Heavy sailboats : Can they point ?

Discussion in 'Sailboats' started by xarax, Sep 28, 2004.

  1. 249

    249 Guest

    Re "My message concerned the eventual building of heavier sailboats today, using either authentic old hull designs, or some evolutions of them. I understand that such boat would not qualify for any kind of age allowances, contrarily to real oldies, or antiques, which would obviously ruin their chances of winning, whatever they might have been.

    Sorry, but you are wrong. A boat's various age allowances under IRC, IOR and (where applicable) IMS are all based on the date on which the boat was designed, NOT the date on which it was built.

    This is confirmed by published rule data and by personal conversations with people such as a member of the international committee of ISAF's ORC. This has been the case at least since 1972 in some areas.


    Re "heavier boats have much slower and gentler roll and pitch movements because of higher giradius and lower metacentric height, that'is basic physics. Obviously, because their pitch is slower, they are also weter because they don't climb waves as quickly. I thank you for this precision which was not detailed in my message. I don't think it changes the general meaning of my sentence."

    Often, I think, you'll find the greater gyradius of heavily constructed boats gives them a greater amplititude of pitch, as well. Some of us find that larger motion more of a problem than faster motion. Secondly, some of us would rather be on a fast-moving foredeck than a slower-moving one under a couple of feet of green water.

    However, it all remains a personal choice based on one's own preferences, one's own nimbleness, one's own resistance to motion and seasickness, once's own preference (ie it's similar to the way some people like a firm suspension on a car, others like a wallowing softer ride).


    Re "A was caught in a SW gale in Irish Sea with a modern serial Finot design, and I can testify that the boat went actually backwards in spite of our best efforts to get some distance upwind from the Irish coast. I was not killed in the incident because our navigation was precise and we could find a shelter downwind in spite of the gale. I understand that a great many boat sank on the Irish coast out of similar problems."

    Ok, I don't know which Finot and I don't know how it was being sailed and how it was equipped. I can't comment onthe "great many boats" because I am not aware of a "great many boats" hitting lee shores in Ireland.

    In fact, I can't recall a single boat, modern or otherwise, that has been driven onto a lee shore unless there was a navigation problem involved. Maybe one of the instances in Adlard Coles' Heavy Weather Sailing was such.


    re "This issue is supposed to be very well known (there is an ample litterature on it...)"

    Where? Who wrote it and what is their experience in modern boats and where is their evidence?


    Re "and in the 30' or 50', it was "the" big argument in favor of double-enders (Colin Archer type...) which were considered as having a distinctive advantage in those kind of circumstances."

    As one famous old sailor of the '30s wrote, "a Colin Archer goes to windward like a cow in a bog". The first Colin Archer to cruise out here was lost on a lee shore when it failed to tack. That boat (Erling Tambs' Teddy) was sailed by a former merchant seaman.

    Tambs' replacement Colin Archer (Sandjeford) was later (IIRC) rolled end for end in the Atlantic with the reported loss of a crewman. So the Colin Archer style doesn't do very well if we are merely picking out isolated examples (like your Finot).

    OK, the Colin Archer type may have been better upwind than other boats of its vintage. That doesn't mean it's better upwind in a gale than a modern boat.


    re "Furthermore I remind you I was speaking of saving lives, not of racing...."

    Going to windward fast and effectively is going to windward fast and effectively, no matter why you are doing it.


    Re "Again, I was speaking of real gale, for instance in Irish sea, where myself and all the serious people I know would simply not consider racing any more."


    Well, that depends on what you consider "a real gale" and what you call "serious people". In the 1998 Hobart, where 6 lives were lost (3 of them from a long-keeled heavy displacement boat) and seas were measured by rescue services radar altimeters as something like 60 feet and extremely steep, people I know basically kept on racing.

    These guys are perhaps more serious than you. One of those who I was quoting also kept racing throughout the 1979 Fastnet (on which his boat was on the winning AC team)....would that gale (which pushed the Dutch ffrigate Isseljmeeer over to about 10 degrees from a capsize, which killed people ashore, which killed about 9 sailors) be enough for you? Very, very few people kept on racing, but he and his crew did. So did another guy I recently referred to in a similar thread IIRC.

    The lesson is clear - a survival gale in the Irish Sea which killed 9 others was not enough to stop a couple of the guys I have recently referred to from racing.

    In fact the 1998 Hobart was a storm force, well beyond a mere gale, yet these guys kept on racing. The 2000 Hobart wasn't a bad gale, but it was enough to damage the heavy displacement Sunstone and knock around the Volvo boats so much that they had to delay their next leg. Maybe you wouldn't be sailing in conditions that put Volvo boats down to storm trysail?


    re "I insist that, generaly speaking, heavier boat can escape upwind better thant light boat whenever needed."


