Ragtime lines Maybe

[Ron Cook]

These are the lines I developed from section lines posted by Gary. I changed the sheer line a little and added an extension like Ragtime has.

[Ron Cook]

Ragtime is the top Buccaneer is the bottom. My last post had Tanton's Ragtime line made from her IOR ticket. The drawing with the black background are the lines I developed from Gary's posted Ragtime section lines shown here.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by Ron Cook

These are the lines I developed from section lines posted by Gary. I changed the sheer line a little and added an extension like Ragtime has.

Hi Ron,

I don't think the bow is quite right. Your sketch, and Tanton's, show the bottom of the boat sort of sweeping up to the bow. I think it is a bit more of a forefoot/turn than you are showing. Maybe this photo helps?

[Ron Cook]

Paul you may be right. I have drawings of Ragtime that where published in a book coming. I'll post them when I get them.

[Ron Cook]

Paul I've changed the fore foot. What do you think?

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by Ron Cook

Paul I've changed the fore foot. What do you think?

The more I look at Tanton's sketch the more things I see that are not correct. I think maybe you have followed some of those problems.

Maybe take what you have and lay it over this sketch that also shows the chine line.ust to see where you are with the keelson and chine profiles.

[Gary Baigent]

You've almost got it right Ron, but you have lifted the bow at deck level - maybe that is what you want since you've altered the transom area too. IMO you have followed the rocker profile in the stern sections too far; if you want to increase length, then you'll have to fill in that section below transom - at the moment the stern/transom profile looks almost like an old classic overhang and is carried too high, will rarely touch water - therefore you're losing out on waterline length, and just carrying dumb weight. But what do I know, just being an arty farty.

[Gary Baigent]

Also, Jean-Yves(?) Tanton's boat is not Infidel/Ragtime, (I know in those years he was fascinated by the kiwi design and I think this is his interpretation) - the transom is not as original and the bow is how you originally had it in your first drawing, and that is incorrect, as Paul pointed out. Am I right J-YT?

[Ron Cook]

Paul I altered my drawing to fit the sketch you posted. and the extended transom will touch the water particularly when the boat is planing.

[Tanton]

Originally Posted by Gary Baigent

Also, Jean-Yves(?) Tanton's boat is not Infidel/Ragtime, (I know in those years he was fascinated by the kiwi design and I think this is his interpretation) - the transom is not as original and the bow is how you originally had it in your first drawing, and that is incorrect, as Paul pointed out. Am I right J-YT?

(Yves-Marie ) Yes, the drawing I show, is from the I.O.R certificate as indicated on the plan. I have simply connected the dots, through the few points required by the rule. Therefore the bow and the transom might be incorrect. Having no constraint at this stage of design, before fairing.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by Ron Cook

Paul I altered my drawing to fit the sketch you posted. and the extended transom will touch the water particularly when the boat is planing.

I think the chine isn't right. If you compare the lines that Gary has provided to your interpretation you can see your version has less flare of the topsides in the middle of the boat, and too much flare at the stern (where the chine looks really narrow). Your version also seems to look like more deadrise.

[Ron Cook]

Paul the lines you snagged Came from the profile sketch you posted. This drawing is from Gary's sketch. the two don't match up. Which one is right I don't know.

[Ron Cook]

Y-M-T With all this talk about Ragtime it got me thinking about your InsTanton hard chine designs. So I thought I would try my hand at it. You Can laugh at me expense. The loa 65', lwl 56', beam 12' disp 25000 # lcb 52% Cp .52 I made the lines very narrow forward