Old Quarter Tonners -Magic Bus

[Gary Baigent]

It seems a bit odd to reproach the heavy brigade for their 'bile' when some of the light brigade are still bilious, decades later.

"And the 'only the French and Antipodeans can sail these boats' line seems utterly at odds with the fact that Antipodeans were not exactly dominating other classes and other forms of sailing in the late '70s. There doesn't seem to be evidence of a massive southern skill advantage when we look at Aussie Olympic results, for example."

CT249, Who me, bilious and bitter?? But disgruntled people with outmoded boats ... happens all the time, called evolution. But you have to admit the stink that went up from the heavy boys with the arrival of the light brigade .... WAS VERY HEAVY - and out of proportion.
Both NZ AND Australia are generally considered the southern antipodes - if you take the UK as being the opposite global position - and when I wrote antipodes I meant you blokes were included too.

[CT 249]

Gary, I wasn't saying that you were bilious, but referring to the fact that the owners of heavyweights were said to be bilious.

Sure, some people lost their sense of proportion about the light v heavy dispute, but there were probably people on each side who lost it.

And while evolution is great in some respects, the classes that don't put some brakes on overnight evolution and obsolescence don't normally thrive. So I still can't see why it would have helped if the IOR had not been changed, and all the Currawong 30s, Cav 32s, Kaufmans, Petersons, S&Ss etc had been thrown onto the scraphead of offshore racing.

The points is that it would not have helped the sport if 95% of yachts built before 1977 had been rendered uncompetitive (by the faster lightweights) by 1978. Fleets would have been decimated, because it's not much fun going for a race if you know a less-skilled crew will beat you hollow just because they have a lightweight.

And we can't just assume that people will be able to keep sailing when their boats become obsolescent, because if the heavyweights were dead meat on the racecourse (which they would have been had the rule not been changed) their owners could not have sold their boats at a decent price, and they wouldn't have been able afford to build a new lightweight.

It's easy to say that people should put up with their boats becoming obsolete, but it's harder to take when it's your own hard-earned time and money that has been burned. I've been burned a few times and now almost all my sailing is in strict ODs, where I can park my time and effort in the knowledge that I will be rewarded with good competitive racing. Meanwhile the classes that burned me and those like me are either dead or moribund, while the OD classes we went to are healthy and popular.

Surely it's understandable that if you put thousands of hours and dollars into building a new boat, and then found it was made totally obsolete, you would have become rather bilious? Every development class seems to have an inbuilt acceptance about how much obsolescence (or waltzing through rule weaknesses) they will allow, even A Class cats, 18s, Moths and windsurfers. Why aren't offshore racers allowed to restrict developments that will obsolete the existing fleet, just like Tornadoes, A Class, F18s, 18s, Moths and windsurfers did? We cant just ignore the fact that classes that allow a lot of 'evolution' (which is often just finding weaknesses in rules, like the CB and AGS measurements in IOR) normally die.

One example of the issue is the way the heavy 37 foot cat ketch "Cascade" waltzed through a weakness in the IOR in about 1971 and rated at half ton. As far as comparative performance can be judged by me, it seems very likely that a Cascade type in NZ would have kicked Tituscanby's ass all the way back to Ponsonby. In many ways that would have been a very bad thing, because Cascade was a very big and expensive boat for its true speed - but it would have been 'evolution'.

Would it have been a good thing if the particular weakness in the rule that allowed "Cascade" has been allowed to stand, on the same basis that she was just better evolved? Where does evolution start and rulebeating stop? What do we lose when we allow 'evolution' to go unhindered?

Basically, I suppose I can't see why it would have helped the sport for people to have had to sail a Newspaper Taxi or a Cascade or get beaten, if those people really wanted to sail an S&S 30 for their own good reasons (preferring the feel, preferring the motion, preferring to rely on ballast rather than rail meat, better accomodation, whatever). Yes, Taxi was faster, but if pure speed was what counted, we'd all be on kites or boards or multis. Most of us are not that much into pure speed on our offshore boats - comparative speed is what matters, and of course without S&S, Petersons and Coles on the water the Farrs and Whitings would not have had anyone to surf away from.