    If that is right, the heavy boat would be able to "escape better" by being faster upwind in extreme conditions - but those who are among the world's most experienced offshore racers do not agree with you.


    Re "Some boats sink due to different reasons. I guess that absence of understanding about real issues has always been a major reason and will always be."

    Again, the men lost aboard that boat were extremely experienced, with many, many thousands of miles of offshore experience; probably well over 100,000 miles counting their Sydcney-Hobarts alone. Do you really think that such men didn't understand the real issues? The boat had been renovated at great expense. I was at the inquest, there was no proof that there had been shortcomings in the renovation.



    Re "In Europe many sailors lost they lives because their boats were pushed on rocks by gales on Irish or Norvegian coasts for instance. We often feel more concerned by this kind of issues than to know the upwind capabilities of boats in heavy air races.....If you pal's new boat wasn't getting a better rating allowance vs real speed than his older one, I guess he wouldn't have bought it. I don't think it might prove anyting, either way......I don' see many similarities between, say late 12 meters, and "classic" double-enders like Archer's or Francis Herreshoff, I was speaking of. Furthermore I spoke of saving lifes, not of being competitive."

    The point is that heavy-air races (and again, I'm talking races where storm force conditions, not just gales, are experienced) prove that modern raceboats go upwind BETTER than older boats.

    Do you think no-one else has lee shores? Look at a map. See where the Southern Ocean, the only uninterrupted area of ocean, is. See where the shores of the Southern Ocean lap. It's here.

    In this case I mentioned, the 1998 Hobart (remember, storm force winds, severe wind against current, 6 lives lost, 60' measured waves....not fun) the classic former heavy S&S boat was much less efficient at going upwind than it's first owners current light Farr IMS racer. It doesn't matter whether you are trying to get off a lee shore or win a race, upwind performance is upwind performance.


    Re "did you really write: "...age allowance ...plus modern construction...". Didn't you notice there was some kind of problem asking for both in the same boat ?"

    No, there is NO problem asking for both in the same boat. You are even allowed to put a new rig, new keel, new rudder on a newly-launched version of an old design built in new materials. You still get all or much (depending on the rule) of the age allowance, unless you modify the hull shape.

    My boat, for example, gets 1968 age allowance because that's when she was designed. She was built after that, she has a new rig, a new rudder (lightweight foam instead of steel), and is getting a re-worked keel. She will still get full IRC age allowance unless I mess with the hull shape.

    As I mentioned, this was confirmed by personal discussions with people like the manager of the RORC rating office, the national IRC co-ordinator, and a former committee member of teh ISAF's top relevant body (the owner of Sunstone).
     
  2. OrionsSword
    Joined: Nov 2004
    Posts: 20
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Canada

    OrionsSword i dont know

    I guess one of the reason they do not get more attention (and immitations...)today, is that cruiser designs of the time were a bit slow in light winds, and it might seem odd to try building replications of old racers while saying that they have no chance to win a race, at least by current practice.

    looks much more like a marketing issues, than a technical ones..[/QUOTE]

    One thing to add in here is that a very good reason for not making replicas of old boats no matter gentile they are on the eyes or to sail is the advancement of technology if all we did was to build using old designs instead of learning from them then we would not have the wondrous and crazy sailing apperati (i wont call them boats) known to the americas cup.

    Orion
     
  3. Lda
    Joined: Sep 2004
    Posts: 15
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: FRANCE

    Lda Junior Member

    I won't discuss with you any more about racing antique boats in gales because I consider that for any sensible mind, it is crazy cowboy behaviour in no way related to seamanship.


    I won't either give you list of the great many sailing ship or boat pushed on lee shores by gales in Europe, I have a book on my shelf with a long list of them #150 years ago, and you can add a few yachts every year just reading French newspapers.


    I can tell you however, that if you really believe that :

    ".....You are even allowed to put a new rig, new keel, new rudder on a newly-launched version of an old design built in new materials...."

    for "antique" boats (that is pre-1930), then you are clearly defrauding the rules (wich doesn't realy surprise me in this case...), because European rules (IRC/IRM) pay attention to the "design date" of a boat only if it is a serial or class boat, that is a boat built with the same tooling as some others older ones, and provided that the considered "design date" is not older than the fabrication date of the tooling that was used ("molds").
    Considering that Herreshoff 40', or like, molds have been destructed years ago, I see no honest way you could ask for such an allowance with a new boat, even if it is a perfect copy of an antique hull.
    By the way, I have seen 2 years ago in Enkhuisen Expo a very precise recreation of a famous Dutch racing boat of the 50'. As far as I know, the guys who sail it never considered asking for age allowance. Guess they aren't cow boys.
     
