Jump to content


16-30 Sailing Canoe


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 Ron D

Ron D

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 200 posts
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario
  • Interests:Dinghy Sailing

Posted 16 July 2011 - 02:39 AM

There used to be sailing canoes (16-30) with the plank but two masts rather than one as with the IC. Anyone know how well they sailed?

With shorter masts and a lower centre of effort, they should be easier to balance than the IC given the same sail area. With modern sail tech, would they be faster than a laser or IC (ignoring the spinnaker for the moment)?

What were their disadvantages? Obviously, no spinnaker for one. Also, the best air tends to be higher, so an IC with the taller mast may do better.

Are they a dinosaur whose day has passed?

#2 IC Nutter

IC Nutter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 545 posts

Posted 16 July 2011 - 03:22 AM

There used to be sailing canoes (16-30) with the plank but two masts rather than one as with the IC. Anyone know how well they sailed?

With shorter masts and a lower centre of effort, they should be easier to balance than the IC given the same sail area. With modern sail tech, would they be faster than a laser or IC (ignoring the spinnaker for the moment)?

What were their disadvantages? Obviously, no spinnaker for one. Also, the best air tends to be higher, so an IC with the taller mast may do better.

Are they a dinosaur whose day has passed?


I think what you are talking about is one of the predecessors of what is now the IC. The 16-30 probably means 16 feet long x 30 inch beam. Without looking it up I think that's what the early US boats were. A boat like that would certainly be faster than a Laser, even without modern technology I suspect. It wouldn't be faster than a modern IC and would probably not be easier to sail. Could be a fun thing to build though. I'm not sure if any are still sailing. There are some photos of these boats in the "Why don't more people sail IC's" thread.

#3 JimC

JimC

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,748 posts
  • Location:South East England
  • Interests:Dinghies, especially box rule classes.

Posted 16 July 2011 - 03:34 AM

With shorter masts and a lower centre of effort, they should be easier to balance than the IC given the same sail area.

You're going back an awful long time I think, but when they were really popular, some 80 years ago, the top racing boats had very tippy hull shapes and it seems very likely they were much *less* stable than a modern IC.

The two separate masts is not a great solution aerodynamically: not close enough for the total to be more than the sum of the parts like a good sloop rig, but close enough for the aft rig to be in the dirty air of the bow one. I'm also not sure that the rigs were a lot lower than the modern IC. As far as weight aloft and consequent heeling moment is concerned I would not be at all suprised if the actual leverage were worse with two slightly shorter masts than with one longer one. The IC doesn't have an especially tall mast anyway, its much lower than on single sail trapeze singlehanders...

Its probably still a useful rig for a cruising canoe that is sailing passages and (if the route is properly planned) doesn't have to sail upwind that much. Given lower aspect sails that are efficient reaching there might well be something for it for that, but as a racing rig I think its day went when Uffa Fox rigged his two masted canoe with the foremast running from the stem to the hounds and set a jib on it to meet the two mast rule the US had at the time...

I'm writing up a lot of this stuff for a new history article for the IC world website, but will probably be a few weeks before I finish it...

16-30, BTW, was the turn of the (19th) Century US box rule of 16feet long x 30inches wide...

#4 Cavandish

Cavandish

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 941 posts
  • Location:Upstate NY

Posted 16 July 2011 - 05:18 AM

There used to be sailing canoes (16-30) with the plank but two masts rather than one as with the IC. Anyone know how well they sailed?

With shorter masts and a lower centre of effort, they should be easier to balance than the IC given the same sail area. With modern sail tech, would they be faster than a laser or IC (ignoring the spinnaker for the moment)?

What were their disadvantages? Obviously, no spinnaker for one. Also, the best air tends to be higher, so an IC with the taller mast may do better.

Are they a dinosaur whose day has passed?


Having spent many a night googling boat porn, i actually know off hand where plans to a modernized version (construction wise at least) are, linky , if i remember correctly the 1880-1900ish styles didn't feature chined sides, which came a bit later (along with Uffa Fox, company and the international canoe) which aided in stability. Youtube videos do exist, and these canoes are really pretty. How fast exactly i haven't come across.

It seems as though they mostly died off during the great depression.

"new" 16 x 30
Posted Image

Ketch rig, funky tiller, pretty lines and iirc someone claimed it cost about the same to build a Laser costs new, will look for the source on that.

I doubt it would be faster than an old IC, much less the new development ICs, since it was the prototype of the IC that eventually took its crown and retains its trophy.

more links, this one to an old thread on this forum

kinda boring youtube video,


Excerpt from Uffa Fox, the first paragraph he makes a case for the IC being an Olympic boat:
clicky

After some searching i found actual footage skip to 6:25


There is also the "Beth" sailing canoe, which has two masts and is supposedly relatively fast, but no plank to up its cool factor.

#5 Ron D

Ron D

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 200 posts
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario
  • Interests:Dinghy Sailing

Posted 16 July 2011 - 12:34 PM

but close enough for the aft rig to be in the dirty air of the bow one.


You nailed it with the dirty air observation. They probably couldn't point worth a damn without the aft sail becoming dead weight.

They probably couldn't go deep. The rig looks like it can't goose wing so the fore sail is going to be blocked by the aft sail. I also suspect that they may be trickier to balance on a dead run.

Their sweet spot would be the reaches.

There is also the "Beth" sailing canoe, which has two masts and is supposedly relatively fast, but no plank to up its cool factor.


I saw the video for the Beth. Definitely just a rather pedestrian cruising canoe. She has no plank and she is not designed for a good hiking position. Lip of the coaming likely digs into the back of the leg for some serious pain. Laser would run circles around it.

#6 bistros

bistros

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,240 posts

Posted 16 July 2011 - 03:23 PM

There used to be sailing canoes (16-30) with the plank but two masts rather than one as with the IC. Anyone know how well they sailed?

With shorter masts and a lower centre of effort, they should be easier to balance than the IC given the same sail area. With modern sail tech, would they be faster than a laser or IC (ignoring the spinnaker for the moment)?

What were their disadvantages? Obviously, no spinnaker for one. Also, the best air tends to be higher, so an IC with the taller mast may do better.

Are they a dinosaur whose day has passed?


There was a recent (last year or two) article in Woodenboat on building and sailing the 16/30 canoes. Since you are in T.O., there are lots of close options to learn more. The canoe museum in Alexandria, NY is really close and across the river from Gananoque, ON. The Canadian Canoe Museum in Peterborough, ON is close as well.

I believe the 16/30 development certainly had a mjor hotspot, if not centre here in Ontario and New York around the St. Lawrence and various lakes. They are certainly not able to keep up with a modern IC, but speed is only important when compared to someone else sailing the same thing. I'm certain a 16/30 would be a great challenge to sail.

--
Bill

#7 Ron D

Ron D

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 200 posts
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario
  • Interests:Dinghy Sailing

Posted 16 July 2011 - 03:34 PM

article in Woodenboat on building and sailing the 16/30 canoes


Reread the article recently which triggered the curiosity. Outside of describing it as fast, they pretty much glossed over its sailing characteristics. And when they describe it as fast, they don't give a reference point like how fast. Faster than what, an Optimist? Checked the web, and found lots of talk of its construction, but nothing about the actual sailing or performance. I am no longer sure that it has any advantages over current dinghy designs, except as a historical curiosity.

