Jump to content

12 metre

Members
  • Content Count

    3,758
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 12 metre

  1. FIFY Not sure if Orcas have much in the way of blubber or oil. And rather than baleen, they have these: The Makah band near Neah Bay was allowed to hunt for a Gray Whale back in 1999 as it was ruled an ancestral right. https://historylink.org/File/5310 Not sure if using speed boats count as an ancestral whaling vessel - but anyway. I think there was a recent ruling allowing them to resume the hunt again.
  2. I will guess a Hustler 36 or one of the variants. Almost certainly a Stephen Jones design.
  3. Meh...just another IOR design Big sister to Black Bottom? Competed not so successfully at the '73 QT Worlds.
  4. Beats the hell out of continuing this silly exchange. I take back everything I've posted here. Good luck with the boat BTW
  5. Never heard of the Schell Regression. Having now looked it up, it looks like it sometimes gives similar results to PHRF, and sometimes way off. Here is a table comparing PHRF and Schell Regression of some common designs in North America: https://people.well.com/user/pk/YRAphrf-sf.html Notable way offs include: Olson 30: PHRF 96 / SR 125 J/29 MH OB: PHRF 111 / SR 129 Moore 24: PHRF 156 / SR 190 SC 27: PHRF 132 / SR 170 Now what those 4 designs have in common is they are lightweight MH boats and have fairly established handicaps. So Schell appears to und
  6. PHRF is a Performance Handicapping system - not a rating system or rule. Essentially based on results and/or observed performance - or whatever the local PHRF handicappers decide to assign a boat As a result there is no math in PHRF - just some sail area adjustments (relative to a base handicap if there is one) depending on the region. Perhaps it was a typo - but you were the one who said it had a PHRF of 87. All I know is a balls out 30 footer that requires racks should have a PHRF well under 87
  7. 87 ???? How is that possible? Several MORC-Maxis are rated faster than that. Even a Martin 243 typically has a PHRF in the 70 range. https://sailboatdata.com/sailboat/martin-243 FYI, the 243 is the Martin with hiking racks.
  8. Just took a look at it. Close guess - but not quite. It appears to be the forward deck and topsides from a much smaller boat. The piece still has the toe rail and part of the topsides. Silver Shadow III does not look like it has a toe rail and the bow topside appears to be intact. Lastly, the topside colour doesn't match Silver Shadow III's. Now why there is a chunk of bow from another boat leaning up against SS III's keel is an entirely different question.
  9. Not abandoned exactly. Owner pays about $800 for storage every month. But the boat has been sitting pretty much untouched from what I can tell for the last 10 years. So close to $100k yard fees paid so far. Looks like some activity around her from the photo I took a couple of months ago.
  10. Website suggests she either sold or is no longer for sale. Which Silver Shadow is being referred to? There were several. Ex Silver Shadow III (C&C Custom 41) is in our yard in a sorry state. Brought to the West Coast in the 80's and renamed Foxhound where she was successfully campaigned for maybe 10-15 years. Below is ex-Silver Shadow III. Looks better in the photo than she actually is.
  11. My bad. The Google Earth photo in your link made it look like the cockpit had been cut out. Didn't notice the other better photos until now. She looks perhaps to be in a bit better shape than the bow on photo indicates... ...but still would have to remove that gawdawful semi-finished home built FRP dodger they have adorned her with. And the EUR 13K asking price is much too much.
  12. Unless she can find some patron saint - that boat is done. Cockpit looks mostly cut out and being stored uncovered outside is a recipe for disaster.
  13. Interesting discussion by Bill Lee, thanks. But the QT design Bill Lee discusses was 2 ft shorter, a foot wider, and replete with IOR distortions. He doesn't mention the displacement, but since he used the same foils and rig design for the 27, I assume the displacement was the same. Say 3000 lb, which is roughly the same as what a San Juan 24 displaces. So dimensionally it was going to be a pretty typical QT for the day - except it sounds like it was never actually built. The client ended up basically wanting the fastest boat for the budget - so Lee stretched it, narrowed it, and