  4. 249

    249 Guest

    re "I won't discuss with you any more about racing antique boats in gales because I consider that for any sensible mind, it is crazy cowboy behaviour in no way related to seamanship."

    Hmm, nice one....rather than provide information or discussion, you accuse many sailors who are probably much more experienced than you of not havng sensible minds and being crazy cowboys.


    Re "I won't either give you list of the great many sailing ship or boat pushed on lee shores by gales in Europe, I have a book on my shelf with a long list of them #150 years ago."

    Ok, so 150 years ago boats were pushed onto lee shores in gales - but how does that mean that modern boats are worse at going to windward in a gale, which is what you claimed.

    How can you use facts which prove that boats of 150 years ago couldn't go upwind well in gales, to prove that modern boats are worse at going upwind in gales?

    I don't know about the French boats that get driven onto lee shores. It doesn't happen here.


    re "I can tell you however, that if you really believe that :

    ".....You are even allowed to put a new rig, new keel, new rudder on a newly-launched version of an old design built in new materials...."

    for "antique" boats (that is pre-1930), then you are clearly defrauding the rules (wich doesn't realy surprise me in this case...), because European rules (IRC/IRM) pay attention to the "design date" of a boat only if it is a serial or class boat, that is a boat built with the same tooling as some others older ones, and provided that the considered "design date" is not older than the fabrication date of the tooling that was used ("molds")."

    On what do you base that claim? The published IRC rules refer to "Series Date" as being "The year in which the first boat of the class or production series was launched." to quote from the rule pdf.

    Or check "Offshore Yachting" magazine's article on the IRC, April/May 2001 edition. The article was prepared on information from Malcolm Runnells, the Australian national IRC co-ordinator, and was fully checked by Mike Unwin of the RORC rating office, head administrator of IRC, prior to publication.

    On page 20, it says that "the series date is the year in which the first boat of the class or production series was launched. The Age Date is the year in which the boat was launched, or the latest year in which modifications to the hull were made. YOU CAN ALTER THE SAILPLAN, THE KEEL AND THE RUDDER WITHOUT ALTERING THE AGE DATE, but any modifications to the hull LINES will reduce the rating benefit.....these dates are used to calculate the age allowance".

    Simply put, a newly-launched version of (say) a Laurent Giles Brittany class would get the Series Date of the first boat of that class. There is NOTHING in the rules which says that it has to be off the same set of moulds and of course there cannot be - Farr 727s made in Germany are off a different set of moulds to Farr 727s built in Western Australia, the USA and New Zealand. My boat has a "Series Date" of 1968 despite the fact that none of the wooden examples of the class were built on the same moulds; in fact my design didn't USE wooden moulds (Spencer boats were built on their own frames).

    A carbon fibre Brittany would get the same SERIES DATE as the rest of the Brittany class. It would get a lower AGE DATE which would reduce the overall "age allowance". It would also get a different rating in the "hull material" area, so it would NOT be cheating anyone as it is CLEARLY allowable.

    In IMS, last time I chcked there was no age date, just a series date.

    This is CLEARLY what I said when I wrote in an earlier post "You are even allowed to put a new rig, new keel, new rudder on a newly-launched version of an old design built in new materials. You still get all or much (depending on the rule) of the age allowance, unless you modify the hull shape.....my boat, for example, gets 1968 age allowance because that's when she was designed. She was built after that, she has a new rig, a new rudder (lightweight foam instead of steel), and is getting a re-worked keel. She will still get full IRC age allowance unless I mess with the hull shape."


    SO.............what I said is confirmed by an article that was cleared for publication by one of the top men in the entire IRC scheme.

    Yet you first told me I was wrong (despite being unable to provide any evidence) not you have the nerve to say "you are clearly defrauding the rules (which doesn't realy surprise me in this case...". How DARE you attempt to say that I am defrauding any rules. I have NEVER been disqualified in a lifetime of racing, including many championship wins. I do NOT cheat.

    The precedent regarding age allowance and allowable modifications is extremely clear, and dates back to 1972 here in Australia. It has been set out numerous times in print, in magazines and in the official rules. Rule-makers have said that it is GOOD to allow people to update rigs and foils and still get age allowance, because it allows them to maximise performance and get better control with modern foils. They have SPECIFICALLY mentioned the fact that you are free to update foils and rigs on an older boat without losing the age allowance and it is COMMON and ACCEPTED.

    How do you think I feel, having never done anything more than follow the OFFICIAL rules and REGULAR policy and then having you call me a fraud....I think it's rather low of you, frankly.