The Canadian Canoe Museum in Peterborough, ON is close as well.


When I went up 4 years ago, I do not remember seeing anything in the way of sailing canoes from the early 1900's. They are mostly focused on native and pioneer canoes.

#8 Cavandish

Cavandish

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 941 posts
  • Location:Upstate NY

Posted 16 July 2011 - 04:33 PM

Dirty air certainly seems like a problem not properly addressed, especially from the video.

Another is control of sail shape/trim, not sure which boils down to a greater impediment to performance tbh.

For a 100 year old design i certainly would not call them slow, provided that is a massive caveat. Back when these were cutting edge, the Wright Brothers were just getting ready to enter the bicycle industry.

IMO, they look like a lot of fun to play around with, more so than a laser.

Personally i think racing in a fleet of them would be extremely enjoyable.

Considering the Lightning class, developed in 1939, is still going strong, modern design certainly isn't a cornerstone of success, in these parts at least.



As an aside, yeah the Beth was designed as an easy/cheap garage build, with much of the cheap attained through rigging simplicity. Trade off being price point against performance for sure.

#9 coelacanth2

coelacanth2

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 833 posts
  • Location:Southern Delaware
  • Interests:hunting, fishing, sailing gardening and exposing my son to all of the above

Posted 19 July 2011 - 02:48 AM

Jim and RonD;"Gentlemen do not go to weather". My kid saw the plans in the WB and wants to make one over the winter. I think it would be a hoot to fool around with, esp. On a hot day with the excuse of a capsize to cool off

#10 rlm

rlm

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 92 posts

Posted 20 July 2011 - 12:56 AM

I am almost 100% convinced that the American sailing canoes of the 1880's and 1890's were the first planing dinghies (they didn't have the term planing back then). Those sailing canoes of the late 1800's had the power in the rig and sliding seat and they had very light weights. The 16/30's came about around 1910 when rules were put in place to control some of the freakish and expensive canoe designs that were negatively impacting the number of sailing canoes racing. The 16/30's (for 16' by 30" beam by 90 sq.ft of sail area) were the most popular size, but the rule balanced length, beam and sail area and one could build a 17' hull to the rules.

An article on sailing the EZ build 16/30 sailing canoe (Gilbert design modernized by John Summers) can be found over here in this post on Earwigoagin's blog and this post gives some background to the EZ build design.

#11 JimC

JimC

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,748 posts
  • Location:South East England
  • Interests:Dinghies, especially box rule classes.

Posted 20 July 2011 - 07:25 AM

I am almost 100% convinced that the American sailing canoes of the 1880's and 1890's were the first planing dinghies

The lines of the ones I have seen seem a bit easy in the sections for that. Very slippery, but perhaps not planing. Not dinghies either arguably [grin]. But the earliest unquestionable description of a planing sailing monohull I have come across does indeed go back to that sort of date, but Chris Thompson did the research and found the details, I shouldn't steal his credit... Chris...

#12 atg

atg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 377 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 05:33 AM

The boat museum in Clayton NY has several specimens. I think one of the curators is a fan of old sailing canoes.

We sailed over there one year from Sugar Island in our ICs. Sailed up to the boat ramp and pulled our Nethercotts up right next to a 16-30 that had just been built and was going for its maiden sail. Sort of cool to see a hundred years of class development together on the same 10' ramp. Brass plate fan shaped centerboard and rudder as I recall. Beautiful stuff.

A visit to that museum is highly recommended for anyone interested in the history of sailing canoes, which as I understand it had its epicenter in this area in the years leading up to the turn of the century.

Then again there is a photo of a sliding seat boat sailing in San Francisco around 1870, judging from the background, so perhaps they were more widespread than just the St. Lawrence. Seems like it was more of a blue collar design and build sailing class - one of the first to be sailed recreationally.

#13 rlm

rlm

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 92 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 06:43 PM

The lines of the ones I have seen seem a bit easy in the sections for that. Very slippery, but perhaps not planing. Not dinghies either arguably [grin]. But the earliest unquestionable description of a planing sailing monohull I have come across does indeed go back to that sort of date.


Jim, I am 100% convinced that the 16/30's of the early 1900's were the first planing dinghies of Europe and North America and, although I don't have verifiable proof, the numbers suggest that the earlier sailing canoes of the late 1880's were able to plane as well. (About whether you can lump sailing canoes in with sailing dinghies, ask an International Canoe sailor if they are sailing a canoe or a dinghy; most of them would admit the IC is more of a narrow dinghy with a canoe stern. The American sailing canoes of the late 1880's onward had developed just as far away from their paddling brethren, designed with low freeboard and complete decking over.)

Proof one. I was able to sail a reproduction 16/30 Tomahawk design (a copy of the Stephens design from around 1910). This was a close reproduction to the original, even had the bronze fittings. I sailed it in a puffy 15 knot Northerly. When I turned downwind, there was no doubt that this canoe was planing. That convinced me that these canoes were indeed planing in the early 1900's.

Going back to the late 1880's. By that time, the American canoes had adopted sliding seats, some had tried piling up to 150 sq. feet of sail on these canoes and builders were pushing hull weights below 90 lbs. Plenty of sail area, light hull weight, and the power of the sliding seat.... these canoes had to plane, maybe only for short distances before they wiped out, but the numbers say they were capable of planing at times. As far as hull shape; if you have the power and the light weight, even very V'd shapes will plane easily as you know from the Forman and Gregory shapes of the 1970 vintage Cherubs. But American's were designing flat floored sailing canoes in the 1880's and 1890's, unlike the (yes, fine lined) English model which was very heavy and designed to sail with the helm sitting in the boat

#14 Amati

Amati

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,659 posts
  • Location:Yes!
  • Interests:0 (t) = 0

Posted 21 July 2011 - 07:51 PM

There used to be sailing canoes (16-30) with the plank but two masts rather than one as with the IC. Anyone know how well they sailed?

With shorter masts and a lower centre of effort, they should be easier to balance than the IC given the same sail area. With modern sail tech, would they be faster than a laser or IC (ignoring the spinnaker for the moment)?

What were their disadvantages? Obviously, no spinnaker for one. Also, the best air tends to be higher, so an IC with the taller mast may do better.

Are they a dinosaur whose day has passed?


A bit of Science Fiction, section SA(D);

With modern endplated sail tech or wings, the same mast length (span) as the modern IC, the rule freedom to stay (with line or spars) the sails from the seat, modern hull design and technology, the design freedom to move the masts athwart ships keeping both luffs in the free stream, or even have an A frame wing based at each end of an 8' non sliding, but revolving seat that would keep the biplane array at the best angle to the wind, who knows? Might be fast..... B)

As much as I love Steampunk, it would take some development past AD 1900 norms. :o

Paul

#15 JimC

JimC

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,748 posts
  • Location:South East England
  • Interests:Dinghies, especially box rule classes.

Posted 21 July 2011 - 09:02 PM

I am 100% convinced that the 16/30's of the early 1900's were the first planing dinghies of Europe and North America and, although I don't have verifiable proof, the numbers suggest that the earlier sailing canoes of the late 1880's were able to plane as well. (About whether you can lump sailing canoes in with sailing dinghies, ask an International Canoe sailor if they are sailing a canoe or a dinghy; most of them would admit the IC is more of a narrow dinghy with a canoe stern.

