idea

 

should be able to get a lot lighter than 200 lbs

 

plus 125 sq ft is small - needs a kite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
some photos and discussion of the suicide class in this thread

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php...st&p=981191

anarchist sailwriter will be along shortly to illucidate, or PM him.

 

 

Further in this regard, and largely ignored in my previous thread, we (WoodenBoat) are trying to encourage a next-generation approach to amateur-designed and -built developmental or box-rule dinghies, with a goal of high-performance within a budget (what a concept).

 

Old friend Steve Clark submitted ideas below for the updated Suicide which he renames the Atkin 1.25. Here is what is posted on the WoodenBoat Forum/Designs' Forum:

 

Tying in to our quest for modern-day performance racing (wooden) dinghies (and please see that thread on this (WoodenBoat) Forum if you are interested), we have had a spirited discussion about the Atkins' (Billy's and John's) Suicide developmental class, from 1932, and adopted by many.

 

Steve Clark, genius dinghy designer and builder and good friend, has taken up the challenge with this set of parameters for an updated Suicide. He has left the building materials optional, but has specified weight minimums, so wooden boats can definitely be competitive. And we're trying to establish max. build costs so we can make these accessible to many more amateur designers and builders, while not sacrificing design principles or performance.

 

I consider this the max. size for our series of box (developmental) rules. Please let us know your thoughts about this design, and let's work on others, similar, in smaller sizes? To each size must be accompanied by a max. limit of costs. Think of using existing rigs (Steve is considering an existing IC spar with a larger jib). I'm thinking of a split rig, as LFH did with his Design #30.

 

Please post comments about Steve's ideas here and post to the original thread about other sizes?

 

Thanks, Steve, so much for your creative and visionary approaches. Herewith:

 

Atkin 1.25 Class Rules.

 

 

Preamble

The Aitkin 1.25 class is a derivative of the 125 Square Foot Development Class started by William Atkin in Huntington Long Island New York in 1928. This class was alternately known as the Suicide Class and enjoyed a vital history until the early 1960s when organized activity declined below a sustainable level. In 1987 a number of surviving class members attempted to revive the class but failed to achieve stability.

The current rules attempt to define a type of boat that is in keeping with the history of the 125 Square Foot Development Class or Suicide but to restate some of the particulars in order to make the class more attractive for 21st century designers and builders. The authors respect the history of the Suicide Class, but feel that the continuation of that title is detrimental to the acceptance of the class and chose to use this alternate designation.

Any boat which measured in as a class legal Suicide is eligible for competition in the Atkin 1.25 Class.

 

Measurement rules

The Aitkin 1.25 is an un-ballasted monohull development class having the following restrictions:

1: The bow shall fit within an angle of 40 degrees either side of centerline.

The vertex of the included angle shall not be further than 2” from the stem.

 

2: Sail area shall not be more than 125 square feet. The sail area shall be measured in accordance with the “IYRU Measurement & Calculation of Sail Area Instructions” (Last issued May 1985)

 

3: The overall length shall not be more than 22.5 feet.

The length shall be taken between perpendiculars with the hull upright in its normal trim.

The measurement shall exclude rudder fittings, but if the athwartships width of rudder within 6 inches of the bottom of the hull is more than 3 inches, the length shall be taken from the aftermost extremity of the rudder.

 

4: The hull shall have a beam no greater than 66’.

The hull shall a beam of at least 42” for at least 1/3 of its overall length.

The beam shall be measured perpendicular to centerline with the hull.

 

5: The hull shall nowhere have freeboard of less than 6”

 

6: The hull shall have at least one cockpit or foot well of 12 square feet.

The floorboards shall nowhere be less than 12” below the upper surface of the deck excluding any coamings.

 

7: A taught tape stretched from gunwale to gunwale shall nowhere bridge a hollow of more than 1”

 

8: The minimum weight of the hull with essential fixed fastenings and hardware shall be determined by the formula:

(Overall length in feet) x (Maximum beam in feet) x (Maximum hull depth) = weight in pounds.

 

9: There shall be not more than one centerboard.

a) The centerboard shall be un-ballasted and shall float.

B) With the boat floating upright, the centerboard shall be capable of being withdrawn such that it does not project below the hull skin.

 

10: There shall be not more than one rudder

a) The rudder shall be un-ballasted and shall float.

B) With the boat floating upright, the rudder shall be capable of being withdrawn such that it does not project below the hull skin.

 

11) No spar shall have a cross section greater than 5”

a) If the mast rotates, ½ of its surface area shall be considered sail area.

 

12: The boat shall have built in buoyancy or buoyancy devices such that the crew can right, bail and resume sailing unassisted within 5 minutes.

 

13: Sails shall be capable of being raised and lowered with the boat floating upright. Roller furling is accepted as an alternative to raising and lowering.

 

14) The crew shall be not more or less than two.

a) one crew member is permitted to use a trapeze.

 

[Carl] There are no restrictions on hull material, and I am fine with that. I will be rooting for wood to win. There is no reason we can't. A great boat. Thanks, Carl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow!

I'll have to dig in the old files and pull all the ancient ideas about Suicides from the 1960's and again in the 1980's.

There were some really cool boats built. Upwind stayed with the FD of the 1960's. On a reach blew them away. On a run, not so much. No spinnaker.

With the small sail area, efficiency was key, including windage of the hull.

I'm racing the Contender in Florida this weekend.

Then it is time to scribble ideas.

Dave Ellis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I miss the Contender -- good luck to you. I love the boat.

 

I used to sail one in Penobscot Bay in the '70s. The ony one, sadly. Did I go fast.

 

Someone told me at METS in November that the original (Hull #1) was hard-chine. contrary to the article in WoodenBoat (not a mistake we usually make). Does anyone have knowledge of that?

 

Thanks, Carl

 

 

Wow!

I'll have to dig in the old files and pull all the ancient ideas about Suicides from the 1960's and again in the 1980's.

There were some really cool boats built. Upwind stayed with the FD of the 1960's. On a reach blew them away. On a run, not so much. No spinnaker.

With the small sail area, efficiency was key, including windage of the hull.

I'm racing the Contender in Florida this weekend.

Then it is time to scribble ideas.

Dave Ellis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typo on my part in #4: Beam no greater than 66", not feet. So sorry.

 

 

some photos and discussion of the suicide class in this thread

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php...st&p=981191

anarchist sailwriter will be along shortly to illucidate, or PM him.

 

 

Further in this regard, and largely ignored in my previous thread, we (WoodenBoat) are trying to encourage a next-generation approach to amateur-designed and -built developmental or box-rule dinghies, with a goal of high-performance within a budget (what a concept).

 

Old friend Steve Clark submitted ideas below for the updated Suicide which he renames the Atkin 1.25. Here is what is posted on the WoodenBoat Forum/Designs' Forum:

 

Tying in to our quest for modern-day performance racing (wooden) dinghies (and please see that thread on this (WoodenBoat) Forum if you are interested), we have had a spirited discussion about the Atkins' (Billy's and John's) Suicide developmental class, from 1932, and adopted by many.

 

Steve Clark, genius dinghy designer and builder and good friend, has taken up the challenge with this set of parameters for an updated Suicide. He has left the building materials optional, but has specified weight minimums, so wooden boats can definitely be competitive. And we're trying to establish max. build costs so we can make these accessible to many more amateur designers and builders, while not sacrificing design principles or performance.

 

I consider this the max. size for our series of box (developmental) rules. Please let us know your thoughts about this design, and let's work on others, similar, in smaller sizes? To each size must be accompanied by a max. limit of costs. Think of using existing rigs (Steve is considering an existing IC spar with a larger jib). I'm thinking of a split rig, as LFH did with his Design #30.

 

Please post comments about Steve's ideas here and post to the original thread about other sizes?

 

Thanks, Steve, so much for your creative and visionary approaches. Herewith:

 

Atkin 1.25 Class Rules.

 

 

Preamble

The Aitkin 1.25 class is a derivative of the 125 Square Foot Development Class started by William Atkin in Huntington Long Island New York in 1928. This class was alternately known as the Suicide Class and enjoyed a vital history until the early 1960s when organized activity declined below a sustainable level. In 1987 a number of surviving class members attempted to revive the class but failed to achieve stability.