Trashing existing yachts is not the way to build a sport. Allowing people to do well with the sort of boats that they want to own (whether light or heavy or in between) seems to work a lot better, and the changes to the IOR seemed to do a fairly good job of that.


BTW, I did realise that Australia is in the antipodes. The point was that we were not beating the US or UK in too many classes in the '70s, therefore there was no evidence that we were better sailors at the time, therefore there's not much reason to think that we knew all about fractional rigs and the northern sailors didn't. Sure, not all of them could work out fractionals - but there were quite a few good fractional boats here in Oz that suffered for the same reason.

They are bloody good sailors up there, and they regularly kick our bums; it doesn't seem likely that Koch's issue with under-crewed fractionals was necessarily down to lack of skill. BTW, the Dbs went very well in the SORC at that time so they were probably well sailed. The last Kiwi boat (IIRC) at the SORC before that was Downtown (sailed by Guineven etc?) which struggled to beat the US designs. If only the southerners could sail fractionals, the Kiwi boat would have waltzed it in.

[Gary Baigent]

Agreed CT, getting beaten by better designs is not fun (no pun) but your analogy of Cascade (which was a very ugly boat ... but fast for the rule) - I mean, loophole finding is part of the game, and you have to respect it. There was another "loopholer" in the Mini Ton class from France called l'Effrai, which was a wide on deck mini hull but carried a huge una rigged mainsail - which also upset the punters because in light conditions she stomped the fleet. They called such boats freaks ... but I admire the courage, audacity and creativity. L'Effrai was like a giant Finn and there are positive things to be said about big una rigs. I mean yachts today have huge mains ... plus headsail type extras. Although freak designs are considered unhealthy for the status quo, there was very little that was unhealthy about the NZ lightweights. After all, they weren't freaks to kiwis, just normally setup kiwi designs, evolved from trial and error. The problem then was the IOR, because it was geared low for the conservative mind. And no question, there are brilliant sailors all over the planet, some just come from different environs - and that is very interesting.

[Timoniere]

I'm agree with you both!
Goal of every rule is to value correctly the performances of boats.... and border between it and the evolution is really thin as we know.
Regarding L'Effraie, I spoke several times with Patrik Phelippon (the designer) who lived 100 km from my house: he said that just filled a hole in the IOR designing a big boat with a big main and no jib. At that Mini Ton Cup, L'Effraie was really fast downwind in those light conditions while she had "medium" performances upwind compared with those "first hour" Mini Tonners... but enough to dominate the event!
I remember also a One Tonner by Joubert/Nivelt called "Zio Paul"
with the same rigging (a big Finn) but probably she didn't so well during her brief racing life before IOR's emendements.

Originally Posted by Gary Baigent

Agreed CT, getting beaten by better designs is not fun (no pun) but your analogy of Cascade (which was a very ugly boat ... but fast for the rule) - I mean, loophole finding is part of the game, and you have to respect it. There was another "loopholer" in the Mini Ton class from France called l'Effrai, which was a wide on deck mini hull but carried a huge una rigged mainsail - which also upset the punters because in light conditions she stomped the fleet. They called such boats freaks ... but I admire the courage, audacity and creativity. L'Effrai was like a giant Finn and there are positive things to be said about big una rigs. I mean yachts today have huge mains ... plus headsail type extras. Although freak designs are considered unhealthy for the status quo, there was very little that was unhealthy about the NZ lightweights. After all, they weren't freaks to kiwis, just normally setup kiwi designs, evolved from trial and error. The problem then was the IOR, because it was geared low for the conservative mind. And no question, there are brilliant sailors all over the planet, some just come from different environs - and that is very interesting.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by Timoniere

I remember also a One Tonner by Joubert/Nivelt called "Zio Paul"
with the same rigging (a big Finn) but probably she didn't so well during her brief racing life before IOR's emendements.