    PS - my boat is actually currently rated under a different rule. I get ALL my old age allowance despite the modifications which have been fully declared. I DO get a penalty for the lighter weight of the rudder (measured in displacement) and for having a spade rudder rather than a skeg. DON'T YOU DARE IMPLY THAT I AM A FRAUD!



    wouldn't surprise you that I
     
  5. 249

    249 Guest

    About me

    Tue progression would be 248 but I have to go one further. Who am I?

    I know dangerously little about sail boats.
    I am a Mouth.
    I was spoilt rotten as a child and have no manners.

    My partner won't marry me because I am such a prat.

    I am a fraud. I never reveal who I am and I make up most of my acheivments. I also make up the anecdotal stuff that I dish up as fact I know I do this beacause I never give any references.

    I hate people who like real sailing and I raced a dinghy once and read a magazine so now I'm an expert and I can tell everyone that they are wrong.

    How dare you say I'm not a Prat.

    I won every prat contest all the way thru school. Now I want to be the main PRAT of the boat forum.

    I just have to go kiss my reflection.

    I think I must have a split personality cause I am not writing this I am.

    I probably made a lot of this up too

    I know who I am................ shall I go on?
     
  6. dreamer
    Joined: Nov 2004
    Posts: 311
    Likes: 12, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 188
    Location: Minnesota, USA

    dreamer Soñadora

    Getting back to the original question posted months ago...

    I own a 30' boat considered heavy for a 30 footer (~13,000 lbs). She has a long full keel and attached rudder. Our former boat was a fin keel, tall-rig 22' Capri. While there's no question that the Capri was much more sporty, our Baba 30 points surprisingly well in anything above 5 knots. Under 5 knots, it's a crapshoot.

    She's a true cutter rig (as opposed to a rig with an added inner stay) and flying full sail seems to get us almost as close as our Capri 22. Of course, getting this close to the wind takes some distance, but once our momentum is up we can tighten sail and our 'heavy' boat becomes very responsive. We ran down a fin keeled, spade rudder 30 footer in 10-12 knots and shot right past them. I think the crew on that boat was particularly unskilled (which is not to say we are particularly skilled), but it nevertheless felt good!

    On the comfort side of things, there's no question that a heavy boat is an advantage. In our Capri 22, stinkpot wake would knock us to a temporary halt. On our Baba, she just bashes right through with nary a shudder.

    I'm not an engineer nor do I play one on TV. All I know is what I perceive. I've talked with other Baba owners as well as Robert Perry regarding this and the perception of these boats is that they sail better than they look like they would. For the type of sailing that we (and many other families) do, a properly designed 'heavy' boat can provide a good mix of comfort and performance.
     
  7. mattotoole
    Joined: Nov 2004
    Posts: 200
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 13
    Location: Potomac MD, USA

    mattotoole Senior Member

    There's no reason a heavy boat can't point. The problem with heavy boats is that most of them are old designs, and suffering from things like inefficient keels, excess wetted area, etc. Old rigs weren't necessarily efficient either.

    A modern boat could be built heavy, with an efficient keel and rig, and kick butt upwind. They just don't build 'em that way, because no one wants heavy boats anymore. If they do, it's usually because of a pirate ship fetish, and those people are buying style, not performance.

    There is something to be said for mass when it comes to bashing upwind through a chop. Light boats get stopped dead, their bows get blown around, etc. Because of this, two fairly heavy boats I've sailed, the Folkboat and Bristol Channel cutter, both go upwind very well (VMG!) in heavy chop, draggy full keels notwithstanding. They just plow on through like a locomotive. So I understand what you're talking about with your Baba 30.
     
  8. 249

    249 Guest

    OK, someone pretended to be me. Can I reply with the following;

    Re "I was spoilt rotten as a child and have no manners."

    I'm sorry, someone accussed me of being fraudulent. Am I supposed to just take that lying down when nothing I said was remotely fraudulent or against the rules?

    How is is that I am accused of having no manners when others accused me of being a fraud- and that was there ONLY defence against getting their facts wrong.

    Re "I am a fraud. I never reveal who I am"

    OK, my name is Chris, I'm from Leichhardt, Australia. Is that enough revealing for you? Do you want my full name, date of birth and credit card numbers?


    re "and I make up most of my acheivments."

    No, if you must know my achievements include;

    winning the J/24 nationals in 1980 (boat Kurindi II, skipper John Cassidy, location RPAYC Pittwater. Second placegetter John Savage, 2 time Etchell worlds winner). I don't know how I can prove this - do you want me to send you the trophy?

    4th, Hardy Cup (former national "champion of champions" trophy as crew. Can't recall the year. Again, I can't send you any proof. Sorry.

    1st, 1998/88 (IIRC) Laser Radial NSW title, Masters and Overall. That's on the net, under the NSW and ACT District Laser Masters title (my boat name was HECS, number plain 16 since it was a brand-new sail and I had no time to put all the numbers on). Second was the 3 time Masters world champ Adam French, 3rd Sean Kirkjian (4th in Open worlds). Regatta conduced at Gosford NSW.

    To give just one offshore result, only a minor one - winner Plum CrazyTrophy, Sydney-Hobart 2000 (my 5th Hobart). I'm on the front page of the Hobart Mercury newspaper with the rest of the crew. There were two Chris' in the crew, I'm the skinnier one.

    I have many other results (second in several nationals, winner of other state titles). I don't like putting this up, but when my honesty is attacked what else can I do?


    "I also make up the anecdotal stuff that I dish up as fact I know I do this because I never give any references."

    I have given a reference to the IRC story. The Martin Renilson info from the AMC tank tests are (I think) available on the 'net under the various references for the NSW Coroner's report into the 1998 Hobart. I am fairly well known as former editor of 3 sailing and windsurfing magazines. The information on the two highly experienced Sydney-Hobart veterans came from Syd Fisher (owner of various "Ragamuffins") and Lou Abrahams (owner of Odin, Vittoria, Challenge, Ultimate Challenge etc). I interviewed them about 2 years ago for an article I never finished.

    The owner of Sunstone, another reference I gave, is easy to identify considering he regularly writes for international magazines, is a former ORC council member, etc. I sailed Sunstone in the 2001 Australian offshore champs. Is that enough detail for you?

    Is that enough for however is slandering me? Where are YOUR references? Is this the guy who had "books on his shelf" which he could not bother to identify? Is this the guy who had talked to guys at a boat show who didn't mentioin they had got age allowance (not that he asked.....)


    Re "I hate people who like real sailing and I raced a dinghy once and read a magazine so now I'm an expert and I can tell everyone that they are wrong."

    Yes, I have raced a dinghy; and won state offshore titles, national titles, state dinghy titles, etc, done 5 Hobarts, 2 1080 mile Sydney-Noumeas.

    I was just responding to people who told me that THEY were experts and that THEY were wrong. Someone here (I won't name names) called me a fraud when I referred to perfectly legal practises.

    I think I know who you are....you can't argue with facts so you unjustly smear character.

    Well, however wrote the post I'm responding to is a coward who smears people, who comes up with ******** and can't provide facts and who hides under a pseudonym and will not provide anything like the detail I have provided.
     
  9. 249

    249 Guest

    PS sorry for the bad typing.
     
  10. xarax

    xarax Previous Member

    Sorry, but I don t understand what produces a storm of words...Let us keep a civilized exchange of letters and save our agressiveness for the elements.
    Apart from experiences, I for one would like to know some theoretical explanation of the one or the other opinion. Theory not confirmed by experience is futile, but the opposite is also true. Can heavy sailboats point as well as light ones , or not? And WHY?
     
  11. Lda
    Joined: Sep 2004
    Posts: 15
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: FRANCE

    Lda Junior Member

    re"On what do you base that claim? The published IRC rules refer to "Series Date" as being "The year in which the first boat of the class or production series was launched." to quote from the rule pdf. "


    current published IRC rules can be read at :
    http://rorcrating.com/ir2000/irc/2004/IRCrule2004.pdf

    the only mention of "age" you can find in that document is (page 17) :
    "Age Date : the year in which the boat was first launched, or the year in which the boat was relaunched following modification, whichever is the later"

    In fact, IRC rule does not mention any kind of "Series Date", because there is no "Series Date" in IRC, only "Age Date" which refers to individual boat launch date and not to series launch dates which do not exist in that rule.
    I am bitterly surprised that you might have tried to "quote from the rule pdf." some piece of IRC regulation that simply does not exist. In Europe, we tend to consider that a fraud or a fraud attempt. I know that the "law of the west" sometimes acknowledge the rights of the guy with the biggest mouth (or the biggest gun ?).



    If you look at IRM rules, which is obviously not IRC, at :
    http://rorcrating.com/ir2000/irm/2004/IRMrule2004.pdf

    you will find (rule 36)
    "-36.1 Age Date is the date on which the boat was first launched, or the date on which the boat was re-launched following modification (see rules 36.2 and 40.4) whichever is the later. In the case of a class or production series Age Date is the date when the first boat of the class or series was launched.
    -36.2 Change to keel, rudder, deck or rig do not invalidate Age Date. Any modification to the hull below the sheer line shall invalidate the Age Date (see rules 40.4 and 40.5)
    -36.3 The age allowance defined in rule 49.3.1 will be reviewed annually"

    and (rule 49.3)
    "-49.3.1 IF AGE DATE BEFORE 1/1/2000 THEN AGE = 0.995
    ELSE AGE = 1.00"
    which means that you get age allowance equal to .5% of time for every boat more ancient than 1/1/2000 (be it 1/1/1900 or 31/12/1999...) and 0% for boats more recents.



    ---------------------------------------------------------


    ok I misread part of first pdf and "Series Date" is effectively a part of IRC index (which doesn't mean we might know what they are supposed to do with it...). This doesn't change the points you interrupted me upon, but it does change a few technical points in the conclusions of this message.
    I don't know if I'm supposed to apologise for my misreading or if I am supposed to appologise for answering you quickly (or for answering you at all, considering your general tune...).

    here are my updated conclusions for this particular point:


    -----------------------------------------------------------



    In IRM races, your boat would qualify for a .5% IRM age allowance, which doesn't depend in fact from an eventual IRM acknowledged series, because it is older than 1/1/2000 whatsoever.


    Considering a possible brand new carbon-copy of a 1900 boat, at first look, it seems it might qualify for a .5% IRM age allowance (the same as a 31/12/1999 boat...). In fact, this depends from the meaning of "boat class or series" as expressed in rule 36.1, which is not further explained in the text.

    According to recent decisions from IRM comitee, (including "http://rorcrating.com/ir2000/irm/dispens/02farr52.htm"), IRM position is that the significant date is the fabrication date of the production tooling that was used ("molds").
    According to this decision, later foreign productions of a boat should benefit from the initial "production boat" status even if they uses a new set of molds, if this new set has been produced with the original plugs and not with the original drawings or CAD models.
    As a consequence, the recreation of a brand new 1900 or 1950 boat out of original drawings, or hull measures of existing boats, can not benefit from any kind of IRM age allowance, not even the allowance granted to a 31/12/99 boat...




    In IRC, we have no real clue about how the "comitees" decides possible "age date" or "series date" age allowances. However, considering that both IRC and IRM are brainchilds or RORC and UNCL, there is every reason to believe that they would not be any more permissive in accepting supposed "IRC series boat" than they are in accepting "IRM series boats".

    For instance, there is a guy in France who tries (tried ?) to sell good copies of a famous 1896 65' Fife that was built in 3 copies at end XIXth century, I sincerely doubt that RORC or UNCL IRC comitee would be more permissive in qualifying those new boats as belonging to the XIXth century series, that their IRM counterpart, who would obviously not accept that.
    I do'nt know if this Frenchman has got any success recently, selling those boats, but I see that RORC and UNCL are clearly no help for him.
    Furthermore the very perspective that he might succeed seems a real problem for some guys. Didn't clearly understand wether is was a problem of faith or else....



    last I remind you my initial message you opposed so harshly:


    "I still do believe that nice, heavy, hull designs from 50 years ago or more should be considered as attractive even today, for some kind of needs, because their performances (including upwind performance) are better than most people believe, and because they can be built using excellent cheap industrial materials (non exotics...).

    I guess that their chances to win against light modern boats in modern rule based competitions are clearly limited, but, they do have quite a few other advantages, including added comfort at sea and an interresting safety advantage when you get stricken by a gale upwind from a coast (much better capabilities to progess upwind in gales...).
    I guess one of the reason they do not get more attention (and immitations...)today, is that cruiser designs of the time were a bit slow in light winds, and it might seem odd to try building replications of old racers while saying that they have no chance to win a race, at least by current practice.

    looks much more like a marketing issues, than a technical ones.."



    I guess none of you very unconvincing and circumstancial arguments has shown anything against those propositions. Furthermore the very specific issue of knowing wether they would qualify for age allowance under IRM (it is obvious that they would not) or IRC (we have every reason to believe that they would not) is clearly completely circonstancial and in no way central to that point.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2004
  12. 249

    249 Guest

    Re LDA's claim that "the only mention of "age" you can find in that document is (page 17) :

    "Age Date : the year in which the boat was first launched, or the year in which the boat was relaunched following modification, whichever is the later"

    In fact, IRC rule does not mention any kind of "Series Date", because there is no "Series Date" in IRC, only "Age Date" which refers to individual boat launch date and not to series launch dates which do not exist in that rule.
    I am bitterly surprised that you might have tried to "quote from the rule pdf." some piece of IRC regulation that simply does not exist. In Europe, we tend to consider that a fraud or a fraud attempt. I know that the "law of the west" sometimes acknowledge the rights of the guy with the biggest mouth (or the biggest gun ?)."

    THIS IS WRONJG


    But given your character here, I am bitterly surprised that you would call someone a fraud when in fact you simply did not read the rules correctly.

    I do not have the biggest mouth - I merely have the facts on my side whereas you cast doubt on people's morality and integrity. In Australia, we call that dishonesty and cowardice.

    I can't see why I'm a big mouth when YOU are the one who cast doubts on sailors and designers of modern boats; you are the one who called people like the crew of Winston Churchill "cowboys", etc.


    The following comes from the SAME PDF YOU LINKED TO......

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    APPENDIX 1 IRC MEASUREMENT DEFINITIONS
    Age Date The year in which the boat was first launched, or the year in which the boat was relaunched
    following modification, whichever is the later.
    Beam The maximum horizontal dimension of the boat in any transverse section, excluding
    any rubbing strake or toerail.
    BO The horizontal distance from the forward point of LWP to the forward limit of LOA, in
    the condition of Empty Weight (see Rule 22.0).
    Draft The maximum depth of the boat or any of its appendages below the waterplane, in
    the condition of Empty Weight (see Rule 22.0). In the case of any movable
    appendage, which is not fixed down while racing, the minimum depth is also required.
    E The foot of the mainsail measured along the top of the boom set on the centre line
    and at right angles to the mast, from the back of the mast to the inside of a permanent
    25 mm band of contrasting colour beyond which the mainsail clew point shall not be
    set. If there is no band the measurement shall be taken to the aft end of the boom.
    EY The foot of the mizzen sail measured as for E.
    Empty Weight The weight of the boat to the nearest 10 kg, in the condition of Empty Weight, less the
    weight of any deductions to the nearest I kg (see Rule 22.3).
    FL The forestay length measured from where the forestay meets the deck, or from the jib
    outhaul in the case of a bowsprit, to the forestay attachment point on the front of the
    mast or to where the forestay intersects the front of the mast, projected if necessary.
    h The vertical distance from the waterplane to the lowest point on the stem at a tangent
    of 450 to the horizontal, in the condition of Empty Weight (see Rule 22.0).
    Heavy Weather A headsail which complies with Special Regulations Paragraph 4.24: A heavy-
    Jib weather jib of area not greater than 13.5% height of the foretriangle squared and
    without reef points.
    HHW The Headsail Half Width of the largest area headsail measured as the shortest
    distance between the half leech point and the luff.
    HSA The maximum permitted headsail area.
    Internal Ballast Lead or other material, not in the keel and bulb, which has no practical function in the
    boat other than to increase weight or to adjust fore and aft trim.
    J The base of the fore-triangle measured as the horizontal distance from the front of the
    mast at deck level to the point where the forestay meets the deck, projected if
    necessary.
    LL The luff length of the largest area headsail when stretched sufficiently to remove any
    creases.
    LLmax The longest luff length of any headsail when stretched sufficiently to remove any
    creases.
    LLY The longest luff length of any mizzen staysail, measured as for LL.
    LOA The length overall of the hull excluding bowsprit and other rigging if any, stem fittings,
    stern fittings, pulpits, any overhanging rudder and rudder hangings.
    APPENDIX 1 IRC MEASUREMENT DEFINITIONS (continued)
    LP The luff perpendicular of the largest area headsail measured as the shortest distance
    from the clew point to the outside of the luff or luff tape. For a cutter rig with more
    than one forestay, LP is measured as the shortest distance from the aftmost clew
    point of any jib or headsail when set on the centre line of the boat, to the foremost
    forestay.
    IRC2004 (4) - 17 09/10/2003
    LPY The longest luff perpendicular of any mizzen staysail, measured as for LP.
    LWP Length on waterplane in the condition of Empty Weight (see Rule 22.0).
    MHW The half width of the mainsail, measured as the shortest distance between the half
    leech point and the luff, bridging any hollows in the leech of the sail.
    MTW The three quarter width of the mainsail, measured as the shortest distance between
    the three quarter leech point and the luff, bridging any leech hollows as above.
    Movable Ballast Water or other ballast which can be varied in quantity and/or transferred from one part
    to another part of the boat.
    P The hoist of the mainsail measured on the mast, from the top of the boom when set at
    right angles to the mast or the corresponding top of a permanent 25 mm band of
    contrasting colour, and the bottom of a similar 25 mm band at the top of the mast
    above which the mainsail shall not be hoisted. If there is no top band the
    measurement shall be taken to the top bearing surface of the halyard shackle.
    PY The hoist of the mizzen sail measured as for P.
    Series Date The year in which the first boat of the class or production series was launched.
    SF The foot length of the largest area spinnaker carried, measured between the clew
    points.
    SHW The half width of the largest area spinnaker carried, measured between the half leech
    points.
    SLE The leech length of the largest area spinnaker carried, measured from the clew point
    to the head point.
    SLU The luff length of the largest area spinnaker carried, measured from the tack point to
    the head point.
    SO The horizontal distance from the aft point of LWP to the aft limit of LOA, in the
    condition of Empty Weight (see Rule 22.0).
    SPA The maximum permitted spinnaker area.
    STL The length of the longest spinnaker pole, whisker pole or bowsprit measured on or
    near the centre line of the boat from the forward face of the mast tube to the extremity
    of the spinnaker pole, whisker pole or bowsprit, or the horizontal length from the
    forward face of the mast tube at deck level to the spinnaker tack point on deck
    projected vertically as necessary, whichever is the greatest.
    Storm Jib A headsail which complies with Special Regulations Paragraph 4.24: A storm jib of
    area not greater than 5% height of the foretriangle squared, and luff maximum length
    65% height of the foretriangle.
    Water Ballast Movable ballast as defined above.
    Wingspan The maximum horizontal width in any transverse section of any wing, wings or bulb
    attached to any appendage.
    x The horizontal distance from the forward point of LWP to the lowest point on the stem
    at a tangent of 450 to the horizontal, in the condition of Empty Weight (see Rule 22.0).
    y The vertical distance from the waterplane to the lowest point on the transom, in the
    condition of Empty Weight (see Rule 22.0).
    END

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    There it is is, just where it should be - the series date information which you said did not exist when you said "In fact, IRC rule does not mention any kind of "Series Date", because there is no "Series Date" in IRC, only "Age Date" which refers to individual boat launch date and not to series launch dates which do not exist in that rule."

    It sits there between "PY" and "SF"; Series Date is "The year in which the first boat of the class or production series was launched."

    Anyone reading this can go to the pdf and read the series date. The information I got about series date came from an article in "Offshore Yachting" magazine. I have already given the edition and page. I prepared the article myself with Malcolm Runnells because I was then the editor of the
    magazine. We had it checked by Mike Unwin, head of the RORC rating office, before publication. You see, I do my homework - unlike you who comes up with nothing but an unspecified Finot somewhere in the Irish Sea, and also speaks bs about the Southern Ocean being an easier place to sail than the Irish Sea. Yeah, right - asked anyone who has sailed in both places? Ask Geoff Stagg from Farr International, for example.

    So you have proven that you can't read a set of rules well enough to see the series date definition which you said didn't exist. You have abused me for failing to provide details of who I am and what my experience is, yet you have provided nothing similar. You have abused me for failing to provide full references, yet you have provided none yourself.

    And yet you have the gall to say that I am a fraud.

    I am not a fraud. You just prefer to call others a fraud, when you fail to even read a pdf fully.

    You have proven to be the dishonest one.

    PS - Of course I didn't refer to IRC, everyone with any sense knows it's a development rule with tight typeforming.
     
  13. Paul B

    Paul B Previous Member

    249

    I don't know why you bother. Arguing history, fact, and physics with people who are faith-driven is pointless. I am often guity of this myself.

    I think you are one of the few people posting on the internet who exceeds my level of racing sailboat geekdom. However, I don't agree with your last statement regarding IRC. I don't consider it a development rule at all. It is simply another form of subjective, rather than objective, rating.

    Example: If I have some production boat competitively rated under the IRC, and then build a custom Farr design with the exact same inputs into the rating sheet, will the two boats be rated the same? I think not. They certainly won't go the same speed. I assume someone in the sealed room would be "turning the knobs" to keep this new boat from driving the existing fleet out. I recall the Ker 55 having a rating change after the Farr 52 owners complained about her pace. Not quite a development rule there.
     
  14. SailDesign
    Joined: Jan 2003
    Posts: 1,964
    Likes: 148, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 650
    Location: Jamestown, RI, USA

    SailDesign Old Phart! Stay upwind..

    Paul, although we haven't always seen eye-to-eye in the past (OK, that's a gross understatement :)) I'm with you on all counts here.

    How did that happen?

    :)
     

  15. dan coyle
    Joined: Sep 2004
    Posts: 17
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: 7800', New Mexico, US

    dan coyle Junior Member

    "I for one would like to know some theoretical explanation of the one or the other opinion."

    At a physics level, large displacement with a fine shape is not a hinderance.

    Yet, if you mean by "heavy boats" the boats of yore, with their blunt shapes, then it is true that heavy boats must displace more water per LWL, and when the displacement is not conservative due to nonlaminar flow, as blunt shapes tend to, they are less efficient. You can power up, but the boat must heel more to accept the force and then delivers less of its force in the desired direction.

    Dan
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.