The current rules attempt to define a type of boat that is in keeping with the history of the 125 Square Foot Development Class or Suicide but to restate some of the particulars in order to make the class more attractive for 21st century designers and builders. The authors respect the history of the Suicide Class, but feel that the continuation of that title is detrimental to the acceptance of the class and chose to use this alternate designation.

Any boat which measured in as a class legal Suicide is eligible for competition in the Atkin 1.25 Class.

 

Measurement rules

The Aitkin 1.25 is an un-ballasted monohull development class having the following restrictions:

1: The bow shall fit within an angle of 40 degrees either side of centerline.

The vertex of the included angle shall not be further than 2” from the stem.

 

2: Sail area shall not be more than 125 square feet. The sail area shall be measured in accordance with the “IYRU Measurement & Calculation of Sail Area Instructions” (Last issued May 1985)

 

3: The overall length shall not be more than 22.5 feet.

The length shall be taken between perpendiculars with the hull upright in its normal trim.

The measurement shall exclude rudder fittings, but if the athwartships width of rudder within 6 inches of the bottom of the hull is more than 3 inches, the length shall be taken from the aftermost extremity of the rudder.

 

4: The hull shall have a beam no greater than 66’.

The hull shall a beam of at least 42” for at least 1/3 of its overall length.

The beam shall be measured perpendicular to centerline with the hull.

 

5: The hull shall nowhere have freeboard of less than 6”

 

6: The hull shall have at least one cockpit or foot well of 12 square feet.

The floorboards shall nowhere be less than 12” below the upper surface of the deck excluding any coamings.

 

7: A taught tape stretched from gunwale to gunwale shall nowhere bridge a hollow of more than 1”

 

8: The minimum weight of the hull with essential fixed fastenings and hardware shall be determined by the formula:

(Overall length in feet) x (Maximum beam in feet) x (Maximum hull depth) = weight in pounds.

 

9: There shall be not more than one centerboard.

a) The centerboard shall be un-ballasted and shall float.

B) With the boat floating upright, the centerboard shall be capable of being withdrawn such that it does not project below the hull skin.

 

10: There shall be not more than one rudder

a) The rudder shall be un-ballasted and shall float.

B) With the boat floating upright, the rudder shall be capable of being withdrawn such that it does not project below the hull skin.

 

11) No spar shall have a cross section greater than 5”

a) If the mast rotates, ½ of its surface area shall be considered sail area.

 

12: The boat shall have built in buoyancy or buoyancy devices such that the crew can right, bail and resume sailing unassisted within 5 minutes.

 

13: Sails shall be capable of being raised and lowered with the boat floating upright. Roller furling is accepted as an alternative to raising and lowering.

 

14) The crew shall be not more or less than two.

a) one crew member is permitted to use a trapeze.

 

[Carl] There are no restrictions on hull material, and I am fine with that. I will be rooting for wood to win. There is no reason we can't. A great boat. Thanks, Carl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
some photos and discussion of the suicide class in this thread

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php...st&p=981191

anarchist sailwriter will be along shortly to illucidate, or PM him.

 

 

Please post comments about Steve's ideas here and post to the original thread about other sizes?

 

Atkin 1.25 Class Rules.

 

...

 

9: There shall be not more than one centerboard.

a) The centerboard shall be un-ballasted and shall float.

B) With the boat floating upright, the centerboard shall be capable of being withdrawn such that it does not project below the hull skin.

 

 

This class seems like a great idea. I'm unsure about the term "Centreboard" being used if it restricts the design to using something like what a 505 or 470 would use. My preference is the term "Centreboard/Daggerboar" so as to include vertically lifting foils too.

 

Cheers,

 

Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
some photos and discussion of the suicide class in this thread

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php...st&p=981191

anarchist sailwriter will be along shortly to illucidate, or PM him.

 

 

Please post comments about Steve's ideas here and post to the original thread about other sizes?

 

Atkin 1.25 Class Rules.

 

...

 

9: There shall be not more than one centerboard.

a) The centerboard shall be un-ballasted and shall float.

B) With the boat floating upright, the centerboard shall be capable of being withdrawn such that it does not project below the hull skin.

 

 

This class seems like a great idea. I'm unsure about the term "Centreboard" being used if it restricts the design to using something like what a 505 or 470 would use. My preference is the term "Centreboard/Daggerboar" so as to include vertically lifting foils too.

 

Cheers,

 

Fish

 

Thanks Fish. I can't see why a daggerboard can't be used or leeboards (perish the thought but some have used throughout history), as long as they meet the self-floating parameters.

 

Sail on! Carl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CARL: Don't call me a genius. It's an insult to geniuses.

For those with an interest, I hope these rules are inclusive enough to allow quite a variety of boats to sail together. So if you have a wacko one off or a one design that didn't take off, look at it and decide whether with a bit of bother it wouldn't fit in here.

The rules are intentionally loose to allow for scavenged parts and cannibalization but being a jackal is not a requirement.

Otherwise I'm thinking that Swift Solo like construction of hulls that are round the way 110s are square with little fat head (or dare I say Taser rigs) would provide hours of healthy amusement.

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a huge fan of "no hollows" rules. I think its a bit type forming, because you're forced into either wide waterline beam or shallow chine angle. Maybe that's a deliberate aim of course, but if the aim is to limit waterline beam I'd be happier with a floating rise of floor limit like the IC rule.

Whilst seeing all the advantages for long boats, surely 22.5 feet limits the number of home workshops appreciably. Hard enough finding room for a 17ft IC...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim:

You can tell it's me because I like long boats....

The "no hollow rule" is intended to type form.

If you only control the minimum waterline beam, as with a rise of floor rule, the work around to get a narrow waterline and maximum hiking power at minimum weight is pretty obvious. Thus type forming in another way.

Topsides instantly become inverted with the consequent degradation of the stability curve and or the hull shape is distorted at the measurement points. This movie has been playing for a while.

For this operation we did not want to promote yet another generation of that solution but to explore the opposite end of the spectrum.

This should be dynamic problem where you trade weight, sail carrying power and wave making against each other. Similarly, weight is variable with sailing length. So you can be narrow, short and light or long wide and heavy and most places in between. I don't know where ideal is and I hope there is plenty of room for experiment within the box.

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you only control the minimum waterline beam, as with a rise of floor rule, the work around to get a narrow waterline and maximum hiking power at minimum weight is pretty obvious. Thus type forming in another way.

Agreed, although with the weight/size rule you do pay a very considerable weight penalty for that flare. There's no right answer to any rule of course...

My gut feeling would be to go long and narrow for sure. With a long boat you probably need less righting moment, thus beam. And the long thin option is suprisingly little explored these days, especially away from European lake boats.

 

Cherub experience tells me that around 63inches is a pretty fair beam for a 12ft , 125sqft rig single string boat upwind,

Fireballs aren't much off the same area at a tad under 16ft waterline, / 54" beam.

So at say 20ft you could probably approach the minimum beam: I'd be tempted to try.

 

The cockpit floor rule seems a suprisingly strong influence on the freeboard if I read things right... I suspect you'd be keen to go minimum freeboard to keep weight down...

 

When I do the sums the weight limit seems quite ambitious...

 

The dimensions I's aim for might be 20' * 3'6" * 1' is 70lbs, which is pretty damn light...

A typical wood Cherub was doing well to hit the minimum at 110lbs, and a typical boat was 12' * 5'6" * 1'6" which is 99lbs under this rule.

A Fireball, which is easy to reach min weight of 176lbs, but still considered lightish in many circles, seems to be about 16'3 * 4'6 * 1'9 for 128lbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4: The hull shall have a beam no greater than 66'.

 

8: The minimum weight of the hull with essential fixed fastenings and hardware shall be determined by the formula:

(Overall length in feet) x (Maximum beam in feet) x (Maximum hull depth) = weight in pounds.

 

 

Whooah - 66' beam! I can't tell if you are talking about a multi or a barge icon6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a thought...

 

I like the idea of a kite too, 125sq ft downwind is maybe a bit too uninteresting, plus you can do a much nicer upwind rig if you haven't got to wory about running square.

 

There are some interesting design issues: I'd rather have the rig much further aft, but can't do that and have the crew able to tack in light airs without disturbing the fore and aft trim...

 

post-60-1231541984_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, once again sorry about the max beam. We meant 66 inches as in five foot six inches.

Second point, as JimC cleverly observes, the minimum weight formula doesn't quite cut it. Hard to imagine people home building boats that weigh like racing shells....

I sort of worked the numbers for a big boat 22 x 5.5 x 1.5 =173 and thought it a challenge , but certainly possible. I didn't run as many variations as I should have. to find where things went wrong.

If I look at the old IC rule, the minimum weight was determined by LOA x Bmax x 2.4 = weight in lbs.

This worked pretty well, resulting in boats that were pretty long lived and sensible when built carefully built out of 100% non exotic technology. ie wood/ epoxy fiberglass foam polyester resin etc. So history indicates that this is a good guide for home building.

Jim's 20 x 3.5 hull has to weigh 168, which seems far more attainable if you consider his evidence that 110 pound Cherubs were a challenge and that a Taser weighs 150. So we are still light, but not stupid.

I would like to resist the down wind sails if at all possible, partially for historical reasons, but also for keeping things affordable and accessible to the widest audience.

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Suicide had a centerboard since the early 1950's. Daggerboards on all, some quite 'modern'.

The reason for the wishbone was in that day we had to count the cross section boom measurement as sail area. So the wishbone gave another bit of precious

area and served as a vang. This was twenty years or more before Hoyle's sailboard creation.

The Suicide class died not too long after the 1958 Yachting magazine One-of-a-Kind regatta in Miami where the Tiger and Cougar catamarans won the speed trials.

Suicides had always been at or near the top previously.

The lunitic fringe went to multihulls.

Dave Ellis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be great to see some attention paid to big, quick dinghies again.

 

The Oz Sharpie is 190lb (originally 180lb in ply) at 20 feet LOA and 4 ft 8 in beam, yet it's tough enough to handle some of the roughest dinghy water in Oz while going as fast as a 505, and the boats last for eons even in normal foam sandwich.

 

aBlonde.jpg

 

Norfolk Punt is 250lbs at 22.5 feet x 5.5 feet.

 

post-890-1231621778_thumb.jpg

 

Could development in boats like these help persuade those who could move to Sportsboats to stay in dinghy sailing?

post-890-1231621808_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not certain you want to make the min weight based on width if you allow someone to trapeze. I would bet that the fastest boat would be no more than 18 inches wide and sailed by a big tall dude on the trapeze and a tiny little kind in the boat. The rules would allow the boat to be 80 lbs which is nothing compared to the crew. Then because the person on the trap is a big tall dude, you don't need much width to make a lot of righting moment. So, instead of being about the boat design it is about finding a big tall dude and a little kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve,

I thought you were busy builing a new C? But great minds will not stay still.

 

Thoughts on proposal:

It looks a big boat with quite small sails, tasar, cherub size but double the boat?

No extra? could be dead downwind and the crew will get bored.

 

I hope there is an identified need / market for reviving another class. I got swept up with the similar development canoe enthusiasm a few years back and although I had a great time designing, building and racing you guys at McCrae, there is still no one to race against in NSW and I can not find anyone even interested in test sailing my canoe let alone buy it from me. Maybe you are thinking more locally this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I look at the old IC rule, the minimum weight was determined by LOA x Bmax x 2.4 = weight in lbs.

That feels a tad heavy to me...

Going a bit mathematical on this, Ifmy sums are correct I think you can approximate the surface area of a boxy hard chine hull to

(L * B * 1.2) + (L * H * 1.8)

This is assuming a deck/floor area of 0.6 B * L which has to be in the area for a normal shape hull, and

a topside area of 0.9 H * L, which is assuming the boat doesn't vary in freeboard that much... Bang in a multiplier of 1.2 and you get

118 lbs for a Cherub, which was readily attainable,

151lbs for an NZ Javelin: 150lbs is the min weight, and I believe practical

149lbs for a Fireball, which doesn't sound too bad.

Steve's 22 * 5.5*1.5 boat comes in at 216, and my 20 * 3.5 * 1 at 127.

Or is that sort of formula getting a bit complex?

 

 

[added after seeing Chris post]

If I guess 1.75 height for the lightweight Sharpie and the Norfolk Punt then my formula suggests 200 and 247 lbs respectively. If that's the height they are then all the points are rather amazingly close to the line!

[/add]

 

 

I'd be inclined to bang in a minimum of 1.5 for height, which would save people from making very distorted sheer lines in order to keep the height and weight as low as possible whilst maintaining the foot of cockpit depth.

 

anyway, here's the original formula, my new one, and Steve's revised one against figures for 3 existing classes and Steve and my thoughts on dimensions. It would be good to sanity check against a few more data points...

 

On downwind sails: I take the point, and these days I have no desire to have a coloured rag on the singlehanders I choose to yacht in. On the other hand a 125sqft kite would, if you believe Bethwaite's ratios, bring this boat into apparent wind territory, and that's a reasonable size rag to handle. We're seeing few new classes without kites in the UK these days, but on the other hand there are plenty of old established classes without them that still seem healthy. With any luck you could launch it from a decent sized chute well in front of the jib tack and not bother with a pole which would certainly be a diffferent aesthetic!

post-60-1231629160_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil: I am responding to a challenge thrown out by Carl Cramer over at Wooden Boat. If I we can get it right, we might be able to throw a net over a bunch of odd little boats that never established critical mass and let them play together. Otherwise I'm trying to rope in a bunch of folks who maybe raced a number of years ago, but haven't had a home for a while. Also these boats used to exist, and it would be fun to see what they looked like now....

Otherwise, it seems that I may have overcooked it the other way now. Certainly there is no need to be heavier than a Lightweight Sharpie or a Norfolk Punt. Jim, I want to try to reduce this to a formula that uses dimensions one has to take anyway. So some multiplier of beam and length seems to make sense. Maybe we need to use a different multiplier for length than for beam.

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah Phil, The new C Class is underway.

Fredo is in SO much trouble.

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey guys just a quick correction on the lightweight sharpie info (having just spent the last 2 weeks doing their nats) - their min weight is 90 kgs (~198 lb) and only 3 boats at the recent nationals were under that - in fact most of the boats present were over by at least 2 kgs! They're also a class that is notorious for being extremely difficult to build down to weight in ply, which is why roughly 95% of the boats built in the last 30 years have been either end-grain balsa/glass or foam/glass and while they last pretty much forever some of the older boats are nowhere near as light or stiff as they once were.

 

SHC - awesome idea. Gotta love things that come back from the dead, and this is one class that should have never carked it as it looks to be a box rule that gives the designer and builder a few restrictions to play with that are a little bit out of the norm. One question - given that all international classes these days are measured in decimal/SI units would it be possible to work the weight formulas around a bit and try to get something that is roughly equal in both imperial and SI units?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim, I want to try to reduce this to a formula that uses dimensions one has to take anyway. So some multiplier of beam and length seems to make sense. Maybe we need to use a different multiplier for length than for beam.

 

Then I'd be inclined to legislate a minimum sheer height and assume everyone builds down to the minimum...

If you say a sheer height of 1.75ft then a bit of substition gives you something on the lines of:-

 

((L * B * 0.381) + L ) * 3.35 (or whatever multiplier gives you the desired weight)

 

Alternatively in M and Kg...

 

((L * B * 1.24952) + L ) * 5.635636(need to add some horse sense as far as number of sig places is concerned)

 

Unfortunately it can't be a straight multiplier of L or the sums dn't come out. L has to appear in the formula twice.

 

Ye gods, are't these formula rules horribly complicated? No wonder no-ones ever made a measurement handicap rule work properly! My formula is making, incodentally, no allowance for internal structure, its just on the notional area of skin and deck surface... Maybe it should do!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a thought...

 

I like the idea of a kite too, 125sq ft downwind is maybe a bit too uninteresting, plus you can do a much nicer upwind rig if you haven't got to wory about running square.

 

There are some interesting design issues: I'd rather have the rig much further aft, but can't do that and have the crew able to tack in light airs without disturbing the fore and aft trim...

 

 

I agree about the kite, that would be one sweet all around ride. Definitely worth the extra $.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Steve is aware, Bill Beaver and I designed a Suicide in the early 90's. We initially stretched the IC Nethercott NoGo55 hull, added a transom, but after tweaking, the hull shape flattened out. It has very similar sections to Bill's Sock Puppet (an IC designed to the U.S development rule in effect at that time). Bill did the lines up in Fastship and two models were built to the lines, Bill did one to our concept and John Williamson made one with 6 inches of freeboard added and with a sidetank cockpit.

 

Our design brief was a two person (preferably husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend) hiking dinghy that could stay with a 505 upwind. If I remember correctly, the length was at the short end of the Suicide rule (18.5'), we designed to minimum hull beam but we added racks which may have pushed the overall beam beyond 5.5' max in the Suicide rule. A dished, sit on cockpit. A very high aspect rig of 125 sq. ft. with no assymetric. The low freeboard of this design would not currently fit Steve's new rule. John Williamsons modification with higher freeboard would probably measure in.

 

I have a set of scaled lines kicking around somewhere, but I would have to do some digging.

 

I agree it might be tough to build such a long dinghy in straightforward wood construction much below 200 lbs. Steve has mentioned the U.S Development Canoe weight multiplier of (LXBX2.4 = min. weight in lbs.) as a good baseline. This was proven when the prototype NoGo55 was built in wood strip with no carbon and ended up 2lbs. lighter than the 138 lbs allowed at that time.

 

Steve's new rules look to keep the spirit of the Suicide rule. I remember at the time we designed the hull, Steve remarking that it was too long to be popular. I didn't agree at the time, but changed my mind later. As Jim C noted, the long length between 18.5 and 22.5 put it outside many garages for home build purposes. Steve seems to have gone full circle one way while I have gone full circle the other way.

 

Steve's rule opens up some intriguing Frankenboat concoctions. Take a Flying 15 hull, drop the keel, put a lightweight deck on .... hull's probably too heavy but just speculating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never heard of one of these cool looking boats, they sound appealing.

 

I just wonder with singficant rig developments over the years if the sail area is enough? Rigs these days are more manageable to sail in conditions once thought near impossible. Does the "reduction of difficulty" due to better more moden rigs, allow for some extra sail area to be added to retain the "level of difficulty" of years gone by and add some extra zing down hill, I'm not saying a kite is needed but maybe some extra working area, like adding some roach to the main as a first step. After all such a long narrow hull wouldn't need heaps of grunt to getting it moving pretty hot.

 

Just a thought from someone watching from the sideline.

 

If only I had more time and spare cash

 

ICU2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just wonder with singficant rig developments over the years if the sail area is enough?

 

Something I think I've learned (or at least decided and I could very easily be wrong) in recent years is that sail area seems to be a suprisingly inefficient way to go faster...

 

I agree that we've learned in recent years and with recent materials that we can handle rigs far bigger than ever before. However the big rigs will still knock you flat coming out of tacks and gybes just as well as they did before, they pull just as hard on the muscles as they did before, and they are just as much trouble to hoist to the top of the mast as they were before. All these things will weigh heavier on you when you get to my age! We've now got a fair few boats about that have gone the big sails route and they're proving suprisingly unpopular.

 

What I've learned playing about with first my own singlehander, and then with a Canoe is that you don't need buig rags for a boat to be entertaining... For the young and fit I think the most fun solution is a over short over light boat which makes for the maximum thrills and spills in the minimum package. Big rigs, maybe multiple rigs, big kite etc. When you get older, there's a lot to be said for moderate rig and more length. I think on the whole I'm enjoying my 17ft 10m2 Canoe more than my 14ft 12.5m2 one off... Its certainly faster! What really suprises me is that sailors at my club who were world class in 29ers in their teens are now sailing slower boats, not faster ones in their twenties. Bizarre!

 

Another thing I'm learning is about downwind speed in inland conditions where I sail. Its a different story in open water, but where I am no boats are really much faster than Lasers downwind until you get right up to the serious big rag two handers. What I reckon (and again I could be wrong) is this. A Laser in a decent gust seems to be able to stay in the gust and get downwind at gust speed. A faster boat - Canoe, my singlehander, whatever, will go faster in the gust. In fact it will sail out of the gust and stall in the turbulent gust front. What it can't do is to sail into the lighter wind beyound, and catch the next gust ahead. So if both boats were level at the windward mark when they got the gust the fast boat imediately grabs say 20 yards, but thereafter goes no faster and gets no further ahead because she's sailing in far less wind. I suppose the cure for this is to be able to sail a sufficiently hot angle to go hunting the back of the next gust laterally without losing out in vmg. I'm having trouble in workin out how t do this in a Canoe, which is why suggest a moderate size kite. Hoists and drops are the killers on kite handling (I've spent some time discussing this with other superannuated ex skiff type crews), which is why if you do have one it needs to be moderately sized and very easy to drop. The trouble with just having big fore abd aft rags and no kite is that in order to be fast nough downhill the sails will be too big to be comfortable uphill...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be great to see some attention paid to big, quick dinghies again.

 

The Oz Sharpie is 190lb (originally 180lb in ply) at 20 feet LOA and 4 ft 8 in beam, yet it's tough enough to handle some of the roughest dinghy water in Oz while going as fast as a 505, and the boats last for eons even in normal foam sandwich.

 

 

Norfolk Punt is 250lbs at 22.5 feet x 5.5 feet.

 

 

 

Could development in boats like these help persuade those who could move to Sportsboats to stay in dinghy sailing?

quite right, hello keeldraggers and railmeat(sounds like fun no?) Here in the States a renewed interest in the Raven, a 24foot 500lb Flying dutchman with three men up and an unlimited masthead spinnaker. http://ravenclasssailing.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is close to an idea my wife and I have been tossing around for a few years, although an itty bitty amount of lead (horrors!) in the daggerboard to help bring her upright has been part of the equation (Steve Rander did this with a sailing canoe he did with a trapeze, and it was still fast).

 

Frankly, a small (125 sq ft) assym launched from the bow (if the jib was back a ways to stay out of the way while gybing), and possibly flown from the jib hounds to keep mast staying simple sounds like fun. But this probably goes more to the longer length of the Suicide envelope.

 

It may be tangential to the discussion (but I'm hoping kind of to the point of Jim C's comments), but on our ULDBish 40er that we 2 hand, we have been going smaller and smaller with the assym and jib, and each time we do it, the boat's more fun, and if there is a speed difference, handling and sail design efficiency seem to make up for it. But the new smaller assym (which is now flown down from the jib hounds, rather than the original mastheadish hounds) is a lot more fun than just a blade and high roached main downwind. We never use the big assym anymore.

 

Besides, I've always liked the relative size of the Merlin Rocket Spinnaker.

 

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is close to an idea my wife and I have been tossing around for a few years, although an itty bitty amount of lead (horrors!) in the daggerboard to help bring her upright has been part of the equation (Steve Rander did this with a sailing canoe he did with a trapeze, and it was still fast).

 

Frankly, a small (125 sq ft) assym launched from the bow (if the jib was back a ways to stay out of the way while gybing), and possibly flown from the jib hounds to keep mast staying simple sounds like fun. But this probably goes more to the longer length of the Suicide envelope.

 

It may be tangential to the discussion (but I'm hoping kind of to the point of Jim C's comments), but on our ULDBish 40er that we 2 hand, we have been going smaller and smaller with the assym and jib, and each time we do it, the boat's more fun, and if there is a speed difference, handling and sail design efficiency seem to make up for it. But the new smaller assym (which is now flown down from the jib hounds, rather than the original mastheadish hounds) is a lot more fun than just a blade and high roached main downwind. We never use the big assym anymore.

 

Besides, I've always liked the relative size of the Merlin Rocket Spinnaker.

 

Paul

 

I've been keenly following this thread with great interest, but a degree of nagging dread.

 

I'm always gassed about the idea of a homebuilt "development" class boat where the rules are developed by the people who sail or will be sailing the boats instead of a corporate marketing committee and accountants forecasting future profits. I love hearing about ideas - old or new where personal ingenuity and skill come into play. I like Steve Clark's ideas.

 

I fear for further fragmentation and division of talent taking our collective eyes off the ball - the "ball" being development, promotion and growth of our sport. Real growth means finding NEW participants - a point well proven by Mr. Obama's defeat of his opponents in the recent past election. His victory came from new people and a re-energized group, rather than catering to the "base" and producing something only they will truly appreciate.

 

I feel those of us on S/A are the Karl Rove'esque "base" of performance sailing, and a concept as interesting as the "Suicide" may be a worth a look from a different perspective. I don't want our sport to decline further.

 

Steve Clark proposed a cheap and dirty homebuild for kids in a thread I started a while ago. I'd really like to see that idea explored further. His opinions on minimal build complexity, the need for simplicity and build completion speed weren't lost on me. We really depend on keeping the beginner's end of the sport loaded with new kids. Maybe we need to have a Dinghy Anarchist's kid boat building project that makes it off the ground.

 

Sorry for the slightly negative vibe ... and please keep on talking about this development project of the Suicide.

 

--

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We really depend on keeping the beginner's end of the sport loaded with new kids.

Dunno that we don't have more of a problem with keeping those kids in the sport once its not Daddy and Mummy paying the bills. At least here in the UK...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been keenly following this thread with great interest, but a degree of nagging dread.

 

I'm always gassed about the idea of a homebuilt "development" class boat where the rules are developed by the people who sail or will be sailing the boats instead of a corporate marketing committee and accountants forecasting future profits. I love hearing about ideas - old or new where personal ingenuity and skill come into play. I like Steve Clark's ideas.

 

I fear for further fragmentation and division of talent taking our collective eyes off the ball - the "ball" being development, promotion and growth of our sport. Real growth means finding NEW participants - a point well proven by Mr. Obama's defeat of his opponents in the recent past election. His victory came from new people and a re-energized group, rather than catering to the "base" and producing something only they will truly appreciate.

 

I feel those of us on S/A are the Karl Rove'esque "base" of performance sailing, and a concept as interesting as the "Suicide" may be a worth a look from a different perspective. I don't want our sport to decline further.

 

Steve Clark proposed a cheap and dirty homebuild for kids in a thread I started a while ago. I'd really like to see that idea explored further. His opinions on minimal build complexity, the need for simplicity and build completion speed weren't lost on me. We really depend on keeping the beginner's end of the sport loaded with new kids. Maybe we need to have a Dinghy Anarchist's kid boat building project that makes it off the ground.

 

Sorry for the slightly negative vibe ... and please keep on talking about this development project of the Suicide.

 

--

Bill

In a similar vein, but on the topic of the class proposed here, I think that the purpose of the class neds to be clarified. If it is just another way of playing with design parameters, it should be put to vote by a group large enough to re-start the class. On the other hand, the parameters proposed by Steve Clark have a potential to produce a boat that is a step above your typical toy for engineers. At the maximum beam, the boat would be quite pleasant to sail without trapeze (in lighter winds). Examples of hiking boats with a similar sail area to righting moment ratio are easy to find (Tasar comes to mind as a reasonably modern design). Of course, with expected development in rig efficiency (which would probably result in a way higher aspect ratio than a typical hiking boat) you would need a trapeze, which is legal in the class rules already. In this way a boat could result that is genuinely and pleasantly capable of sailing in two modes (hiking and trapezing). It would offer a better sailing experience than a typical trapeze boat where sailing in winds that do not require trapezing is a real pain. Moreover, since trapezing would not be the the typical way to race the boat, you would not end up with the usual one trapeze crew restriction. Simply, if need be, one of the team goes out on the trapeze, but a big chunk of sailing happens in the hiking mode, so, it is not critical to find a gorilla for the trapeze and a small guy for the helm, because you would get overpowered way higher up the wind range. The speed of this kind of boat added to the ease of sailing (believe me or not, to go out on a trapeze is often too big a step for sailors to take) would appeal to your mid range experienced (and possibly less than experienced) sailor. If the boat is actually fast and pleasant to sail, you might end up with a good second hand market for older designs, thus pouring more resources (and possibly more sailors) into the class. I think only mad people buy old I'14s (I have one). This is because it takes an unusual kind of sailor to like this boat. The proposed rule with the maximum beam has a potential to appeal to a larger segment of the sailing public, thus making it more viable as a class. All this does not take away from the development nature of the rule.

Because of all this, I do not think that penalizing the size of the boat by adding weight is a good idea. The biggest concern here is the width of the boat. At the minimum beam the boat would be vaguely reminiscent of an International Canoe and probably impossible to sail (or at least very painful) without a trapeze. ICs are awesome boats, but I cannot even imagine sailing anything similar with a trapeze in light winds. Moreover, if it turnes out that narrow boats are the way to go because of weight savings, I am not sure where you can find another set of people (beyond all the existing development classes) interested in developing another very technical and difficult boat. Hence, I would not calculate the minimum weight of the boat based on its width. This would entice designers to produce wide boats for the maximum righting moment. In fact, I think the best rule would just specify a fairly low minimum weight (which would make shorter boats viable) without tying the weight to dimensions. This way there would be many interesting design options available with long and narrow waterline wave piercing designs etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be great to see some attention paid to big, quick dinghies again.

 

The Oz Sharpie is 190lb (originally 180lb in ply) at 20 feet LOA and 4 ft 8 in beam, yet it's tough enough to handle some of the roughest dinghy water in Oz while going as fast as a 505, and the boats last for eons even in normal foam sandwich.

 

 

Norfolk Punt is 250lbs at 22.5 feet x 5.5 feet.

 

 

 

Could development in boats like these help persuade those who could move to Sportsboats to stay in dinghy sailing?

quite right, hello keeldraggers and railmeat(sounds like fun no?) Here in the States a renewed interest in the Raven, a 24foot 500lb Flying dutchman with three men up and an unlimited masthead spinnaker. http://ravenclasssailing.org/

 

A freind of mine used to sail a Raven at Port Jefferson Yacht Club (LIS) back in the 60's said they were great boats..

 

I saw a few floating around LI but they were planters..what a shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be tempted to go with a taller NS14 rig (standard NS rig is 18ft mast and 100 sqft of sail. Stick an extra 3ft on the mast and grow the sails accordingly) on an 18ft hull.

 

In fact, I'd consider a swing rig similar to rc yachts. I believe such a rig can still be stayed and swing inside the shrouds. Would be a big help on a broad rach, if a little slower upwind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the best rule would just specify a fairly low minimum weight (which would make shorter boats viable) without tying the weight to dimensions.

Don't forget that tying weight to size of hull has a crude scantlings effect. Without that you simply go for the longest and widest boat that has a vague hope of staying together with sufficient exotics used in construction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill:

I keep throwing stuff out there hoping one of them will stick.

This all came out of something that Carl Cramer threw out at Woodenboat. It would be nice to get those guys who are thinking about stuff in many the same ways we are to share a bit more of our fun. Or we share theirs.

It seems that people who should get along spend a lot of time glowering at each other. To that end I think sailboat racing has to be a lot less about the shouting and a lot more about the adventure we all took to get here, And the adventures we are sharing as a result.

I imagine that there is a lever out there that if put in the right place can get the suitable heads out of the appropriate asses and we can get on with having more fun.

But I may be wrong. Its entirely likely that the necessary generosity of spirit to doesn't exist.

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill:

I keep throwing stuff out there hoping one of them will stick.

This all came out of something that Carl Cramer threw out at Woodenboat. It would be nice to get those guys who are thinking about stuff in many the same ways we are to share a bit more of our fun. Or we share theirs.

It seems that people who should get along spend a lot of time glowering at each other. To that end I think sailboat racing has to be a lot less about the shouting and a lot more about the adventure we all took to get here, And the adventures we are sharing as a result.

I imagine that there is a lever out there that if put in the right place can get the suitable heads out of the appropriate asses and we can get on with having more fun.

But I may be wrong. Its entirely likely that the necessary generosity of spirit to doesn't exist.