This contemporary US writer and champion canoe sailor is interesting on the topic...
http://www.intcanoe.org/iclife/hist/gordon_douglas_ix.html

A heavy and beamy boat will create higher waves with deeper hollows, and under sail power alone will not be able to exceed its hull speed, whereas a light boat with easy lines will make smaller waves, and with plenty of canvas may be able to climb the hill and ride on its own bow wave, to level off - and plane. Once the boat planes the wave-length theory no longer applies - in theory - but we do know that even then length counts. The big thirty-eight-foot A Scow planes faster than the twenty-foot C Scow, for example. The American sailing canoes I have been writing about were fine-ended displacement boats which did not truly plane, but rather sliced through the water with a minimum of fuss in the fashion of the modern catamaran hull. They didn't really plane, but with the power provided by the sliding seat they did go a great deal faster than their theoretical hull speed.

. To me this is a very important point: just because you are exceeding hull speed doesn't mean you are planing - look at a destroyer at speed.
As an active IC sailor I am quite convinced that the canoe is an entirely different beast dynamically to the short wide skiff types I sailed for the previous twenty years or so. Indeed while she planes she doesn't have the dramatic skipping across the water feel of the short boats, and doesn't have anything like the top speed, but also doesn't stop like the short boats can! I've seen it theorised that this is due to the aspect ratio of the lifting surfaces, which sounds convincing to me. To my mind the IC is in a very interesting design space - part way between the totally non planing catamaran hull and the true planing skiffs.

#16 Amati

Amati

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,659 posts
  • Location:Yes!
  • Interests:0 (t) = 0

Posted 21 July 2011 - 09:44 PM

:)

#17 atg

atg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 377 posts

Posted 22 July 2011 - 07:06 AM


I am 100% convinced that the 16/30's of the early 1900's were the first planing dinghies of Europe and North America and, although I don't have verifiable proof, the numbers suggest that the earlier sailing canoes of the late 1880's were able to plane as well. (About whether you can lump sailing canoes in with sailing dinghies, ask an International Canoe sailor if they are sailing a canoe or a dinghy; most of them would admit the IC is more of a narrow dinghy with a canoe stern.

This contemporary US writer and champion canoe sailor is interesting on the topic...
http://www.intcanoe....douglas_ix.html

A heavy and beamy boat will create higher waves with deeper hollows, and under sail power alone will not be able to exceed its hull speed, whereas a light boat with easy lines will make smaller waves, and with plenty of canvas may be able to climb the hill and ride on its own bow wave, to level off - and plane. Once the boat planes the wave-length theory no longer applies - in theory - but we do know that even then length counts. The big thirty-eight-foot A Scow planes faster than the twenty-foot C Scow, for example. The American sailing canoes I have been writing about were fine-ended displacement boats which did not truly plane, but rather sliced through the water with a minimum of fuss in the fashion of the modern catamaran hull. They didn't really plane, but with the power provided by the sliding seat they did go a great deal faster than their theoretical hull speed.

. To me this is a very important point: just because you are exceeding hull speed doesn't mean you are planing - look at a destroyer at speed.
As an active IC sailor I am quite convinced that the canoe is an entirely different beast dynamically to the short wide skiff types I sailed for the previous twenty years or so. Indeed while she planes she doesn't have the dramatic skipping across the water feel of the short boats, and doesn't have anything like the top speed, but also doesn't stop like the short boats can! I've seen it theorised that this is due to the aspect ratio of the lifting surfaces, which sounds convincing to me. To my mind the IC is in a very interesting design space - part way between the totally non planing catamaran hull and the true planing skiffs.


This is pretty much a semantic argument about the definition of "planing" more than anything about canoes per se. In Bethwaite's first book there are some great curves showing the 18' skiff drag curve vs speed, plotted against an IC hull. The main difference between the two is that the canoe has no "drag hump" in its curve, implying the transition to planing mode is not as marked as with other boats. So it isn't always obvious which mode you're in, because there isn't a great increase in speed or reduction in drag at any point on the curve - the boat just goes faster and faster. Which begs the question, why do we care? Angels, heads of pins, etc.

But clearly, to say a canoe never really planes is hogwash. There is some great vid from San Francisco Worlds of Bill and Erich Chase hooning along with the entire front halves of their boats out of the water on the reaches.

#18 JimC

JimC

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,748 posts
  • Location:South East England
  • Interests:Dinghies, especially box rule classes.

Posted 22 July 2011 - 07:55 AM

This is pretty much a semantic argument about the definition of "planing" more than anything about canoes per se. In Bethwaite's first book there are some great curves showing the 18' skiff drag curve vs speed, plotted against an IC hull. The main difference between the two is that the canoe has no "drag hump" in its curve, implying the transition to planing mode is not as marked as with other boats. So it isn't always obvious which mode you're in, because there isn't a great increase in speed or reduction in drag at any point on the curve - the boat just goes faster and faster. Which begs the question, why do we care? Angels, heads of pins, etc.


Well, I guess the simple answer to why I care is because its interesting. To some of us anyway!

And also because the dynamic of different types of craft affect the design profoundly. Certainly I don't believe there is any magic "planing" point. Almost all boats are partially supported by dynamic lift and partly by displacement. Bethwaite has demonstrated that, for example, the 29er is partially supported by dynamic lift way before it gets to its Froude number. You could pick some arbitary percentage and say that if the boat is more than 50% supported by dynamic lift then its planing, but it is just arbitary, and there is no magic point... Nevertheless it all gives you an insight into how different boats behave. If you are used to the wave skipping antics of a skiff type heading downwind at well over twenty knots then the Asymettric Canoes, for instance seem suprisingly "slow". They go amazingly deep with their big kites, but I don't know that they are more than a few knots faster through than an IC can. They seem to me to be stuck in the high teens, in the same way that Uffa Fox found that his two handed Canoe Bryhhild would go no faster than a singlehanded canoe. And I suspect that whereas the wave jumping skiff might be 90% supported by lift the long thin Canoe hull is not an efficient enough ifting surface to be able to get much above, well, I have no idea of the percentages, but lets say about 50%. And so skin friction and the like is dominating the drag of the hull to a much greater extent than it would with a pure planing boat. On the other hand, and especially at slower speeds, the displacement support part of the short fat skiff is kicking up horrendous wave drag, and the skinny boat is creating far less... There are, I think, three main types of drag from the hull on the water, skin friction/wetted surface drag, form drag and wave drag, and they change in different ways and at different rates for different craft. In his latest book Bethwaite seems to me to be saying that he doesn't now believe there is no froude speed "hump" in the drag curve of his boats, but that with optimum boat trim the hump is concealed by changes in other drag curves.

So if we go back to the 16 * 30s then if you read other extracts from Gordon Douglas on the same site about racing his 16 * 30 against the British boats in the 30s then I think its pretty clear that his hull was superior at the lower end of the wind range, and inferior at the high end, which is pretty much what you'd expect from a boat that has very limited dynamic lift compared to its competitor, but is superior as regards form and wavemaking drag. And, going back to the beginning again, I reckon those are valuable characteristics in a recreational/cruising boat. The mad wave jumping skiffs are incredibly exhilarating, but I can't imagine anyone one for a cruise down the river to the pub for lunch, and then further on to a camp site for the night... Well, notregularly anyway. The effects of different hull characteristics are important when choosing a boat for a role...