  14. If the SC 27 ever rated in at QT, then they would have been foolish not to go to the QT Worlds because they would have cleaned up with ease However IMO there is not a chance that a SC 27 or similar sized variant would ever been able to rate in anywhere close to the QT level. The numbers just don't add up. Way too long and too long a sailing length. Even with a deeper sump and lighter keel. HT maybe, but even that would be a real stretch. Somewhere near 3/4T most likely. The J/24 rated in at HT, but is a much shorter fatter, and slightly heavier design with a D/L of 173 vs 96 f
  15. I imagine green stuff grows on top - kinda like what appears to be green stuff in the barely visible cabin top in the unfortunately small photos. To my eyes it looks like there may be a depression in the cabin top where the mast is lying on it - but tough to really say. I gotta think the whole cabin, deck, and cockpit will likely need replacing.
  16. For old school IOR aficionados, what appears to be Ted Turner's old S&S One Tonner Lightnin' is listed on the same site: https://www.smartmarineguide.com/L49816643
  17. Yes, the Coronet Elvstrom 38. But it had a large pilothouse. I suspect Jan Kjaerulff had a hand in the design since I believe he was instrumental in the design of Prince Alfred, the Aussie 6mR with a similar bulbous bow;
  18. The first terms in calculating RSAM and RSAF were to determine the areas of the main and foresail. But RSAM had a .35 multiplier while RSAF had the .5 multiplier. Since you use .5bh to find the area of a triangle, they simplified it by using .35 rather than .7 x .5 for the main and .5 rather than 1 x .5 for the foresail. The second part of the first term for RSAF (1.0+1.1*(LP-JC)/LP) was to account for the area of the overlap and typically came out as 1.33 IIRC The second terms were the Aspect Ratio penalties (or adders) I mentioned in my previous post. A bit primitive, but it at lea
  19. Apologies. Misunderstood the intent of your post. I though you meant the only boats you knew of with delam problems were ones with kevlar hulls
  20. Well, there are more than a few Laser 28's around here. Right about the Kelea garbage scow thing though.
  21. Following a winning trend I suspect. Or the designers felt the efficiency of such a rig more than compensated for the high rated sail area it incurred. Or that MH rigs worked better for heavier boats Recalling what I can about how IOR rated sail area: 100% of the geometrical area of the genoa was used in the calculation. Only 70% of the geometrical area of the main was used in the calculation. An aspect ratio penalty was applied to both the genoa and main (may have been greater for the main - my mind is a bit hazy on this, but would explain lower AR mains) Ther
  22. I would guess she would have similar speed to a One Ton of that era - once the sheets were used. They would probably do a horizon job on her upwind and be faster DDW. But on a beam reach, I suspect Cascade may have been faster having basically two mainsails.
  23. A common myth that simply was not true. IOR actually favoured big low AR mains. What you say about the mizzen was true however. Anyone who has played around with the IOR RSAT calculations will quickly realize how much it favoured big mains and smaller headsails. At least with regards to actual sail area vs rated sail area. Milgram took it one step further and eliminated the headsail altogether. Combine that with the low rated area of a mizzen and indeed you end up with a very low RSAT. IIRC, Cascade had a sail area of 800 sq ft but an IOR S of 300 sq ft. The hull form i
  24. Probably not. That one is a Heritage 37 - but in too good a condition to be called an IOR landfill IMO. But the Mull 3/4 Ton Clockwork Rocketship (which I may have posted here before) definitely fits the definition of IOR landfill. Such a sorry state she is in now. Hilarious CL ad goes with the photo of CR below: Okay, here is the text from the CL ad: nice lookin racing sailboat, about 36',comes with 4 sets of sails has gimble propane stove,sellin for guy so know nothing except it runs good and needs interior work,it floats so u just need to tow it with boat or trailer or i c
  25. Some of the newer designs may, but not all do. ^^ This. Even Brit Chance's Mariner had a crease along the topsides for measurement purposes - although designed to the entirely different 12mR rule. Mariner V1 had creases everywhere - topsides and stern steps. Plus a bow bustle to boot. Mariner V2 proved faster IIRC - but not fast enough nor enough time to be selected over Courageous or Intrepid. IMO, stern steps aside, there was a lot of genius in Brit's design of Mariner. The revised stern looked quite good - and the only photo of it I can think of was in a book
×
×
  • Create New...