SHC

 

 

Steve:

 

I'm still enthusiastic on the last two ideas you've posted: the standard canoe performance sailing conversion and the inexpensive kids boat! I think people should pay more attention.

 

Perhaps I should write Carl and elucidate on these two ideas. I'm a Woodenboat subscriber, and their startup homebuild projects are pretty lame. Slab sided, flat bottomed rowboats just have no potential to raise a pulse rate. Articles on caulking with mallets & irons are nice history, but aren't going to interest the snowboarding generation.

 

I think the Loyal Order of Cantankerous Maine Boatbuilders (Woodenboat publishers) would consider getting behind projects like this - they just need to learn there have been new wood boats designed since Herreshoff passed. No disrespect to Phil Bolger and the like, but your new canoe should have been noticed. We have to get on their radar, as they've got the stage on which projects can be noticed in the builder's community.

 

--

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, I hope you didn't think my previous post too negative as I would certainly welcome some boats built around your rule. I would love to sail one but as you succinctly pointed out the 80's, there is a definite letdown with most sailing dinghys after sailing an International Canoe. I agree with you on the spinnaker, I don't think an assymetric is necessary, at least in North America.

 

Having said that an assymetric isn't necessay, I'll add this caveat. I have always thought that one of the simplest ways to add horsepower offwind is to copy the Vendee Globe and add a roller furling Code 0 or shy kite (shike or would that be shite?) Not sure if lugging upwind the windage of a roller furler offwind sail would be accepted in dinghyland, but it would eliminate the retracting pole, the halyard, the stuffing of the chute into a bag or horsing it down a launcher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Code zeros need a lot of tension to work. And there is that banana up there going upwind. Tack the assym to the bow and put the forestay (and therefore the jib) as far back as you can. If the assym is small (like 90-125 sq ft), in a sleeve , and flown from the jib hounds, I think it would be easy to handle. Message the shape of the thing to your downwind style.

 

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My worry about not having a kite is that this boat is going to be absolute dynamite upwind. Consider you've got the length of a Dutchman, far less weight and a way way more efficient rig. On the other hand square running you're not going to go very much faster than a Laser, because nothing does. And a nice high aspect ratio upwind rig isn't a great tool for square running anyway.

 

I've done a bit more sketching. This upwind rig is a Cherub rig I had a few years ago, which was not slow uphill, scaled down from 12.5m2 to 125ft^2. I've drawn a shorter footed kite than I had, and put a foot on the bow at deck level to get some angle on the kite luff. I'd love to get the rig further aft, but can't get the boat to balance: This is as far aft as I think the crew will be able to efficiently roll tack without having to mess with tacking forward of the mast or sinking the transom. By flaring out the topsides on the port side I've got a kite chute that disappears under the sidedeck and will take the whole kite with a single patch. so it should be possible to engineer this with pretty low friction. I've used the kite under side deck solution before: its OK.

 

post-60-1231927224_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting so far!

 

IMHO some development classes may suffer from a max hull lenght that does not match their sailpower anymore. So it would be interesting to see what you get by these long hulls even if they introduce some handling issues while building and ashore.

 

Some thoughts about asym kites, though...

 

125 sqf upwind will not be too much "dynamite" unless you got a lot of wind. If you actually got a lot of wind, you can go surprisingly fast downwind on apparent wind WITHOUT kite if hull is efficient.

 

In little wind a small asym kite of similar size will make you go sideways but not to leeward (no VMG).

 

So I guess no asym kite is better if you do not want a big kite that is capabable of creating sufficient apparent wind to point low even in light air.

 

No kite saves time on hoisting/dropping and the weight of the soaked kite upwind :-)

 

 

 

PS: Is there any use in having different maximum widths for boats w/ or w/o trapeze?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
125 sqf upwind will not be too much "dynamite" unless you got a lot of wind.

Aha - a man who needs to go and sail an International Canoe. When you do you'll find out!

 

Seriously though you really would be suprised how little difference more rag can make, especially if the smaller rags are seriously setup. At a UK Cherub Champs some years ago when we had 12.5m rags we had a couple of boats experiemnting with bigger rigs and an extra string. It made a big difference downwind, but uphill, nope, the upwind fliers amongst the 12.5m^2 boats could often beat the boat with 15ish to the windward mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
125 sqf upwind will not be too much "dynamite" unless you got a lot of wind.

Aha - a man who needs to go and sail an International Canoe. When you do you'll find out!

 

Seriously though you really would be suprised how little difference more rag can make, especially if the smaller rags are seriously setup. At a UK Cherub Champs some years ago when we had 12.5m rags we had a couple of boats experiemnting with bigger rigs and an extra string. It made a big difference downwind, but uphill, nope, the upwind fliers amongst the 12.5m^2 boats could often beat the boat with 15ish to the windward mark.

 

I've yet got to sail one, but I raced against Canoes often enough to know they are seriously quick.

 

But those are singlehanders and here we are talking about a doublehander for two full size Americans.

 

And as far as I know Canoe kites are somewhat bigger than 125 sqf :)

 

And being first at the windward mark is often not about owning the fastest boat in a straight line :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This does seem an interesting idea, and I'm tempted to have a sketch or two to see what happens.

Sometimes I see a pic or a sketch and think - " Wow - that looks good" - the first pic on the page did that.

 

As JimC says, addding efficiency is more interesting than adding area to go fast.

I've been sailing small light efficient boats for a while ( moths, cherubs, 29er and IC) which all have relatively small sail areas. The Uk cherubs have now added 2 wires and lots more sail area, but still are no faster round the course than a 29er.

This 125 dev class would combine the good bits of the above boats - IC (hull length) , the small efficient rigs of the IC, cherub or 29er, could be made light, and sailed by a range of crew weights.

The hulls could be fairly lightly constructed because of the small rig and using a trapeze.

Rigs could be borrowed or adapted from many existing boats that have similar size rigs.

Possible una-rig, but having a jib gives a crew more to do.

The boats should be super fast upwind, but probably a bit slow downwind without a kite. The IC struggles downwind vs even the slower asymmetric kite boats, so I would prefer to see a small kite. - gives the crew something to do downwind, and sailing angles at speed is more fun.

For a longer boat, this could be a simple addition, tacked at the stem, something like the Shadow catamaran which has a small ( 10m² ) kite, set inside the forestay . Maybe a pole allowed to extend to the max box length so the shorter boats aren't penalised.

 

Section shape? Could be a low wetted area National 12 or Merlin Rocket hull shape with narrow waterline and angled topsides, or the other extreme of a box shape which has more form stability for the narrow beam hull. The box could be simply made from ply, - the IC and moth ply fold up boats show you can get nice curvy shapes in ply too.

Planing hull or high displacement speed?

Ooh lots of options!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RS K6 is sort of similar at 19' x 6 ', hiking boat, but heavy with a keel, 3 sailors and big sails, so not really similar at all!

It does however have a low wetted surface hull that works Ok heeled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talked to Bill Beaver and he went and measured our Suicide concept model. Looks like my memory isn't the best.

 

I didn't do an exhaustive search of files to see see what suicide info I could find,

but I did take some pictures of the model. The thing was built to a 1":1' scale.

Based on ruler measurements the boat was;

 

Loa - 20.5'

Hull Beam - 45"

WL Beam - 36" (maybe as high as 38")

Bow Ht - 18"

Stern Height - ~9" at side, 4" on CL

Rack Beam - 10' as pictured

 

I think I recalled settling on a SA of 135sqft but think the racks were geared around an A sail as well.

No trap, just hiking to hopefully appeal to the gentler sex. I'd probably want to stay within an 8ft

road legal footprint without a chute and perhaps even less than that.

post-10030-1232074555_thumb.jpg

post-10030-1232074610_thumb.jpg

post-10030-1232074709_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Williamson took the Beaver/Mincher Suicide concept and added freeboard to it. He has tanks and more freeboard and is more in line with what Steve has in mind with his rule.

post-10030-1232074991_thumb.jpg

post-10030-1232075003_thumb.jpg

post-10030-1232075012_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now that someone has posted picks of a rack boat - would racks be allowed? You could easily see a hull at the narrowest parameters with max width racks - if racks are allowed. Was a bit of a debate with the I14's 10 years ago - obviously the class decided that the racks aren't included in the tight tape rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again Bill and I are trying to remember stuff from the 90's, not easy now, even though we laugh at that. If I remember, our racks were set up like the Int. Moth, where the hiking strap is on the hull and the foot is close to the gunwhale when hiking out. As Bill pointed out, our first cut on this design put the racks out where the road trailing limit (I think it is 8' in the USA) would come into effect. You could tilt this boat to trailer, like the Tornado's, but that would be a pain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No racks!

Bill and Rod were way ahead of the rest of us and were probably thinking of something much more like a B 14 than what I have been working with.

The current concept has no racks and would become DOA for the wooden boat crowd if they were allowed.

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep - I figured that racks would kill the original spirit of all the tradeoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sliding Seats allowed too? Cannibalize some from the 30 by 16's. Maine crowd might like that. 2 sliding seats, and the Log Canoe thing dances in the Wooden Boat Reader's Heads. Take some off some IC's, you have another crowd. And then all those Osprey sailors....

 

What is the name of those 2 up sliding seat canoes in Australia- Port Moresby Canoes??? Brainfade

 

If you allow schooner rigs, raid sailors might get interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sliding Seats?

I'm not sure I see the need. And its well worth remembering that in the UK, which is as "advanced" a dinghy market as any, boats without racks, sliding seats or multiple trapezes outsell boats with by 10 to 1 or more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More for style points than anything. Would make meets more interesting for all to have number of possibilites- skinny boats, wide boats, split rigs, una rigs (w/ spinn), hiking, traps, seats? If rm is the same, who cares?

 

Gaffs, gunters, sprits, wingmasts, traditional sloops, two windsurfer sails with a mizzen spinn? Frankenboats! :wub:

 

As long as upwind SA is less than 125 sq ft, and downwind no more than 250?

 

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sliding Seats allowed too? Cannibalize some from the 30 by 16's. Maine crowd might like that. 2 sliding seats, and the Log Canoe thing dances in the Wooden Boat Reader's Heads. Take some off some IC's, you have another crowd. And then all those Osprey sailors....

 

What is the name of those 2 up sliding seat canoes in Australia- Port Moresby Canoes??? Brainfade

 

If you allow schooner rigs, raid sailors might get interested.

 

Payne Mortlock Canoes - I just missed out on buying a $500 one Thursday - some Victorian go there first. Well, didn't really need another toy as my IC will be on the water soon (and as cool as this suicide sounds, I can't see it being more fun than an IC).

2157.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No racks or it would end up with a tornado hull + moth style wings - which surely isn't the idea.

 

My first quick scribble -

post-2679-1232142960_thumb.jpg post-2679-1232142951_thumb.jpg

 

National 12 or 12 skiff stylee. max length, 1.5m ( 5 ft ) beam.

Low wetted surface, narrow waterline, suitable for lightweights ( like me and Mrs P )

And a pintail - need to sort out the aft topsides a bit.

With a flat false floor, single skin topsides in the self-draining cockpit, with small side decks or gunwale tubes.

 

I've been sailing short boats for many years, but now appreciate the effect of length after IC sailing.

It has always been frustrating sailing against longer boats that go faster without even trying in lighter winds ( tho it's fun to blitz them in a breeze )

 

This new boat would be like sailing a 22 foot 29er crossed with an IC, but much more docile, and much faster upwind than the 29er. ( need a kite to get downwind i think )

 

If the kite is small ( 10m² or so ) then bagging would be a simple construction option ( not sure mrs crew would agree though ;) )

 

What is the latest idea on the weight formula?

If an IC hull is about 20kg, - this hull could be as low as 40kg in 'exotic' carbon/foam, maybe 50 or 60 in ply.

 

Length might be a problem in the dinghy park, or weight if I have to take it home up the hill after sailing. Roofracking a 22 footer might be interesting too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Length might be a problem in the dinghy park, or weight if I have to take it home up the hill after sailing. Roofracking a 22 footer might be interesting too.

I have a three person, cedar strip kayak very close to that length and yes it is very interesting car topping it especially in strong cross winds. You don't notice it at all with no wind but in a cross wind, you almost have to tie it so tight you run the risk of crushing the hull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sliding Seats allowed too? Cannibalize some from the 30 by 16's. Maine crowd might like that. 2 sliding seats, and the Log Canoe thing dances in the Wooden Boat Reader's Heads. Take some off some IC's, you have another crowd. And then all those Osprey sailors....

 

What is the name of those 2 up sliding seat canoes in Australia- Port Moresby Canoes??? Brainfade

 

If you allow schooner rigs, raid sailors might get interested.

 

Payne Mortlock Canoes - I just missed out on buying a $500 one Thursday - some Victorian go there first. Well, didn't really need another toy as my IC will be on the water soon (and as cool as this suicide sounds, I can't see it being more fun than an IC).

2157.jpg

 

From Payne Mortlock I get Port Moresby. And they say dyslexia fun isn't.

 

:lol:

 

Laup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a serious design, but just a bit of an artistic impression to feed imaginations (too busy gigging and anyways the Kids Trainer thing and the concrete lady are at the top of the todo list just now) ...

post-9642-1232306475_thumb.jpg

post-9642-1232306484_thumb.jpg

post-9642-1232306492_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More fun with computers...

 

post-60-1232312223_thumb.jpg

 

Ran it out to 4'6 beam and put a fair bit of rocker in which enabled me to get the cog to 11 ft from the bow, which I'm happier with. I ought to be out in the garage doing a Canoe mast though, not in the house playing PCs [fx slapped wrist].

 

Funny how my sketch is looking more every time like a stretched version of 14ft singlehander...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These look fun, i wouldnt mind having some lead on the bottom and use it as a wet daysailor on the lake.

 

probably not what you guys are thinking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lead is not really needed with such a low area. It's just a bit less than a 29er, which is for lightweights. A 29er rig might be just the thing - low drag sails of almost the right size.

 

Some more design ideas - more rounded sections, wider 'chines' giving only a little extra wetted surface for a big increase in 5 degrees heeled righting moment, and a smoother shape overall. Rounded foredeck at the stem, flat near the mast for a self-tacker. A kite chute in front of the forestay, kite tacked to the stem.

22'6" x 4' 6".

post-2679-1232399188_thumb.jpg post-2679-1232399201_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill -- I'd love to hear your elucidation. The Loyal Order here in Maine always want new ideas.

 

I've failed pretty badly as an IC sailor so, selfishly, I'm looking at a fun dinghy for me to build and race. And, if the rules are open enough, to involve any people in the process.

 

And, yes, I'm definitely interested in the kids' boat. I'll try to find Steve posts on that.

 

You can write me here or carl@woodenboat.com

 

My best wishes, Carl

 

 

Bill:

I keep throwing stuff out there hoping one of them will stick.

This all came out of something that Carl Cramer threw out at Woodenboat. It would be nice to get those guys who are thinking about stuff in many the same ways we are to share a bit more of our fun. Or we share theirs.

It seems that people who should get along spend a lot of time glowering at each other. To that end I think sailboat racing has to be a lot less about the shouting and a lot more about the adventure we all took to get here, And the adventures we are sharing as a result.

I imagine that there is a lever out there that if put in the right place can get the suitable heads out of the appropriate asses and we can get on with having more fun.

But I may be wrong. Its entirely likely that the necessary generosity of spirit to doesn't exist.

SHC

 

 

Steve:

 

I'm still enthusiastic on the last two ideas you've posted: the standard canoe performance sailing conversion and the inexpensive kids boat! I think people should pay more attention.

 

Perhaps I should write Carl and elucidate on these two ideas. I'm a Woodenboat subscriber, and their startup homebuild projects are pretty lame. Slab sided, flat bottomed rowboats just have no potential to raise a pulse rate. Articles on caulking with mallets & irons are nice history, but aren't going to interest the snowboarding generation.