We could do with Steve Calrk on this thread I think, but he's at a Canoe World championships...

#19 Steve Clark

Steve Clark

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,183 posts
  • Location:Where the water is thin.
  • Interests:Human folly.

Posted 22 July 2011 - 07:32 PM

I will but in, we start racing soon.
The 16x30s were out classed by Uffa's boats. They never really made a comeback relative to the sloop rigged IC. They are not as fast as an IC, but few things are. They are amusing boats to sail and capable of sailing very quickly. So as a fun boat, they have many desirable features and would be a fine addition to a lake side lifestyle. I have only sailed an old one, very carefully. I have not had a chance to beat up on one of John Summer's new single chine designs, but I can imagine that there will be plenty of spray flying in a reasonable breeze.
SHC

I will but in, we start racing soon.
The 16x30s were out classed by Uffa's boats. They never really made a comeback relative to the sloop rigged IC. They are not as fast as an IC, but few things are. They are amusing boats to sail and capable of sailing very quickly. So as a fun boat, they have many desirable features and would be a fine addition to a lake side lifestyle. I have only sailed an old one, very carefully. I have not had a chance to beat up on one of John Summer's new single chine designs, but I can imagine that there will be plenty of spray flying in a reasonable breeze.
SHC

#20 JimC

JimC

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,748 posts
  • Location:South East England
  • Interests:Dinghies, especially box rule classes.

Posted 22 July 2011 - 09:39 PM

I just realised that Douglas' book contains race times for the 1936 challenge. Doing the sums they suggest that the 16x30 was around 3% slower than the UK boats. Obviously those ICs were appreciably slower than modern ones, but it suggests that the 16*30 is going to be about as fast as say a Fireball, and there are still precious few singlehanders that are capable of getting round a track that quickly.

#21 John Summers

John Summers

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Location:Peterborough, Ontario
  • Interests:Sailing canoes, boat building, yachting and boating history

Posted 24 July 2011 - 12:51 PM

Hi, guys, John Summers here thanks to Rod Mincher suggesting that I weigh in.

Having spent a fair bit of time aboard 16 - 30s I'll offer the following observations:


  • I don't think they really plane, as there just isn't enough boat in the after sections for it to sit on. In plan view, they don't have anything like the widened after sections of an IC where the beam is pushed much closer to the stern. You can certainly surf down the face of a swell, but I don't think it's really planing. It took Uffa with Valiant and East Anglian to truly make a canoe plane.
  • Much less muscle required than an IC, more subtle, with tiny weight changes making big trim changes. Much less room to move around underway, you're always tripping over your own feet.
  • The round-bottom ones aren't stable at all, it's like sailing a log, and you can see why they used a relatively low-aspect cat-ketch to try and keep weight low.
  • The hard-chine one I developed, based on an early 20th century hull, is still 30" beam but a little more primary stability owing to the chine and a better boat to learn on.
  • There's no question that technically they've long since been outbuilt as canoe development has marched on, but they're a delight to sail.
  • When we've had several of them out, both antique boats and new builds, results seem to depend mostly on skipper skill and not hull form.
  • There's a page about the old and new 16-30s on my blog at http://authenticboat...iling-canoes-2/
Geoff Kerr from 2 Daughters Boatworks took my boat out a few years ago and had this to say:

She is a high-tech, cutting-edge, extreme racing machine with a serious nod to history and tradition, buildable by amateurs, affordable, and transportable. . .Simple construction using 6mm and 3mm okume plywood and an uncomplicated rigging plan make the 16-30 canoe easily within range of an amateur builder. The thoroughly detailed instruction book will help in that regard as well. . . I'd call her far better-mannered than the other sailing canoes I've endured, and in many ways more comfortable, better behaved, and far more intriguing that many of the modern one-design dinghies foisted on the competitive-minded sailing public. I like to think of 16-30 sailing as a dance rather than an athletic endeavor (Geoff Kerr)

#22 Amati

Amati

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,659 posts
  • Location:Yes!
  • Interests:0 (t) = 0

Posted 24 July 2011 - 03:01 PM

John, does your new 16 by 30 plane?

I sailed a 15 foot by 24" double ended flat bottomed windsurfer that planed. And it was no lightweight, IIRR, about 38lbs, and I was about 215 lbs. Does the Serenity plane? Tandem windsurfers plane, and at least some of them were double ended, and if you add things up, the length, weight ( with 2 up), and sail area (even 2 sails! ) were comparable to a 16 by 30, although most tandems I've seen were narrower ( like 22-24"). If you look at the body position of a sailor on a plank vs a windsurfer, the difference is a matter of degree.

<_<

#23 Chris 249

Chris 249

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,424 posts

Posted 24 July 2011 - 10:39 PM

Thanks Jim for giving me the bell about this thread.

An 1890 article on an Oxford University frostbite race by Douglas Phillips-Birt described how the canoe Snake could complete a 1.5 mile (2.4km) lap at an average of about nine knots on the reaches. Created by Smith of Oxford, Snake had “the extraordinary power of rushing over the water at ten or twelve miles an hour, probably more, without any wave-making apparently; only a wide smooth wake is seen astern. Yet at five or six miles an hour she makes waves like any other boat.”

Snake was fairly beamy and quite flat-floored, but looks much more powerful than say a Nautilus. In fact, Snake is very close to a Swedish C Class (maybe D Class) and just like a Sarby C, if you cut off the back three feet you'd have the spitting image of a Finn, which certainly can plane.

Another account of contemporary British canoes describes how water passing under a canoe’s fore sections “at high speed acts on them like a wedge, tending to lift the bows”.

I seem to recall that the 1890s US canoes didn't have as large as advantage over the US canoes of the time as is sometimes implied, so the UK canoes were's very sluggish. Smith's canoes raced successfully with the Half Raters on the Solent, which given the speed of a modernised Thames Rater is quite good going.

#24 Amati

Amati

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,659 posts
  • Location:Yes!
  • Interests:0 (t) = 0

Posted 25 July 2011 - 02:22 AM

hi John-

to your observation that 16 30's don't plane because of the lack of hull at the back end, I have a question- where does a boat plane? I think you can argue (well, I can argue :lol:) a boat planes mainly on the forward part of the hull that is planing, and the aft part of the hull acts mainly to control the flow of the water as pressure is re established- consider traditional big wave surfboards (not tow in boards): extreme pintails that rise on a diminishing water plane commensurate with increasing speed- I'd argue the end is more streamlining in cahoots with the need for less area with speed. When you surf a big wave board I'd argue you stand on the spot the board is planing on, not in back of that spot. The Serenity folk make a point of advising NOT to step back when the board starts to lift. I doubt if this was a secret in the late 19th C. and if you stare at the stern wave of a Finn while planing, it does look very close to the shape of the back end of a C class canoe, esp. at lower planing speeds.

Paul

#25 Chris 249

Chris 249

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,424 posts

Posted 25 July 2011 - 03:15 AM

Re my post above - the second last sentence should read "I seem to recall that the 1890s US canoes didn't have as large as advantage over the US canoes of the time as is sometimes implied, so the UK canoes were NOT very sluggish."

Amati, as far as I know, from Savitsky et al you are of course right that by far the greatest relative proportion of planing lift comes near the stagnation point, which is well forward. But practically and judging from various D2 designs etc, the skinny tail craft do seem to have a much lower top planing speed - I've got a couple of theories why, but would like to hear from the experts.

I find Sandy Douglass' views, as posted by Jim C above, to be significant since he was in perhaps the best position of anyone to see the difference between the 'planing" Uffa type and the 16 x 30s. Whatever the reality, his words certainly seem to indicate that the "planers" felt different.

On a different note, the contemporary sources seem to confirm that the tippy, skinny canoes played a major role in the collapse of the early canoe boom.

#26 Amati

Amati

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,659 posts
  • Location:Yes!
  • Interests:0 (t) = 0

Posted 25 July 2011 - 03:26 AM

http://www.dragonfly...y_dew/lines.gif

But then, many things have been tried...

#27 JimC

JimC

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,748 posts
  • Location:South East England
  • Interests:Dinghies, especially box rule classes.

Posted 25 July 2011 - 08:22 AM

Re my post above - the second last sentence should read

Think it should also have read "the 1890s US canoes didn't have as large as advantage over the UK canoes of the time as is sometimes implied," :-)
The planing/shape/stern width thing is all very interesting... it would be intersting to see a graph of pressure distribution if CFD is mature enough to model it properly... Bethwaite considers the wide stern is about p[ressure recovery, especially in waves, rather than planing support, and of course, especially upwind, the boat is still going to be partly supported by displacement, so presumably pressure recovery can go on at planing speeds... As I learn more about this stuff I start to realise that just because Fred's theory is right, Bill's theory need not be wrong because so many factors interact at the same time.

#28 IC Nutter

IC Nutter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 545 posts

Posted 25 July 2011 - 08:39 AM

Amati, as far as I know, from Savitsky et al you are of course right that by far the greatest relative proportion of planing lift comes near the stagnation point, which is well forward. But practically and judging from various D2 designs etc, the skinny tail craft do seem to have a much lower top planing speed - I've got a couple of theories why, but would like to hear from the experts.


Here's what I think I know about planing hulls:

Firstly, it's important to understand that planing reduces drag primarily by reducing wetted surface, and hence frictional resistance. The more lift you can generate, the more you can lift the boat out of the water and the more you can reduce the wetted surface area. How much lift you can generate depends on the efficiency of the lifting surface, and like any fully immersed foil, efficiency depends on both the aspect ratio and the "section" shape of the lifting surface.

The aspect ratio is determined by the hull beam, the wider the hull, the more efficient the planing surface. Aspect ratio effects the lift/drag ratio of the plaining surface. Hull cross section shape also comes into play. Rounded bilges, for instance, reduce the effective width of the planing surface compared to a hard chine hull with the same waterline beam.

The section shape is determined by the curvature of the buttock lines and waterlines. This effects the local angle of incidence at any point on the hull and hence the location of the centre of lift. Peak pressures are generated at or near the leading edge of the plaining surface (the first point of the surface in contact with the water, not the bow). For a flat planing surface at some angle of incidence, the pressure distribution with be roughly liner, tapering form maximum at the leading edge to zero at the trailing edge.

For a curved planing surface (a hull with rocker and /or narrowing waterlines aft) the pressure will diminish more rapidly and the centre of lift will be further forward. This is due to the change in angle of incidence along the length of the hull. The angle of incidence may even go negative further aft, which will give negative lift if the flow remains attached (hence chines are often introduced in the aft sections to promote separation). So even if the forward sections are providing plenty of lift, the aft wetted sections are just being dragged along behind providing little or no assistance to the job of lifting the hull.

So, fast planing hulls are generally short and wide with straight lines, particularly in the aft part of the hull which is in contact with the water when planing. The problem with pure planing hulls is that in non planing conditions, they have high wetted surface area due to the wide flat hull. A pure planing hull would also have an immersed transom, which is also very high drag when the flow is not separated (poor stern wave pressure recovery). Also, the necessary shortness of the planing hull means a short waterline length, which as we all know is slow for hulls operating in displacement mode.

Modern skiff hulls are generally wedge shaped in plan view, with narrow U shaped hull sections forward and wide flat sections aft. This is an attempt to get the best of both worlds. In light winds they are sailed with the bow immersed and the flat aft sections lifted clear of the water if possible. In strong winds they should be sailed with the crew weight aft to load up the wide flat aft surface, lifting all the unwanted bow surfaces out of the water.

#29 Amati

Amati

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,659 posts
  • Location:Yes!
  • Interests:0 (t) = 0

Posted 25 July 2011 - 03:39 PM

Add sea state, though, and things get Interesting. It seems that in almost every book on Naval Architcture I've read, the authors gleefully point out the case of the British chined PT boats and the German round hulled versions in WWII. Flat water, the British were a bit faster. Rough water, and the German boats romped away. And then there's Skene and the CG rescue boats at the Columbia River Bar.

And Formula Windsurfers are airboats :lol: . And some skiffs?

How many inches of chop define rough water for a saiing canoe?

Was design driven by local water conditions?

Paul

#30 JimC

JimC

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,748 posts
  • Location:South East England
  • Interests:Dinghies, especially box rule classes.

Posted 25 July 2011 - 05:56 PM

Was design driven by local water conditions?

Local everything conditions really... On Saturday I sailed my IC in a regatta run by Thames SC, who are a mile or two upstream on the river Thames from the Royal Canoe Club where Canoe racing started in the UK. I don't know if there are many other parts of the world where they do anything quite like english river sailing...

Take a look at this link...
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=London,+United+Kingdom&hl=en&ll=51.40041,-0.311952&spn=0.010348,0.027788&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=53.212719,113.818359&t=h&z=16
The start was at Hart's boatyard, one mark I guess roughly opposite Surbiton Ct at the bottom of the mark, the other one I suppose opposite Woodbines avenue.

Look at the scale, the river is under 200ft wide, except where it widens out round the island, which I guess is two channels under 100 ft wide... Now I understand sailing conditions have deteriorated a bit since the 19th Century due to more buildings and taller trees, and also I have zero experience of river sailing and lack all the appropriate skills, but really the boat was almost impossible to race in any meaningful manner. I don't suppose I used the plank for more than about 20 seconds at a time. I would have thought that the much tippier 16*30 would have been near enough impossible to get round the course. A heavier ballasted boat would have been much easier, not so much for stability, but because the light boat accelerated so fast that at the end of every puff she was put flat aback by her own headwind. I think the heavier boat would have just glided on through.

In the US it was light weather but steadier winds in the lakers and rivers of NYS, which suited the 18*30. Then in the UK they abandoned the river and sailed on the sea, which suited the big powerful english boats...

#31 John Summers

John Summers

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Location:Peterborough, Ontario
  • Interests:Sailing canoes, boat building, yachting and boating history

Posted 29 July 2011 - 07:55 PM

Regarding skinny, tippy canoes, there was a big debate in the late 19th century sporting press about whether canoeing was going to hell in a handbasket owing the the baleful influence of "freaks" and "pure racing machines." This was a debate with strong moral overtones, as the all-round sailing/paddling canoes on which the ACA had been founded were beginning to evolve into canoes optimized for sailing [which became the 16-30] and those for general recreational use [the open "Canadian" style paddling canoe.]. Personally, as soon as I see something derided as a "dangerous racing machine," I want to try it. Canoeing as a whole took a big hit from bicyling, which succeeded it as the second great popular recreational craze in the last years of the 19th century when the safety bicycle and the pneumatic tire arrived on the scene.


Regarding the 16-30 planing, what my rear end tells me is that my IC is different from my 16-30. Certainly there isn't anything with the 16-30 to compare with the moment when, on an IC, you bear off a little, give the sheet a bump and the boat sits back on its haunches and takes off, with the bow wave moving aft to just forward of the mast. The 16-30 certainly reaches fast, but it still feels like displacement sailing. The hull speed of the hard-chine boat is just under ten knots, and that's about as fast as I've had one going when I've been paced by a powerboat with a GPS.

Re my post above - the second last sentence should read "I seem to recall that the 1890s US canoes didn't have as large as advantage over the US canoes of the time as is sometimes implied, so the UK canoes were NOT very sluggish."

Amati, as far as I know, from Savitsky et al you are of course right that by far the greatest relative proportion of planing lift comes near the stagnation point, which is well forward. But practically and judging from various D2 designs etc, the skinny tail craft do seem to have a much lower top planing speed - I've got a couple of theories why, but would like to hear from the experts.

I find Sandy Douglass' views, as posted by Jim C above, to be significant since he was in perhaps the best position of anyone to see the difference between the 'planing" Uffa type and the 16 x 30s. Whatever the reality, his words certainly seem to indicate that the "planers" felt different.

On a different note, the contemporary sources seem to confirm that the tippy, skinny canoes played a major role in the collapse of the early canoe boom.



#32 Chris 249

Chris 249

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,424 posts

Posted 31 July 2011 - 07:51 AM

Regarding skinny, tippy canoes, there was a big debate in the late 19th century sporting press about whether canoeing was going to hell in a handbasket owing the the baleful influence of "freaks" and "pure racing machines." This was a debate with strong moral overtones, as the all-round sailing/paddling canoes on which the ACA had been founded were beginning to evolve into canoes optimized for sailing [which became the 16-30] and those for general recreational use [the open "Canadian" style paddling canoe.]. Personally, as soon as I see something derided as a "dangerous racing machine," I want to try it. Canoeing as a whole took a big hit from bicyling, which succeeded it as the second great popular recreational craze in the last years of the 19th century when the safety bicycle and the pneumatic tire arrived on the scene.


Can you give us some citations for the strong moral overtones, John? The stuff I can find that blames the downturn on the arrival of tippy race machines doesn't seem to be particularly moralistic - it just seems to be evidence of a pattern seen quite a few times since, where speed improvements have come at a cost in convenience and accessibility and therefore fleets shrink.

To be honest, the more contemporary documents that I can find from sailing history, the less evidence I can find to back up the many claims that sailing development was hamstrung by conservativism. A classic case (and I chose an off-topic example to underline that is IS simply an example) is the huge number of sources that speak of a ban on Herreshoff catamarans by "conservatives", when an abundance of contemporary sources shows that there simply was no such ban at all.

Some people like Alden had strong points of view about the future of canoeing, but he was a pioneer in the sport and from experience I know how crap it can be to have a class you were involved in take on a new angle of development that leaves the original sailors in the class stranded, no longer able to enjoy the type of sailing that they loved.

In the past I've always assumed that the bicycle boom paralleled the canoe boom, both forming part of the great rise in sports, affluence and leisure time. It would be great to see some contemporary sources on the impact of cycling.

It's good to hear another first-hand report of the difference in canoe performance at speed.

Thanks

#33 Steve Clark

Steve Clark

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,183 posts
  • Location:Where the water is thin.
  • Interests:Human folly.

Posted 31 July 2011 - 04:21 PM

Chris:
For the full picture, find the debate between Thomas Fleming Day ( editor of "the Rudder") and W.P. Stephens ( yachting editor of "Field and Stream")
The tension between "corinthian" yachting in safe well found vessels and the dare devil wager boat racing of the East River and New York Bay was real.
It is also worth noting that in he snob warfare between he American and English social elite, the common man had little place. In a time when one was banned from the Henley Regatta if on earned a wage, all sorts were trying to hold their noses higher. The rough and tumble of professional sailing for cash prizes was another opportunity for the pompous Poms to poop all over the socially insecure but very wealthy new world moguls. So they had to go.
The League of American Wheelmen was started soon after the ACA by many of the same people. The bicycle was a thrill machine and in the days before he automobile was one of he fastest private form of transportation, which has always counted for a lot
SHC

#34 Amati

Amati

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,659 posts
  • Location:Yes!
  • Interests:0 (t) = 0

Posted 31 July 2011 - 05:49 PM

Nice post, Steve.

Chris & John and Steve there may be another way of looking at this that acts as a positive overlay to your arguments from a psychological and technological view- I think you can draw a parallel between what was urging design along in canoes and bicycles ( and possibly even speedboats) that fits in with most everything above- as the 16 30's were growing lighter and skinnier, bicycles- ordinaries- were doing the same- in 1889 a ridable James ordinary was being produced that weighed only 11lbs (5 kg)! Speedboats were starting to become smaller- the Norwood is a good example (1890), but these represented highly refined expensive approaches. I'd argue that the safety bicycle took off with the advent of pneumatic tires, which made the same speeds as ordinaries possible with a bit less effort, as well as more safety. And the perceived safety of 16 30's could have suffered from the demonstrated wildness of the ordinaries (the social set argument). After enthusiasm for biking waned sharply towards the end of the 1890's, bikes were still used by the wealthy for commuting and shopping. Besides daysailing or racing, what could a 16 30 be used for? Add to that what W P Stephens ( uh huh, that Stephens) wrote in 1904 about " the speed bacillus which has done so much within the last dozen years to kill the sport of yacht sailing and to beclouded the the whole science of naval architecture, [that] has firmly fastened it's grip on the pleasure launch.". He goes on to excoriate " men who assume they know something about automobiles, [so they think] they know something about launches.". (that could be me and IC's huh Steve? :D ) So without the wealthy to push things along, and attention by everyone (and I mean everyone- the internal combustion engine was thought of as a personal engine, and was inexpensive enough for almost anyone with a job) infected by the bacteria of motorized speed on the water, who would carry things in 16 30's on except for the happy few? The moral part of the argument about the 16 30's to my mind comes from most of the sailing true believers not comprehending the motorized singularity sweeping anyone in it's light cone away. Well, that and highly developed machines that had weeded most everybody out before things went south.

But I must admit that having been exposed to the social strata of the east coast, I am happy to be on the left coast.

If you can get your hands on Fostle's great book 'Speedboat' (Mystic Seaport Museum Stores 1988) there is a drawing of Charles G Davis' Lark.
It looks like a cross between a Formula Board and a Scow Moth. 1898!

And fwiw about bikes, I found most of the info on bikes above in David Wilson's wonderful book Bicycling Science, 3rd Ed. This is one of the 5 best books I have ever read. It is perfect for anybody on SA.



#35 rlm

rlm

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 92 posts

Posted 03 August 2011 - 01:24 PM

The 16-30 rule was a response to declining participation. I'll let Historian John chime in here but the number of competitors racing the technologically advanced "decked sailing canoes" dropped precipitously in the late 1800's. In the early 1900's the 16-30 "decked sailing canoe" rule was hammered out that pulled back on what was considered the most undesirable trends (unlimited sail area, no minimum scantlings). As far as I know, no modern researcher has devoted time perusing the archival material at Mystic and Clayton to get a real handle on how the debate unfolded that gave American Canoeists the 16-30 rule; it would be a fascinating project that would most likely show how similar the debate back in the early 1900's is with today's dinghy classes hammering out change in response to technology vs. smaller numbers of competitors.

As far as planing or not planing on the 16-30 (was it a slicer as Jim C suggests or did it actually plane). Going back to the IC that I sailed (old model Nethercott) the IC had both modes; at their fastest, close reaching with skipper fully extended on the seat, the IC was a slicer, but at broader angles, with the skipper in the canoe, the IC would plane and surf quite easily. When sailing the reproduction 16-30, I never got it sorted out when on the sliding seat (the classic bronze foot cleats kept slipping) but, like the Nethercott IC, when sailing broad with me in the middle, the 16-30 planed quite easily. So I land squarely in the camp with Chris T., both the English and American sailing canoes were planing before the twentieth century.

#36 Chris 249

Chris 249

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,424 posts

Posted 05 August 2011 - 09:36 AM

Chris:
For the full picture, find the debate between Thomas Fleming Day ( editor of "the Rudder") and W.P. Stephens ( yachting editor of "Field and Stream")
The tension between "corinthian" yachting in safe well found vessels and the dare devil wager boat racing of the East River and New York Bay was real.
It is also worth noting that in he snob warfare between he American and English social elite, the common man had little place. In a time when one was banned from the Henley Regatta if on earned a wage, all sorts were trying to hold their noses higher. The rough and tumble of professional sailing for cash prizes was another opportunity for the pompous Poms to poop all over the socially insecure but very wealthy new world moguls. So they had to go.
The League of American Wheelmen was started soon after the ACA by many of the same people. The bicycle was a thrill machine and in the days before he automobile was one of he fastest private form of transportation, which has always counted for a lot
SHC


Thanks for the input, Steve. Where was the Stephens/Day debate fought out - in the pages of The Rudder or between Day in The Rudder and Stephens in the various other publications he wrote for? Was this related to Stephens' advocacy of the cutter yachts?

I wasn't doubting that people have used sailing as an arena for class warfare in the past; as you say people like Jack (?) Kelly and Jack Holt were excluded from clubs on the Thames, and there's no doubt that the animosity against cheap chine boats that Beecher Moore wrote about was real. But it seems that sometimes these issues are seen in black and white terms, with divisions between the "artificial and snobby conservative upper/middle classes" on one side and the "hearts of gold innovative workers" on the other, and as far as I can see it's certainly not always the case.

The first-hand account of the meeting that effectively killed the sandbaggers (written by Stephens, I think) noted that the boats were fantastic in many ways but that they were too dangerous and difficult to allow the sport to spread widely. To a large degree that seems progressive to me, as was the Corinthian ideal. Searching through the NY Times archives shows a horrifying death toll in catboats and skimming dishes and from my perspective, attempting to create safer craft could be seen as a progressive attitude and morally quite a good one, couldn't it?

While such moves did apparently affect the social structure of US sailing, it would be fascinating to find out what other causes were at work - to what extent pollution, the reduction in working sail and loss of mooring grounds were also involved. Hikers and tuckups weren't affected by rules changes in that way as far as I can seem, but they died out for other reasons as BFG noted, so were the actions of the "conservatives" the major reason for the change in US sailing???? I simply don't know but I'm interested in finding out more.

Similarly, the moves against gambling in sailing (which of course had earlier been so common across all social classes) could seem to be quite good in a moral sense when one considers the downsides of gambling, such as violence and thrown races. Sculling was just about the No 1 spectator sport down here until it became known that major races were fixed. Attempts to keep sailing from suffering such a fate don't seem to be morally bad from some perspectives.

In the same way, the power of modern newspaper search engines is showing me some very good reasons why early Aussie open boats weren't always favoured by everyone. Basically, they killed shitloads of people - I think 8 were lost in one 22' on Moreton Bay (and for many of them it was a lingering affair of exposure over many hours or several days of clinging to the swamped hull) and 9 in the capsize of a 16. Understandably, accounts of these tragedies and many similar ones weren't easy to find for about 100 years, so the motives of those who tried to ban centreboarders may have been misunderstood. For those who dealt with the widows (or in the case of one expat who ended up here, had cleared bodies or survivors from a capsized NY centreboard schooner), there was a clear moral case to try to change the rules to end such tragedies.

It would be interesting to hear from contemporary sources that say that the decline in canoe sailing was not down to the boats becoming less accessible as their performance increased. I also wonder to what extent a generation of sailors just got older and moved to Raters and Canoe yawls.

Interesting about the LEague of Wheelmen being made up of canoe sailors in part - I'll have to do some research on that and its impact. I have been assuming that cycling was not so much a rival to sailing, but another expression of the rise in income and leisure time that lead to such a vast rise in the popularity of sport in the era. The whole analogies and contrast between cycling and sailing are an interesting topic.

Amati, thanks for the tip about the cycling book. I'll try to find a copy and put it on my bike shopping list.

#37 Chris 249

Chris 249

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,424 posts

Posted 05 August 2011 - 10:27 AM

The 16-30 rule was a response to declining participation. I'll let Historian John chime in here but the number of competitors racing the technologically advanced "decked sailing canoes" dropped precipitously in the late 1800's. In the early 1900's the 16-30 "decked sailing canoe" rule was hammered out that pulled back on what was considered the most undesirable trends (unlimited sail area, no minimum scantlings). As far as I know, no modern researcher has devoted time perusing the archival material at Mystic and Clayton to get a real handle on how the debate unfolded that gave American Canoeists the 16-30 rule; it would be a fascinating project that would most likely show how similar the debate back in the early 1900's is with today's dinghy classes hammering out change in response to technology vs. smaller numbers of competitors.


Thanks for that info, and the conclusions chime with just about everything I can find. My long-stalled project* is morphing into a part-time PhD in the same area, and hopefully by the time I've finished there could be a chance to get to Mystic for a time.

*with the state of publishing so uncertain I just can't bring myself to risk the cost of a new Laser on getting it printed

#38 JimC

JimC

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,748 posts
  • Location:South East England
  • Interests:Dinghies, especially box rule classes.

Posted 05 August 2011 - 11:07 AM

It would be interesting to hear from contemporary sources that say that the decline in canoe sailing was not down to the boats becoming less accessible as their performance increased. I also wonder to what extent a generation of sailors just got older and moved to Raters and Canoe yawls.

Generations was certainly a major issue in the UK... I came across this quote in Uffa Fox... "Early after the war there were few active sailing members of the Royal Canoe Club, and the Ancient Mariners ... kept the club going until these youngsters, too young to be killed in the 1914-1918 war, had grown old enough to own and sail Canoes..." That wouldn't be so much of an issue in the US though surely.

Publishing... I wonder if electronic publishing will make things easier in the future... It will need step change though at the moment it seems that all the money goes to Google, Apple and Amazon and very little to the creators.

#39 Amati

Amati

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,659 posts
  • Location:Yes!
  • Interests:0 (t) = 0

Posted 05 August 2011 - 02:01 PM

Chris, if you go to Mystic, make it a very formal affair as far as contacting them before you go so they can be ready for you, especially about getting to see the stored canoes in the warehouses. That said, the folks at the plans section are just plain charming. Try to deal with the curator directly at least some. It seemed to me that you needed an 'in', like someone they knew to help things along. I had tried to get in touch with them before I visited, and talked to a very nice gent, but when I just showed up and wanted to look at the stored ( not displayed ) canoes, the curator was not amused.

Authors are beginning to discover what musicians have known for a decade now- there's no money in it. On the ther hand, one wag has put it that the reason the american poetry scene is so good right now is that there is no money in it, so you can do what you want without worrying about blowing a wad of cash. I average .7 cents a download of my music.. Not 7 cents. .7 cents.


:lol:

#40 ARE

ARE

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Location:UK, just moved from USA
  • Interests:Boat design and theory of sailing centred on the canoe, IC history

Posted 05 August 2011 - 04:58 PM

Chris 249, I should like to see the history of American Canoe Sailing written, hopefully with the same sort of detail which I strived for in my History of Canoe Sailing in Britain. Written 20 years ago I think the UK history probably needs updating for recent changes.



I looked into paper publication,but decided against it, as costs in the early 1990s was too high. I sought advice from writers of other histories, I14, Merlin, N12 about estimating sales, and the advice I got was something like "you will sell less than you think" I have probably sold, given away 40-50 copies at the very most. It would be nice to think you would do better but I have my doubts. I now have my work as a PDF, which is about 7meg so that I can sent it as an e-mail attachment. This option was not available in 1991/2.



The thread has touched on two points which I will address. Firstly I do not believe that the 16-30 planes. The lines of the canoes would seem to be too symmetric, My naive view of planning is as follows. Lift will occur due to the flow of water beneath the front of the boat. The water is pushed down by the boat and a reaction force will push the bow of the boat upward. For symmetric canoe hulls there will also by a downward pull at the stern due to the water returning to its equilibrium surface level which could them squat, and so produce more form drag, even if there is a slight reduction in wetted area. The water surface will alter this and I am not sure by how much. The flat sections leading to a transom, or chine in the case of the modern canoe, reduce this effect. The water has left the stern of the boat before it starts to move upward so the suction on the boat doesn't happen. The larger reserve buoyancy of the stern stops the stern digging in. The early racers in the UK, 1886-1905 approx were less symmetrical in their design than the earlier Pearl and Nautilus canoes of Tredwen and Baden-Powell, and as far as I can see the 16-30 canoes. The position of the maximum draft was also moving forward. I found no reference to these boats planning during my research, although I might have just missed something. In my book I recount the story of Wake, UffaFox 1936, being Tank tested at the National Physics Laboratory, and the engineers doing the tests doubted her ability to plane! We have very few stories about Uffa boats except those of Uffa. My view is that he was a good sailor but and even better salesman



Secondly, were the 16-30 slower than the IC. I think the answer would now be yes. However, when Uffa and Roger sailed against the Americans in the 1930s before the IC rule was agreed, they were sailing modified 'B' class canoes. I would guess that the 16-30 was better than the 'B' class in some conditions and worse in others. In the UK, the 'B' class didn't outsail the Racers 30 years earlier. Interest in the Racers declined because of a lack of Trophies for the class. The two types of boat were very different and so would be affected very differently be conditions. Uffa and Roger beat the Americans by waiting for the wind conditions they wanted and would favour them, together with some one-upmanship. Had they been forced to sail in different conditions the result might have been different, no IC. Uffa takes credit for the IC class rules, but there might well have been politics involved as well. Dudley Murphy, who together with Kendall Howard had tried in 1901 to get a common USA/UK rule but failed, was the Chairman of the ACA sailing committee in 1934. It would be interesting to see the ACA documents of the time to see whether or how hard Dudley Murphy pushed the common rule. Most stories which I was told about Uffa included a large amount of one-upmanship, he seemed to need to try and psyche out the opposition before racing against then. I think he convinced people he was a better sailor and built better boats as much by psychology as sailing ability.

Lastly I think that if there were 80 years of development put into the 16-30 it would probably be a much faster boat. I was wondering whether a new rules 16 feet IC could also fit within the 16-30 rule?

#41 Amati

Amati

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,659 posts
  • Location:Yes!
  • Interests:0 (t) = 0

Posted 05 August 2011 - 10:35 PM

" I was wondering whether a new rules 16 feet IC could also fit within the 16-30 rule?"



I hope so. Or would it be the other way around? 80 years......


How do I get a copy of your book?

Paul

#42 ARE

ARE

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Location:UK, just moved from USA
  • Interests:Boat design and theory of sailing centred on the canoe, IC history

Posted 05 August 2011 - 11:18 PM

How do I get a copy of your book?

Paul


Please e-mail me at andreweastwood@live.com and I'll send you a PDF copy of the book. Then please make an appropriate donation to the IC class treasurer.

#43 Amati

Amati

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,659 posts
  • Location:Yes!
  • Interests:0 (t) = 0

Posted 05 August 2011 - 11:37 PM


How do I get a copy of your book?

Paul


Please e-mail me at andreweastwood@live.com and I'll send you a PDF copy of the book. Then please make an appropriate donation to the IC class treasurer.


Any IC association in particular?

Paul

#44 ARE

ARE

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Location:UK, just moved from USA
  • Interests:Boat design and theory of sailing centred on the canoe, IC history

Posted 06 August 2011 - 12:16 AM



How do I get a copy of your book?

Paul


Please e-mail me at andreweastwood@live.com and I'll send you a PDF copy of the book. Then please make an appropriate donation to the IC class treasurer.


Any IC association in particular?

Paul


make it the US association if you are in USA, or UK association if you are in the UK. Whatever you feel is appropriate. Lets not make this too difficult!

#45 Amati

Amati

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,659 posts
  • Location:Yes!
  • Interests:0 (t) = 0

Posted 06 August 2011 - 12:24 AM




How do I get a copy of your book?

Paul


Please e-mail me at andreweastwood@live.com and I'll send you a PDF copy of the book. Then please make an appropriate donation to the IC class treasurer.


Any IC association in particular?

Paul


Thanks Andrew, US IC it is. I'll PM you with an address for the PDF.

Paul

make it the US association if you are in USA, or UK association if you are in the UK. Whatever you feel is appropriate. Lets not make this too difficult!



#46 ARE

ARE

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Location:UK, just moved from USA
  • Interests:Boat design and theory of sailing centred on the canoe, IC history

Posted 06 August 2011 - 02:42 PM

Paul


Thanks Andrew, US IC it is. I'll PM you with an address for the PDF.

Paul




You may be interested in Fay Jordaens 'sailing with champions' which is a collection of reminiscences of canoe sailing. I can give you her e-mail address if you don't have it.





Andrew

#47 Amati

Amati

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,659 posts
  • Location:Yes!
  • Interests:0 (t) = 0

Posted 15 August 2011 - 03:00 AM

I do not have it. I would like it. I would also like to figure out how to obtain a history of the sliding seat. or was it the hiking plank?

For anyone out there who loves sailing canoes, Andrew's book is da bomb! In the good sense of the phrase, of course......

Paul ( another diseased canoe mind- :lol: )




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users