I recall J/N doing another boat, not a una rig but a very large main and tiny headsail, that sailed in the 1985 or 1986 (?) SORC.

The rig was very quick in reaching conditions. IIRC, they dominated the offshore races that were mainly reaching legs and did not fare as well in the triangles. They either won class or were just behind Lowell North's N/M 42 Sleeper that year. I have some photos of that boat that I took at the docks in St. Pete that year. I will post if I can find them.

[Paul B]

This afternoon I had a business meeting in Newport Beach, so I took the opportunity to swing by the library there and visit the Nautical Periodicals Archive.

I cracked open the 1978 SAIL magazine volume and snapped this.

I believe that is the Pope driving, with Dave MacCauley in the loud shirt and probably Kimo Worthington in the companionway.

Note the "garbage bag jib".

[Gary Baigent]

Thanks Paul, what a sweet shot of the purple boat. How could anyone hate that winning Davidson? - but they did - and slammed the rule door too. What madness. Aside from that hard turning dinghy stern, could be a Peterson?

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by Gary Baigent

Thanks Paul, what a sweet shot of the purple boat. How could anyone hate that winning Davidson? - but they did - and slammed the rule door too. What madness. Aside from that hard turning dinghy stern, could be a Peterson?

I didn't hate those boats. Neither did most of my friends. Of course we weren't the ones paying the bills, and as young and stupid kids didn't mind discomfort or danger.

The boat is still sailing here in SoCal.

The one thing that I didn't like the look of in those early Davidsons was the soft knuckle at the bow. The radius of where the bow meets the bottom in profile was much larger than Peterson or Farr would do, so to me it always looked a bit out of place. Seemed to work pretty well though (Fun, Pendragon, Wave Rider).

[Gary Baigent]

You mean this. Guess it looks dated with today's plumb bows - but still works for me.

[Timoniere]

Ohh, what nice boats they are still! Of course evolution (also aesthetics) runs
and our eyes are now focused on plumb bows, limited overhangs and straight diagonals....

[booster]

Timoniere, Gary B and Paul B!
Yes, nice boats indeed. Aesthetic guy that Laurie Davidson.
Regards,
Booster

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by Paul B

In that era the heavyweight J41 was also sailing as a masthead One Tonner and a well prepared version WON the SORC One Ton Class in 1985, whipping the lighter, fractional, state-of-the-art Beneteaus, Farrs, J/Ns, Soverel, Vallicelli, and Peterson boats. A very stock J41 had been 3rd in the class the year before.

Another won the North Americans against a similar group.

I have found some photos of IOR sterns I took at the Circuit in '85 and '86.

The first image shows (clockwise from top left) an '85 Peterson One Ton, an '85 Farr One Ton, the '85 Vallicelli One Ton, and an '86 X One Ton.

The next image (all '85) shows two different J/N One Ton designs on the top, and on the bottom are the two Beneteau One Tons.

The third image shows the '86 Humphreys One Ton World Champion and SORC winner Jade, the '86 G&S One Ton, an '86 J/V One Ton, and a shot comparing the '85 One Tons from Farr and Soverel.

The last image shows some larger boats with the Irwin 42 from '85, the '85 N/M 43 Admiral's Cupper, the Holland 43 (I think the last IOR boat ever for Holland), and the Peterson Baltic 48.

[Tanton]

I.O.R counter stern. With early, almost straight stem.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by Tanton

I.O.R counter stern. With early, almost straight stem.

Is this Special Edition?

I think she was 6th/15 in the '79 NAs and 9th/12 in the Worlds?

[Paul Kotzebue]

Originally Posted by Paul B

The last image shows some larger boats with the Irwin 42 from '85, the '85 N/M 43 Admiral's Cupper, the Holland 43 (I think the last IOR boat ever for Holland), and the Peterson Baltic 48.

Brings back memories. I drew the hull lines for High Roler while I was at Nelson Marek. When I say "drew the hull lines" I mean just that and I don't take any credit for the design. Bruce Nelson designed the boat, and I faired the hull lines to his requirements.