 

I think the Loyal Order of Cantankerous Maine Boatbuilders (Woodenboat publishers) would consider getting behind projects like this - they just need to learn there have been new wood boats designed since Herreshoff passed. No disrespect to Phil Bolger and the like, but your new canoe should have been noticed. We have to get on their radar, as they've got the stage on which projects can be noticed in the builder's community.

 

--

Bill

 

 

Sorry, I was away for a bit. No, it hasn't died at all.

 

 

Has the idea died? The boat would be more popular than other development classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm still keen on giving it a try here in the UK. But only building later this year.

Probably flat sheets of ply or carbon/foam folded up to get curvy shapes, using a 29er rig ( borrowed from my 29er), hull at whatever weight it turns out, hopefully no more than 29erish 70kg weight, and possibly a lot less.

 

Don't think it will take off as a class - it's too long and different to everything else. - but might be fun to sail!

Faster than IC upwind ( which is faster than most everything ), medium fast offwind, should cope with the rough stuff OK, suitable for many crew weights. - sounds good!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy:

I would like to get you opinion on how a weight rule should work here.

I don't want to set the bar too low or too high and would like it to be linked to the skin area of the boat.

I thought of this as a class for wood boat home builders, so something that is attainable by careful use of 3-6mm plywood and or wood strips and glass is probably where I think it has to be.

Noodling around this comes out to about .75 lbs per square foot or 3.6 kg per square meter for the basic hull construction.

I think the boats have to be fairly durable to sell to the US craftsman types, and the old Suicides were notoriously flimsey. But that was before epoxy.....

This isn't flash, and I know you can do way better, but if I could tap you for an idea of what you think is about right I'd appreciate it.

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The weight rule seems a bit vague at the moment.

Because the class I fear is unlikely to take hold here, I don't want to needlessly build weight in to keep it in class for class racing ( of which there won't be any :( ) But on the other hand, making in ply, without a mould saves on material costs for a one-off fun boat, and using an existing rig etc makes it a doable project.

If made from carbon/foam, I would estimate skins at 2kg/m², with a bit extra for the bulkheads, bonding etc., so a 22' x 4'6" - 40kg would be about as light as anyone could get.

For ply i would guess at least 3kg/m², so maybe 60 or 70 kg.

 

70 kg for a 22 x 4.5 boat would be a sensible minimum that is achievable, with some careful thought in design and construction.

Any more than 70kg is getting into 'heavy' for us two skinny people to move it around onshore, and on the roof rack.

Ply, skinned with glass can be durable enough, lasting for a good few years.

I understand the home-build wooden construction idea to make the class appealing, but it has to be done in non-traditional methods to keep it light. If I do some sums, I could see if < 70kg is achievable in ply ( with glass skins, and some carbon ud for the rig loads), and perhaps should make the boat like this instead of superlight all carbon/foam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The former generation Suicides weighed between 175 and 200 pounds for the 22-foot hull (80 - 90 kg). Yes, there were some built lighter and they were the ones that fell apart after a few seasons. But most Suicides lasted for years. My dad's was raced hard from 1957 - 1963 when I took off for a life. Then it was used for day sailing for ten years. Then I took it over and sailed it for another few years. Finally in the mid 1980's #52 was sold and we lost track.

These boats were built of 'tortured" ply and good old Elmer's resourcenal glue, two-part. With epoxy saturation and 'glue' a lighter boat could be built at home.

Dave Ellis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've done a few sums on approx weights for the finished hull, and material costs in GBP

 

post-2679-1233260349_thumb.png

 

The cedar option ( like a swift solo ) would look the nicest, probably the easiest to do, but also the heaviest.

 

The carbon /foam is the most expensive in materials, but the cheapest in labour costs, and is the lightest and longest lasting.

 

The ply boat is the cheapest in materials, but the most labour intensive, and will probably last the least time before soft and heavy.

 

Maybe I should go for a ply boat ( as long as i can do it <70kg ) to keep in line with the idea of reviving the class as home-build.

 

Time to get out the cardboard, a scalpel, and some glue, and see what i can bend up out of flat sheets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

75 Kg is a pretty number and frighteningly close to the hull weight of an I 14.

What size boat do you think that is?

I still want to have weight linked to size, so we need to run the scantlings fo4r various size boats and see how they work out.

One thing you could do with the strip plank boat is roll over the hull deck joint and get very cigar like. Which would eliminate some skin area as well as things like gunwales so maybe the finished weight would be closer?

Or do we suggest that the "nice one" should be the weight standard and people can build ones that are "less nice" and have an easier time building down to weight?

 

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Time to get out the cardboard, a scalpel, and some glue, and see what i can bend up out of flat sheets.

Don't get too distracted... I still want a Canoe when you've worked up TT v1.2 and thus ready for the Axeman 2 design:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
75 Kg is a pretty number and frighteningly close to the hull weight of an I 14.

What size boat do you think that is?

 

SHC

 

Yes but the i14 is on the heavy side of things.

 

I'm more comparing to the hull weights of

moth - 9kg

IC - 20kg

Cherub 25kg

which are on the very light side, and scaled up to the 125 size give about 45kg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What size boat do you think that is? I still want to have weight linked to size, so we need to run the scantlings fo4r various size boats and see how they work out.

Andy was saying 22ft x 5ft on his first iteration sketch: I presume he's still there: am I right Andy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here is my take on the rule.

 

22.5ft LOA

and just over the min beam rule

My max beam is 3.85ft with just over 1/3 of the hull length outside of the 3ft 6in min beam rule.

 

Centre of buoyancy is 12ft 2" behind the bow

Centre of flotation is 12ft 11" behind the bow

 

Based on an all up displacement of 235kgs

 

Assuming 60kg hull, 20kg rig, 77.5kg per crew member

 

I may ease the beam out a bit keeping the underwater shape to gain max righting moment

 

As with Andy I'd set a kite of the bow

post-30437-1233317681_thumb.jpg

post-30437-1233317696_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B)

 

That design is cool I've got to wear shades....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mm I thought my design would be a bit unstable....

 

 

Mine is like a hybrid IC /12 skiff/ RS 300 /Merlin Rocket .

Rig would be best with with UK 97 Cherub, IC or NS14 to match the sail area.

Snipe type rig would not work too well on a low drag hull.

 

I'm proposing 22' x 4' 6". ( 5' if the rule allows more beam without too much extra weight )

The waterline (and deck ) entry angle is the same as my IC ( these things are pointy!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok my design is a bit unstable, but I figured for getting off the beach you could sink the stern and use the chines to keep her upright. Upwind should be find once your fully balanced.

 

As mentioned I'd like to take the beam out a bit more if I can.

 

Andy you also pointed out that with such as small rig on a 22.5ft boat, you can probably go for a slightly less stable design.

 

I certainly havnt got the resources to build and try this out, but I like the idea.

 

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may seem crazy but the hulls you all are drawing out do not look that much different that a catamaran hull. What if someone took an old nacra 5.2 hull and cut down the free board, and mounted a mast?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This may seem crazy but the hulls you all are drawing out do not look that much different that a catamaran hull. What if someone took an old nacra 5.2 hull and cut down the free board, and mounted a mast?

 

I thought that would be cool for an IC too. (Actually using an A Class hull)

 

The Powers That Be were not amused.

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
125 ft^2.

22.5 max LOA

beam min 3.5'

Beam max 5.5'

 

This may seem crazy but the hulls you all are drawing out do not look that much different that a catamaran hull. What if someone took an old nacra 5.2 hull and cut down the free board, and mounted a mast?

 

Minimum beam at 3'6" rules this out, and no hollows in the sections, so no racks/wings.

 

Sitting 'out' might be fun on a 12" wide hull, and not much righting moment for the trapezing guy ( or gal).

 

SHC has tried an A-class hull as a monohull, but did add racks moth style so it worked sort of OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TASAR rig is a near perfect fit at 123 sq. ft. That is a great rig.

 

so, design a wooden hull to the rule that sits under a tasar rig.

 

Seems to me that since the rule specifies a CB trunk, this could add some extra cost/time/complexity. Daggerboard would have been simpler.

 

I would think a modified 505 hull could fit the rule. If you chopped the flares off the hull you might be able to do it.

 

I wasn't clear if trapezes were allowed?

 

thx Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites