Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, LordBooster said:

More info:

https://picclick.de/boot-segel-yacht-aluminium-D%C3BELL-UND-JESSE-152277814701.html

 

Google translate: "for sale or co-owner aluminum sailing yacht built in 1979 from dübel and jesser was used very little long 12.60 m wide 4.05 m draft 2 m lead short keel lined with plenty of space sails. gen. fog. Sturmfog very well preserved Mast, tree, rolgen.tacking winches availableWheel steeringHydhaulik downhaul and achterstack you have to upgrade, 3 speed winches SUITABLE VERY GOOD FOR GROUP EXCURSIONS a projected for enthusiastic sailors very nice because of emigration I have to sell my own boat"

 

An ad for the same boat somewhere else (eBay Germany?) sais: no sails, no deck hardware, no keel. So it’s basically scrap aluminium. 
 

(“Sturmfock” is not what you think - it’s really just a storm foresail.) ;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It was an odd time the late IOR period. Fantastic fleets, great racing and many beautiful looking boats that were absolute cunts of things to sail. Back them most  owners actually knew how to sail and

Having renovated an IOR 1-tonner, I feel obliged to point out that there are way cheaper ways to get a tidy boat on to a start line

My old Two Tonner HEATHER designed for and built by John Buchan. HEATHER is now a live aboard cruising boat in south Puget Sound.

Posted Images

18 minutes ago, 10thTonner said:

An ad for the same boat somewhere else (eBay Germany?) sais: no sails, no deck hardware, no keel. So it’s basically scrap aluminium. 
 

(“Sturmfock” is not what you think - it’s really just a storm foresail.) ;) 

This ad?

https://www.ebay.de/sch/i.html?_nkw=boot+segel+yacht+aluminium+DÜBELL+UND+JESSE

Some generalizing terms like "Aluminium kascko" may indicate that. But I do not know what kascko means. Could only google up a perhaps similar word:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kasko

Thus, kasko=helmet, with Finnish language origin. It may be possible to interpret this as an empty shell, but I don't know. I cannot see that for instance that "no keel" is explicitly mentioned. The only thing an interested buyer must do is to take contact with the seller and sort things out.

 

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

This ad?

https://www.ebay.de/sch/i.html?_nkw=boot+segel+yacht+aluminium+DÜBELL+UND+JESSE

Some generalizing terms like "Aluminium kascko" may indicate that. But I do not know what kascko means. Could only google up a perhaps similar word:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kasko

Thus, kasko=helmet, with Finnish language origin. It may be possible to interpret this as an empty shell, but I don't know. I cannot see that for instance that "no keel" is explicitly mentioned. The only thing an interested buyer must do is to take contact with the seller and sort things out.

 

"Casco" is hull in Spanish (and helmet too)

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sail12m said:

No landfill for Temptation

0B798101-E40E-48B0-A3F6-1D0F8584F294.jpeg

That is gorgeous - kudos to the current custodian/owner.  The transom reminds me of the Aussie boat "Sovereign", but I didn't think she was a Frers - maybe mistaken about that ...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, chuso007 said:

"Casco" is hull in Spanish (and helmet too)

Yup, in German it is Kasko (misspelled in the ad). Roughly a bare hull of a boat or body of a car sans engine, gearbox, and wheels... it is also a type of car insurance, and not a helmet... 

That thing keeps popping up on every possible plattform for a year or so. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

I want to see the Space Sails lining the short keel.

Well, I studied German 4 years, but this one...: BleikurtzekielInen vielplatz Segel groß

German=Swedish=English:

BleikurtzekielInen=Utan tillkortakommanden=without deficiencies

vielplatz=större=major

Segel groß=Storsegel=Mainsail

Now let's combine this and adjust it to something that makes sense in an ad of yacht from -79:

Mainsail without major deficiencies=Mainsail in reasonable condition

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LordBooster said:

Well, I studied German 4 years, but this one...: BleikurtzekielInen vielplatz Segel groß

German=Swedish=English:

BleikurtzekielInen=Utan tillkortakommanden=without deficiencies

vielplatz=större=major

Segel groß=Storsegel=Mainsail

Now let's combine this and adjust it to something that makes sense in an ad of yacht from -79:

Mainsail without major deficiencies=Mainsail in reasonable condition

 

BleikurtzekielInen: 'blei' = lead, 'kurz' = short, 'kiel' = keel

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, halfmoon said:

BleikurtzekielInen: 'blei' = lead, 'kurz' = short, 'kiel' = keel

Yes, why not. I gave this one a try:

German=Swedish=English:

blei "bleiben"=stanna kvar=stay "remain", kiellnen=burk=can "confine", kurz=kort=short

BleikurtzekielInen=Utan tillkortakommanden=without deficiencies

But who knows?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, herbie verstinx said:

Too soon?

downloadfile.jpg

Under IOR I could beat that in a San Juan 24. I could pick up a couple of crew on the way by for extra time. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ishmael said:

Under IOR I could beat that in a San Juan 24. I could pick up a couple of crew on the way by for extra time. 

I don't know, that hull certainly has enough weird bumps and appendages to be optimized for rating and not for speed.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, ROADKILL666 said:

Did you see where they placed the engine. 

Yikes!  How does that work nose into gnarly swells? 

What's the weight limit on the foredeck crew?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Engine placement was part of the rating game. The exhaust came out near the chain plates. A rubber hose had to go over it downward so the fumes weren’t as bad blowing back over the boat. Worked ok not great.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bridhb said:

I don't know, that hull certainly has enough weird bumps and appendages to be optimized for rating and not for speed.

Hehe!

Yes, somewhat of IOR influenced. Maybe Whiting. But to bring her rating down to even that of 2-tonners deserves a really good chainsaw.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2021 at 8:24 AM, halfmoon said:

BleikurtzekielInen: 'blei' = lead, 'kurz' = short, 'kiel' = keel

BleikurtzekielInen = lead short keel

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2020 at 10:54 PM, LordBooster said:

Thanks for the drawings! Well, I think Laurie Davidson got inspiration in only one single aspect from Paul Whiting, depth volume (from Light Brigade by Gary Baigent):

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk037QaHk88_yyMhDiORRM33IErKXkQ%3A1608585458051&source=hp&ei=8RDhX7nzPOPrrgSroLhY&q=%22laurie+davidson%22+%22light+brigade%22+depth-volume&oq=%22laurie+davidson%22+%22light+brigade%22&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQARgAMgcIIxCuAhAnMgcIIxCuAhAnOgcIIxDqAhAnOgcILhDqAhAnOgQIIxAnOgQILhAnOgcILhAnEJMCOgQILhBDOgUIABCxAzoLCAAQsQMQxwEQowI6DggAELEDEIMBEMcBEKMCOggIABCxAxCDAToECAAQQzoICC4QsQMQgwE6CAgAEMcBEKMCOgIIADoFCC4QywE6AgguOgUIABDLAToLCAAQxwEQrwEQywE6BggAEBYQHlDwHVjR2gFggfgBaAFwAHgAgAF8iAHzFpIBBDI4LjWYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6sAEK&sclient=psy-ab

“But Davidson was critical, “Paul Whiting’s designs are join up the dots boats and they aren’t pretty. But it took courage to do what he did in the forward sections because, with the extreme hollow on the waterline, he had to get deep volume in that area, and that was very cleverly done. But I think the overall effect was horrific and his boats were no good unless Murray Ross was sailing them.””

And that is what you see in Newspaper Taxi vs Pendragon. The original design of Waverider was roughly a scaled up version of Fun. Now compare the original design of Waverider and the modified Waverider. Davidson had to increase its displacement. Here, among other things, went for depth volume. This does not answer the question if Whiting's designs got more distorted with time, but maybe this does (Pendragon is the main subject but Riotous Assembly designed -78 is dealt with as well) and compare with Magic Bus from -76:

 

 

 

Dear Laurie, we shall not forget Hugh Treharne: "The 1/4 tonner 'Seaply' (KA-101) was designed by Paul Whiting to be built in plywood. She was quoated as being lighter and with a bigger sail area than 'Magic Bus'. Skipper Hugh Treharne finished 3rd with her at the heavy wind 1978 (sailed in January 1979) Quarter Ton Cup in Japan. She was designed for light winds which were expected, and won the only light wind race by about seven minutes.", according toehttp://www.histoiredeshalfs.com/Quarter Tonner/Q Whitting Seaply.htm?fbclid=IwAR1mxxJCISzq2UM7fsfyaliUPvWRNkw2Mzcqc9Kdnt-7ec95sgY4WEkHnV8t me tell ya about Paul’s yachts,

hts,

Let me tell ya about Paul's yachts,

they are simply join up the dots.

Overall effect being horrific,

Couldn’t even do the Pacific.

Without Murray calling the shots!

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ROADKILL666 said:

There will not be enough left for the landfill 

Hehe!

I am more concerned about the sailors well-being. Just imagine a luffing-duel with that guillotine in action. Some sailors like Dean Barker can probably save his neck, but the rest. O dear. The mother's of the sailors will get strokes. Pete Burling's mother: "Pete, don't sail today. That Lord Slicer will give you anything but a close shave!"

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a never painted plywood deck with some serious delam showing on the underside in one of those pics.

That boat appears to need a complete reconstruction, not just a restoration..

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

Looks like a never painted plywood deck with some serious delam showing on the underside in one of those pics.

That boat appears to need a complete reconstruction, not just a restoration..

Is it really that bad? Never painted plywood deck? Not even me could do something like that...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2020 at 4:24 AM, 167149 said:

Alican, aluminium whiting 1/4 tonner.... some assembly required

064.jpg

O dear, this painful to see. When was Alley Kan scrapped? Just found this info:

WHITTING Paul:
”Alley Kan ? 1977”
 
“The 1978 Quarter Ton Cup selections
The weak participation in the Dunhill Cup of 1978 undoubtedly demonstrated the decline of the interest carried in the measurement which started already before 1978. It was fast and suddenly, the national Half and One Ton were non-events. This was happening while New Zealand held both titles, with top architects at the time. The only national event that was to be held that year was the selections for the quarter Ton Cup of a fleet of 10 boats anyway. The aim was to participate in the Quarter which would take place in Japan. The selection was won by Alley Kan , a Whiting developed from Magic Bus and Windward sausage , and surprisingly built for this size aluminum boat. Like Magic Bus, it was skippered by Murray Ross. It carried a larger mainsail, its length being less than Magic Bus . The only other contender was her close sistership, Self Whiting, but her performance was hampered by shorter fin, less ballast and less canopy.”

http://www.histoiredeshalfs.com/Quarter Tonner/Q Whitting.htm?fbclid=IwAR2KIv3lmw2hCt9XyIjY4ySif1noS4PFgIJvaYgJlO3x8Izm9WFTfKfDnSk

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, boatcat65 said:

Interesting history- cut and paste from the IOR Landfills FB page:

THE DEATH OF THE IOR
“Why did the IOR die?” The answer is surprisingly simple and has little to do with economic downturns, crazy, escalating costs or the perception that the boats were unseaworthy and slow.
The very people, the members of the International Technical Committee (ITC), who were tasked to protect and develop the rule for the benefit of the owners signed the death warrant some six years before the beast was finally deemed extinct. It wasn’t a deliberate act, by any means, it was just kind of allowed to happen as interests grew in the development of a new ‘super’ rule that would cure all the ‘ills’ of offshore handicapping. It was called IMS. The International Measurement System.
IMS was very much an American based initiative formulated by a burgeoning interest in the power of computers as envisioned by ‘idealists’ at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). This belief in a ‘perfect’ system filtered into the ITC who then increasingly believed that IMS could replace IOR as THE rule for Grand Prix Offshore Racing. At a stroke IMS was perceived as a handicapping system that would allow the return of ‘wholesome’ cruiser racers to the Grand Prix level.
And so the scene was set for a showdown between the two rules. Funnily enougH, however, this ‘conflict’ largely took place behind closed doors - the closed doors of the International Technical Committee. This erstwhile Group of designers and boffins had done a reasonable job of helping to develop the original, Olin Stephens/Dick Carter/ van de Stadt created Mk 1 IOR, into an ever more complex Mk III IOR. They had dealt with the slings and arrows of ‘cat’ rigs, unballasted daggerboards, extreme overhangs, bumps, chines and many other rule dodgers thrown at it by a vast army of new, young designers. The rule really was the ultimate mathematical, but organic and holistic challenge imaginable and so it required a lot of policing and an awful lot of tweaking.
At the annual ITC meeting always held in November and euphemistically called The November Meetings informal submissions were invited from the ‘floor’ for what would eventually become IOR mk IV. But the minds of the powers that be were elsewhere. Despite impassioned pleas from designers including Tony Castro, Geoff Stagg, representing Bruce Farr, the Dubois office, myself and several owners to use IOR as the ‘baseline’ for producing more user friendly designs, the ITC elected to promote IMS as the rule for the future. Gary Mull, chairman of the ITC at this time, seemed to be heavily influenced by a growing love affair from American designers, like Dave Pedrick, Bill Tripp and the ‘scientist’ Jerry Milgram, with IMS. Together they envisioned a new breed of fair hulled, moderate designs, with great stability, proper cockpits and fitted out interiors.
The IOR Mk IV, proposed from the audience at the 1988 November meetings promulgated similar outcomes, but utilising the proven and robust linear formulas of IOR rather than the largely unknown reliance on unproven Velocity Predictions inherent in the IMS formula.
In the proposed revisions to IOR, stability would be unmeasured getting rid, at a stoke, of the dreaded Centre of Gravity Factor - a measurement fraught with inaccuracies and held largely responsible for producing unstable boats and ones overly dependent on crew weight on the rail. CGF was also directly responsible for such undesirable idiosyncrasies as beam waterline bumps.
Gone too would be the ubiquitous 150 percent overlap on headsails which gave unrated sail area. This change would have opened the door to the development of non overlap rigs.
The accursed creases and distortions around the aft girth measurements was to be addressed also. One simple suggestion was to rule out any form of reverse inflection in the aft profile. The days of the bustle were virtually over anyway and of course all of our proposed rule changes could be easily ‘grandfathered’ to prevent the existing fleet suffering too much. In reality small changes to the aft girth stations and most particularly the girth differences between inner and outer girth stations would have produced fuller, wider and fairer sterns in short order, while maintains an element of choice. Choice being a factor missing from today’s rules.
While the outcomes of such changes cannot ever be accurately predicted, cause and effect is highly influential in a formula like IOR. The simple removal of the penalty on stability would have quickly allowed designers to create lighter boats as stability could have been found in low cg keels rather than hull form and brute overall weight. In turn lighter and more powerful boats would have pointed the way to fuller sterns.
But the ITC very systematically destroyed these arguments as unworkable and felt IMS was a much more effective way of achieving the same outcomes. In fairness to the ITC a number of designers, including RobHumphries - a member of the ITC board at the time - had IMS designs our racing that did showcase the rule rather well. But this was to be a short lived moment.
And so the ITC policy was set at that fateful November meeting in 1988. The two rules would run in parallel while the anomalies inherent in the VPP driven IMS were sorted out and a new era of dual purpose offshore racers would begin.
Work would continue on the development of IOR, but with non of the suggested fundamental changes implemented. A MK IV Rule was duly drafted, but few in authority, had any real enthusiasm for it. As far as they were concerned IOR was dying and IMS was the new kid on the block to be nurtured.
In an earlier attempt by the ITC to be more inclusive of heavier, more cruising orientated boats an IOR MK IIIa was introduced, but this backfired spectacularly when Bruce Farr, in particular, exploited the carelessly drafted rule by producing the heavier, but much longer Steinlager Whitbread Maxi in 1989. This amazing own goal of a rule amendment created by the ITC finally allowed the creation of the all conquering inshore Maxi Matador. Far from allowing the development of heavier, more fitted out boats, the IIIa Rule simply promoted heavier stripped out boats which in the case of the Maxi’s allowed them to effectively gain 3ft, or so, of unmeasured length. This was one of many misdirections the ITC took in trying to ‘protect’ the rule and it had a seriously deleterious effect on owner confidence.
But back to the ITC meetings of November 1988. I remember it like yesterday, Geoff Stagg’s final reaction to the ITC interagency. “We don’t really care what you do. Just give us any rule and we’ll go off and design winners for it.”
And that is precisely what happened. Within two years Farr had produced the ultimate Grand Prix IMS boat in the form of the 43 Gaucho. But it wasn’t the beginning of the new era predicted by the rule makers of elegance and internal comfort. Gaucho signalled a very different future. Her overhangs were very short, freeboard was high, the sheer line straight and the interior just as stripped as an IOR boat except for the introduction of a door on the ‘head’ compartment. Other required features like a galley and saloon table were treated as token gestures, expensively built in carbon. But much more significantly, in order for velocity predictions to work ‘accurately’ actual stability had to be measured. It wasn’t long before lead was being replaced by wood at the bottom of keels. Not exactly the promised land of wholesome cruiser racers envisioned by the rule makers.
But while IMS continued to be promoted as the solution to ‘fair’ global offshore yacht racing IOR struggled on, shouldering virtually all of the blame for declining racing fleets
I remember talking to Olin (Stephens) about it all. He was very sanguine - perhaps even a little surprised by the way IOR had developed, but ever the enthusiast for a mathematical solution he liked the theories behind IMS and perhaps felt that the apparent shortcomings in the IOR could be addressed more effectively by the overarching qualities of IMS. It was a mathematically based theory, that wasn’t born out in practice.
With the advantage of a 21st century perspective and taking into account yacht racing developments since the death of IOR in 1994, would keeping IOR been better for the sport as a whole? In terms of continuity and preventing the explosion of multiple, fleet sapping alternative classes, it would assuredly been beneficial. But it did need a major shot in the arm at the end of the eighties to reassure an ever more cynical owner base that their worries were being addressed.
In the rarefied atmosphere of Whitbread sponsored global racing, Bruce Farr, once again, showed the way. As IOR lay on its deathbed - an outcome accelerated by clumsy attempts to update events like the Admiral’s Cup with the proposed introduction of one designs and IMS handicapping - Farr, in tandem with the foresight, of the Whitbread race committee who allowed asymmetric spinnakers to be flown, discarded the ‘heavy’ design route he had produced with Steinlager and produced a new Maxi design that was some 7,500kgs lighter. This much lighter design was a great deal quicker around the world and potentially showed a new beginning for lightweight IOR racers. Sadly, however, these three Farr ketches, La Poste, Merit Cup and New Zealand Endeavour where one of the last throws of the dice for IOR.
But back to theorising about where IOR could have led in design terms. Would keeping a highly modified version of the rule have kept ocean racing on its feet? Would it have prevented the almost total demise of classic events like the Ton Cups, The Admiral’s Cup, The Kenwood, the Southern Cross, the Onion Patch, the SORC? Who knows? Maybe it was all about economics or personal time management, but, what I do know, is that the defining legacy of IOR was its success at global continuity in offshore racing. To have made the decision to ditch this in favour of a hugely more flawed IMS was a grave mistake.
Would a boat designed to an updated version of IOR as suggested back in 1988 at the ITC meetings evolved into something equivalent to today’s high performance designs as typified by the IRC racers, TP 52’s and Fast 40’s? Yes. Is the simple answer. Advances in lightweight construction, appendage design, carbon spars would have all contributed hugely, but the biggest single factor effecting overall design and concept would have been the removal of measured stability. Just as is the case today, boats would not have become more stable, but would simply have become significantly lighter and capable of carrying larger rigs effectively. These are the primary elements driving the high performance in today’s designs.
To have arrived at this point in the genesis of the offshore yacht within the IOR style framework would have resulted in far more fleet continuity across the globe and possibly allowed the major offshore championships to survive the various financial challenges and rule uncertainties that killed them off.
IT’S NOT EASY TO PICK A SINGLE PICTURE THAT REPRESENTS THE ENTIRE IOR ERA FROM 1970 to 1994, BUT THIS PICTURE OF THE JUDEL/VROLIJK 50 CONTAINER COMES FROM A HIGH POINT OF THE RULE WHEN FLEETS WERE HUGE AND THERE WAS ENORMOUS VARIETY OF DESIGN FROM A MULTITUDE OF DESIGNERS.
 

Credit due to Julian Everitt for this piece. 

Cheers, 

               W.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, boatcat65 said:

Interesting history- cut and paste from the IOR Landfills FB page:

THE DEATH OF THE IOR
“Why did the IOR die?” The answer is surprisingly simple and has little to do with economic downturns, crazy, escalating costs or the perception that the boats were unseaworthy and slow.
The very people, the members of the International Technical Committee (ITC), who were tasked to protect and develop the rule for the benefit of the owners signed the death warrant some six years before the beast was finally deemed extinct. It wasn’t a deliberate act, by any means, it was just kind of allowed to happen as interests grew in the development of a new ‘super’ rule that would cure all the ‘ills’ of offshore handicapping. It was called IMS. The International Measurement System.
IMS was very much an American based initiative formulated by a burgeoning interest in the power of computers as envisioned by ‘idealists’ at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). This belief in a ‘perfect’ system filtered into the ITC who then increasingly believed that IMS could replace IOR as THE rule for Grand Prix Offshore Racing. At a stroke IMS was perceived as a handicapping system that would allow the return of ‘wholesome’ cruiser racers to the Grand Prix level.
And so the scene was set for a showdown between the two rules. Funnily enougH, however, this ‘conflict’ largely took place behind closed doors - the closed doors of the International Technical Committee. This erstwhile Group of designers and boffins had done a reasonable job of helping to develop the original, Olin Stephens/Dick Carter/ van de Stadt created Mk 1 IOR, into an ever more complex Mk III IOR. They had dealt with the slings and arrows of ‘cat’ rigs, unballasted daggerboards, extreme overhangs, bumps, chines and many other rule dodgers thrown at it by a vast army of new, young designers. The rule really was the ultimate mathematical, but organic and holistic challenge imaginable and so it required a lot of policing and an awful lot of tweaking.
At the annual ITC meeting always held in November and euphemistically called The November Meetings informal submissions were invited from the ‘floor’ for what would eventually become IOR mk IV. But the minds of the powers that be were elsewhere. Despite impassioned pleas from designers including Tony Castro, Geoff Stagg, representing Bruce Farr, the Dubois office, myself and several owners to use IOR as the ‘baseline’ for producing more user friendly designs, the ITC elected to promote IMS as the rule for the future. Gary Mull, chairman of the ITC at this time, seemed to be heavily influenced by a growing love affair from American designers, like Dave Pedrick, Bill Tripp and the ‘scientist’ Jerry Milgram, with IMS. Together they envisioned a new breed of fair hulled, moderate designs, with great stability, proper cockpits and fitted out interiors.
The IOR Mk IV, proposed from the audience at the 1988 November meetings promulgated similar outcomes, but utilising the proven and robust linear formulas of IOR rather than the largely unknown reliance on unproven Velocity Predictions inherent in the IMS formula.
In the proposed revisions to IOR, stability would be unmeasured getting rid, at a stoke, of the dreaded Centre of Gravity Factor - a measurement fraught with inaccuracies and held largely responsible for producing unstable boats and ones overly dependent on crew weight on the rail. CGF was also directly responsible for such undesirable idiosyncrasies as beam waterline bumps.
Gone too would be the ubiquitous 150 percent overlap on headsails which gave unrated sail area. This change would have opened the door to the development of non overlap rigs.
The accursed creases and distortions around the aft girth measurements was to be addressed also. One simple suggestion was to rule out any form of reverse inflection in the aft profile. The days of the bustle were virtually over anyway and of course all of our proposed rule changes could be easily ‘grandfathered’ to prevent the existing fleet suffering too much. In reality small changes to the aft girth stations and most particularly the girth differences between inner and outer girth stations would have produced fuller, wider and fairer sterns in short order, while maintains an element of choice. Choice being a factor missing from today’s rules.
While the outcomes of such changes cannot ever be accurately predicted, cause and effect is highly influential in a formula like IOR. The simple removal of the penalty on stability would have quickly allowed designers to create lighter boats as stability could have been found in low cg keels rather than hull form and brute overall weight. In turn lighter and more powerful boats would have pointed the way to fuller sterns.
But the ITC very systematically destroyed these arguments as unworkable and felt IMS was a much more effective way of achieving the same outcomes. In fairness to the ITC a number of designers, including RobHumphries - a member of the ITC board at the time - had IMS designs our racing that did showcase the rule rather well. But this was to be a short lived moment.
And so the ITC policy was set at that fateful November meeting in 1988. The two rules would run in parallel while the anomalies inherent in the VPP driven IMS were sorted out and a new era of dual purpose offshore racers would begin.
Work would continue on the development of IOR, but with non of the suggested fundamental changes implemented. A MK IV Rule was duly drafted, but few in authority, had any real enthusiasm for it. As far as they were concerned IOR was dying and IMS was the new kid on the block to be nurtured.
In an earlier attempt by the ITC to be more inclusive of heavier, more cruising orientated boats an IOR MK IIIa was introduced, but this backfired spectacularly when Bruce Farr, in particular, exploited the carelessly drafted rule by producing the heavier, but much longer Steinlager Whitbread Maxi in 1989. This amazing own goal of a rule amendment created by the ITC finally allowed the creation of the all conquering inshore Maxi Matador. Far from allowing the development of heavier, more fitted out boats, the IIIa Rule simply promoted heavier stripped out boats which in the case of the Maxi’s allowed them to effectively gain 3ft, or so, of unmeasured length. This was one of many misdirections the ITC took in trying to ‘protect’ the rule and it had a seriously deleterious effect on owner confidence.
But back to the ITC meetings of November 1988. I remember it like yesterday, Geoff Stagg’s final reaction to the ITC interagency. “We don’t really care what you do. Just give us any rule and we’ll go off and design winners for it.”
And that is precisely what happened. Within two years Farr had produced the ultimate Grand Prix IMS boat in the form of the 43 Gaucho. But it wasn’t the beginning of the new era predicted by the rule makers of elegance and internal comfort. Gaucho signalled a very different future. Her overhangs were very short, freeboard was high, the sheer line straight and the interior just as stripped as an IOR boat except for the introduction of a door on the ‘head’ compartment. Other required features like a galley and saloon table were treated as token gestures, expensively built in carbon. But much more significantly, in order for velocity predictions to work ‘accurately’ actual stability had to be measured. It wasn’t long before lead was being replaced by wood at the bottom of keels. Not exactly the promised land of wholesome cruiser racers envisioned by the rule makers.
But while IMS continued to be promoted as the solution to ‘fair’ global offshore yacht racing IOR struggled on, shouldering virtually all of the blame for declining racing fleets
I remember talking to Olin (Stephens) about it all. He was very sanguine - perhaps even a little surprised by the way IOR had developed, but ever the enthusiast for a mathematical solution he liked the theories behind IMS and perhaps felt that the apparent shortcomings in the IOR could be addressed more effectively by the overarching qualities of IMS. It was a mathematically based theory, that wasn’t born out in practice.
With the advantage of a 21st century perspective and taking into account yacht racing developments since the death of IOR in 1994, would keeping IOR been better for the sport as a whole? In terms of continuity and preventing the explosion of multiple, fleet sapping alternative classes, it would assuredly been beneficial. But it did need a major shot in the arm at the end of the eighties to reassure an ever more cynical owner base that their worries were being addressed.
In the rarefied atmosphere of Whitbread sponsored global racing, Bruce Farr, once again, showed the way. As IOR lay on its deathbed - an outcome accelerated by clumsy attempts to update events like the Admiral’s Cup with the proposed introduction of one designs and IMS handicapping - Farr, in tandem with the foresight, of the Whitbread race committee who allowed asymmetric spinnakers to be flown, discarded the ‘heavy’ design route he had produced with Steinlager and produced a new Maxi design that was some 7,500kgs lighter. This much lighter design was a great deal quicker around the world and potentially showed a new beginning for lightweight IOR racers. Sadly, however, these three Farr ketches, La Poste, Merit Cup and New Zealand Endeavour where one of the last throws of the dice for IOR.
But back to theorising about where IOR could have led in design terms. Would keeping a highly modified version of the rule have kept ocean racing on its feet? Would it have prevented the almost total demise of classic events like the Ton Cups, The Admiral’s Cup, The Kenwood, the Southern Cross, the Onion Patch, the SORC? Who knows? Maybe it was all about economics or personal time management, but, what I do know, is that the defining legacy of IOR was its success at global continuity in offshore racing. To have made the decision to ditch this in favour of a hugely more flawed IMS was a grave mistake.
Would a boat designed to an updated version of IOR as suggested back in 1988 at the ITC meetings evolved into something equivalent to today’s high performance designs as typified by the IRC racers, TP 52’s and Fast 40’s? Yes. Is the simple answer. Advances in lightweight construction, appendage design, carbon spars would have all contributed hugely, but the biggest single factor effecting overall design and concept would have been the removal of measured stability. Just as is the case today, boats would not have become more stable, but would simply have become significantly lighter and capable of carrying larger rigs effectively. These are the primary elements driving the high performance in today’s designs.
To have arrived at this point in the genesis of the offshore yacht within the IOR style framework would have resulted in far more fleet continuity across the globe and possibly allowed the major offshore championships to survive the various financial challenges and rule uncertainties that killed them off.
IT’S NOT EASY TO PICK A SINGLE PICTURE THAT REPRESENTS THE ENTIRE IOR ERA FROM 1970 to 1994, BUT THIS PICTURE OF THE JUDEL/VROLIJK 50 CONTAINER COMES FROM A HIGH POINT OF THE RULE WHEN FLEETS WERE HUGE AND THERE WAS ENORMOUS VARIETY OF DESIGN FROM A MULTITUDE OF DESIGNERS.
 

Little long winded 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, hobot said:

Do my eyes decieve me, are both runners on?

Since nobody is remotely on the rail, I'd assume that they are preparing to tack, so have taken in all the slack on the leeward runner

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Weyalan said:

Since nobody is remotely on the rail, I'd assume that they are preparing to tack, so have taken in all the slack on the leeward runner

Maybe. But the sails appear to be considerably eased as if close reaching. Could be reaching for the top mark but nothing is in launch position. I say they are in cruise, or pre-start, or photo-op, mode. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, longy said:

Wylie 'Hawkfarm"

Almost certainly.

I saw one for sale in one of the West Coast Craigslists just this afternoon.

Looked reasonably well cared for - but I can't remember which city it was advertised in.

Edit:  just found the ad - looks like it is in Sausalito:https://sfbay.craigslist.org/nby/boa/d/sausalito-wylie-28/7270317669.html

Okay, condition not quite as good as I initially thought, but not bad either

01515_jgTGuN3wYHw_0lM0t2_1200x900.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, boatcat65 said:

Interesting history- cut and paste from the IOR Landfills FB page:

THE DEATH OF THE IOR
“Why did the IOR die?” The answer is surprisingly simple and has little to do with economic downturns, crazy, escalating costs or the perception that the boats were unseaworthy and slow.
The very people, the members of the International Technical Committee (ITC), who were tasked to protect and develop the rule for the benefit of the owners signed the death warrant some six years before the beast was finally deemed extinct. It wasn’t a deliberate act, by any means, it was just kind of allowed to happen as interests grew in the development of a new ‘super’ rule that would cure all the ‘ills’ of offshore handicapping. It was called IMS. The International Measurement System.
IMS was very much an American based initiative formulated by a burgeoning interest in the power of computers as envisioned by ‘idealists’ at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). This belief in a ‘perfect’ system filtered into the ITC who then increasingly believed that IMS could replace IOR as THE rule for Grand Prix Offshore Racing. At a stroke IMS was perceived as a handicapping system that would allow the return of ‘wholesome’ cruiser racers to the Grand Prix level.
And so the scene was set for a showdown between the two rules. Funnily enougH, however, this ‘conflict’ largely took place behind closed doors - the closed doors of the International Technical Committee. This erstwhile Group of designers and boffins had done a reasonable job of helping to develop the original, Olin Stephens/Dick Carter/ van de Stadt created Mk 1 IOR, into an ever more complex Mk III IOR. They had dealt with the slings and arrows of ‘cat’ rigs, unballasted daggerboards, extreme overhangs, bumps, chines and many other rule dodgers thrown at it by a vast army of new, young designers. The rule really was the ultimate mathematical, but organic and holistic challenge imaginable and so it required a lot of policing and an awful lot of tweaking.
At the annual ITC meeting always held in November and euphemistically called The November Meetings informal submissions were invited from the ‘floor’ for what would eventually become IOR mk IV. But the minds of the powers that be were elsewhere. Despite impassioned pleas from designers including Tony Castro, Geoff Stagg, representing Bruce Farr, the Dubois office, myself and several owners to use IOR as the ‘baseline’ for producing more user friendly designs, the ITC elected to promote IMS as the rule for the future. Gary Mull, chairman of the ITC at this time, seemed to be heavily influenced by a growing love affair from American designers, like Dave Pedrick, Bill Tripp and the ‘scientist’ Jerry Milgram, with IMS. Together they envisioned a new breed of fair hulled, moderate designs, with great stability, proper cockpits and fitted out interiors.
The IOR Mk IV, proposed from the audience at the 1988 November meetings promulgated similar outcomes, but utilising the proven and robust linear formulas of IOR rather than the largely unknown reliance on unproven Velocity Predictions inherent in the IMS formula.
In the proposed revisions to IOR, stability would be unmeasured getting rid, at a stoke, of the dreaded Centre of Gravity Factor - a measurement fraught with inaccuracies and held largely responsible for producing unstable boats and ones overly dependent on crew weight on the rail. CGF was also directly responsible for such undesirable idiosyncrasies as beam waterline bumps.
Gone too would be the ubiquitous 150 percent overlap on headsails which gave unrated sail area. This change would have opened the door to the development of non overlap rigs.
The accursed creases and distortions around the aft girth measurements was to be addressed also. One simple suggestion was to rule out any form of reverse inflection in the aft profile. The days of the bustle were virtually over anyway and of course all of our proposed rule changes could be easily ‘grandfathered’ to prevent the existing fleet suffering too much. In reality small changes to the aft girth stations and most particularly the girth differences between inner and outer girth stations would have produced fuller, wider and fairer sterns in short order, while maintains an element of choice. Choice being a factor missing from today’s rules.
While the outcomes of such changes cannot ever be accurately predicted, cause and effect is highly influential in a formula like IOR. The simple removal of the penalty on stability would have quickly allowed designers to create lighter boats as stability could have been found in low cg keels rather than hull form and brute overall weight. In turn lighter and more powerful boats would have pointed the way to fuller sterns.
But the ITC very systematically destroyed these arguments as unworkable and felt IMS was a much more effective way of achieving the same outcomes. In fairness to the ITC a number of designers, including RobHumphries - a member of the ITC board at the time - had IMS designs our racing that did showcase the rule rather well. But this was to be a short lived moment.
And so the ITC policy was set at that fateful November meeting in 1988. The two rules would run in parallel while the anomalies inherent in the VPP driven IMS were sorted out and a new era of dual purpose offshore racers would begin.
Work would continue on the development of IOR, but with non of the suggested fundamental changes implemented. A MK IV Rule was duly drafted, but few in authority, had any real enthusiasm for it. As far as they were concerned IOR was dying and IMS was the new kid on the block to be nurtured.
In an earlier attempt by the ITC to be more inclusive of heavier, more cruising orientated boats an IOR MK IIIa was introduced, but this backfired spectacularly when Bruce Farr, in particular, exploited the carelessly drafted rule by producing the heavier, but much longer Steinlager Whitbread Maxi in 1989. This amazing own goal of a rule amendment created by the ITC finally allowed the creation of the all conquering inshore Maxi Matador. Far from allowing the development of heavier, more fitted out boats, the IIIa Rule simply promoted heavier stripped out boats which in the case of the Maxi’s allowed them to effectively gain 3ft, or so, of unmeasured length. This was one of many misdirections the ITC took in trying to ‘protect’ the rule and it had a seriously deleterious effect on owner confidence.
But back to the ITC meetings of November 1988. I remember it like yesterday, Geoff Stagg’s final reaction to the ITC interagency. “We don’t really care what you do. Just give us any rule and we’ll go off and design winners for it.”
And that is precisely what happened. Within two years Farr had produced the ultimate Grand Prix IMS boat in the form of the 43 Gaucho. But it wasn’t the beginning of the new era predicted by the rule makers of elegance and internal comfort. Gaucho signalled a very different future. Her overhangs were very short, freeboard was high, the sheer line straight and the interior just as stripped as an IOR boat except for the introduction of a door on the ‘head’ compartment. Other required features like a galley and saloon table were treated as token gestures, expensively built in carbon. But much more significantly, in order for velocity predictions to work ‘accurately’ actual stability had to be measured. It wasn’t long before lead was being replaced by wood at the bottom of keels. Not exactly the promised land of wholesome cruiser racers envisioned by the rule makers.
But while IMS continued to be promoted as the solution to ‘fair’ global offshore yacht racing IOR struggled on, shouldering virtually all of the blame for declining racing fleets
I remember talking to Olin (Stephens) about it all. He was very sanguine - perhaps even a little surprised by the way IOR had developed, but ever the enthusiast for a mathematical solution he liked the theories behind IMS and perhaps felt that the apparent shortcomings in the IOR could be addressed more effectively by the overarching qualities of IMS. It was a mathematically based theory, that wasn’t born out in practice.
With the advantage of a 21st century perspective and taking into account yacht racing developments since the death of IOR in 1994, would keeping IOR been better for the sport as a whole? In terms of continuity and preventing the explosion of multiple, fleet sapping alternative classes, it would assuredly been beneficial. But it did need a major shot in the arm at the end of the eighties to reassure an ever more cynical owner base that their worries were being addressed.
In the rarefied atmosphere of Whitbread sponsored global racing, Bruce Farr, once again, showed the way. As IOR lay on its deathbed - an outcome accelerated by clumsy attempts to update events like the Admiral’s Cup with the proposed introduction of one designs and IMS handicapping - Farr, in tandem with the foresight, of the Whitbread race committee who allowed asymmetric spinnakers to be flown, discarded the ‘heavy’ design route he had produced with Steinlager and produced a new Maxi design that was some 7,500kgs lighter. This much lighter design was a great deal quicker around the world and potentially showed a new beginning for lightweight IOR racers. Sadly, however, these three Farr ketches, La Poste, Merit Cup and New Zealand Endeavour where one of the last throws of the dice for IOR.
But back to theorising about where IOR could have led in design terms. Would keeping a highly modified version of the rule have kept ocean racing on its feet? Would it have prevented the almost total demise of classic events like the Ton Cups, The Admiral’s Cup, The Kenwood, the Southern Cross, the Onion Patch, the SORC? Who knows? Maybe it was all about economics or personal time management, but, what I do know, is that the defining legacy of IOR was its success at global continuity in offshore racing. To have made the decision to ditch this in favour of a hugely more flawed IMS was a grave mistake.
Would a boat designed to an updated version of IOR as suggested back in 1988 at the ITC meetings evolved into something equivalent to today’s high performance designs as typified by the IRC racers, TP 52’s and Fast 40’s? Yes. Is the simple answer. Advances in lightweight construction, appendage design, carbon spars would have all contributed hugely, but the biggest single factor effecting overall design and concept would have been the removal of measured stability. Just as is the case today, boats would not have become more stable, but would simply have become significantly lighter and capable of carrying larger rigs effectively. These are the primary elements driving the high performance in today’s designs.
To have arrived at this point in the genesis of the offshore yacht within the IOR style framework would have resulted in far more fleet continuity across the globe and possibly allowed the major offshore championships to survive the various financial challenges and rule uncertainties that killed them off.
IT’S NOT EASY TO PICK A SINGLE PICTURE THAT REPRESENTS THE ENTIRE IOR ERA FROM 1970 to 1994, BUT THIS PICTURE OF THE JUDEL/VROLIJK 50 CONTAINER COMES FROM A HIGH POINT OF THE RULE WHEN FLEETS WERE HUGE AND THERE WAS ENORMOUS VARIETY OF DESIGN FROM A MULTITUDE OF DESIGNERS.
 

Well written, and an interesting perspective, but maybe not 100% accurate.  It fails to mention MHS, the precursor to IMS, which did indeed from the early to late 80s seem to indeed fairly rate a range of more wholesome cruisers along with most of the "early" IOR boats.  It also doesn't mention the fact that the late MHS/early IMS rule encouraged boats such as the Hinckley 42 Competition models designed in 1982 specifically to race under MHS/IMS.  Certainly the Hinckley was a "wholesome cruiser"

Not that I'm not a fan of the IOR, I am, but I'm not sure the IOR mark IV wouldn't have ended up in the same place as IMS.  It was owners, seeking to win at any cost, that spelled the end of each rule IMHO.

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

Interestingly enough, that link has a post by Fred Shueddekopp who apparently either owns or has an interest in Wall Street Duck.  I remember Fred from about 35 years ago.  Didn't know he is in Anacortes now.  Anyway, this is what he had to say about her current condition:

As noted previously I have the Wall Street Duck in Anacortes WA. Many of you know this Schumacher 38 custom, quite successful in her days mostly in the Bay Area of California. There have been many comments about her condition, some true some greatly exaggerated. The good is that the hull, keel, bulkheads and basic structure are all good. Due to some unattended holes in the deck and improper blocking/storage some of the balsa cored deck will need replacing. Not difficult especially with today’s bagging techniques for any competent yard. Currently with Jim Betts also known to Dennis Choate who originally built her. Complete with rig and some sails. I was supposed to be retired by now with enough time and funds to assist in the restoration but things have changed. I would like to see the boat back out on the water some day to honor Carl. Feel free to contact me if you’re interested, thanks, Fred
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any way to recycle the materials after the boat is disposed of?  Something like ground down into something that can be used for other purposes?  Like old tires are chopped up and used in asphalt or rubber coatings, etc...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MauiPunter said:

Is there any way to recycle the materials after the boat is disposed of?  Something like ground down into something that can be used for other purposes?  Like old tires are chopped up and used in asphalt or rubber coatings, etc...

 

Lots of aluminum, and s.s. fittings on the Gauntlet waste. They can be recycled. The lead keel, mast, motor, etc.

The fiberglass hull, not so much. If ground up could become an additive to concrete. But, takes energy to grind up. 

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

Lots of aluminum, and s.s. fittings on the Gauntlet waste. They can be recycled. The lead keel, mast, motor, etc.

The fiberglass hull, not so much. If ground up could become an additive to concrete. But, takes energy to grind up. 

Actually they can grind the fiberglass down and it can become new car bodies among other purposes.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LordBooster said:
1 hour ago, ROADKILL666 said:

Seems to need some care. But nice!

Needs a heck of a lot more than "pressure washing." But if it really has a complete rig and a new engine, might be worth taking on to restore...

Pretty good boat, weren't those a Holland design?

FB- Doug

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

Needs a heck of a lot more than "pressure washing." But if it really has a complete rig and a new engine, might be worth taking on to restore...

Pretty good boat, weren't those a Holland design?

FB- Doug

Yes they were

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, LordBooster said:

Yes, certainly appears to be.  I’d imagine that a fair amount of the interior ply is rotted/starting to rot.  Looks like water in the bilge which means interior has been hot and humid...

there’s gotta be better ones than this around for not much more money

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Crash said:
51 minutes ago, LordBooster said:

Yes, certainly appears to be.  I’d imagine that a fair amount of the interior ply is rotted/starting to rot.  Looks like water in the bilge which means interior has been hot and humid...

there’s gotta be better ones than this around for not much more money 

Yep, sure looks right. And this isn't the mocking thread, but this one of those boats where "free" is actually a high price to pay for what you're getting.... other than the potential.

FB- Doug

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Crash said:

Yes, certainly appears to be.  I’d imagine that a fair amount of the interior ply is rotted/starting to rot.  Looks like water in the bilge which means interior has been hot and humid...

there’s gotta be better ones than this around for not much more money

Absolutely.

There was a Wylie 34 (another (3/4T) for sale in Seattle early last year.  Estate sale.  Good condition. Had basically unused 3 year old Quantum upwind inventory.  Modified with a custom Andrews bulb keel and Riptide 35 (Bieker) rudder.  10 year old Ballenger mast.

Asking $9900 and had been on the market for over 6 months.  They countered my offer at $7500.  However being Boat Show time I was preoccupied with that so by the time I accepted their counter a week later, the boat had sold.  

Only downside was it had a dead 2GM which at least partially explained the low asking price.  Fortunately I have a good 2GMF on hand, so should have been an easy swap out for me.  Not sure if that would have been the case for the eventual buyers - I sure hope they didn't do the dreaded easy fix of "lets just strap an outboard onto her back end".

Still kicking myself over missing out on that one.

00P0P_kONQT0njE8o_1200x900.jpg

00d0d_lBHuC9V63dP_1200x900.jpg

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites