TP52s

[mighetto]

Originally Posted by mholguin

Not sweet at all. The Macs can go faster and with less crew. Also the crew of the TP-52s are dumb criminals, whilst those crewing on Mac26 are Heaven's Angels...


OMG what the !@*#& am I saying?!?!?

In Sailing World (jan feb 2006) there are two articles. The first is on the Volvo 70s and it is most interesting owing to the title of the article (implying safety standards have been reduced but then the article dos not support such a statement) There is also chat of 4th mode – the movement of crew to the bow. The second is on the mini transats which I am pleased to discover are now being produced on the west coast of the US. The popularity of the Macgregors undoubtedly has made this possible. Sorry, guys, no one on the west coast (with the notable exception of the MacGregor clan) knew what a mini-transate was before a few years ago and immediately they were said to look like the “hated” MacGregor 26 power sailers.

Hated because movable ballast machines like the Mac26’s, the Volvo70s and Mini-transates obsolete the fixed fin racers and race trainers such as the TP52s and their planned but never built 26 foot trainers.

A lot of vested interest in the fixed fin racers has been lost but I think this loss faster owing to my involvement in amateur boat designing. Evidence of an orchestrated effort to dump older generation TP52s in Puget Sound is overwhelming in my opinion and I would never have been aware of the scam if not for Sudie Parker being likely hired by a TP52 public relations firm to start a FOYD thread on Sailing Anarchy among other wrong doing involving influence peddling at sailing societies and yacht clubs, and her “morbid fascination” with my ride.

The same thing that was attempted on the Mini-transat like MacGregors may be happening now with the Volvo 70s.

Lets set straight the record. The “mishaps” being chatted up on the VO70s were all anticipated. Every fin has to be incased in a way that its removal can not sink the vessel. Even the mast step must be designed in a fashion that should the mast be lost the hole it enters the cabin top is capped. When the VO70s decided to use brittle glass, false bows were made mandatory. You do not see that kind of thing in the minis. In fact half the mini owners prefer aluminum masts because they do not shatter and the remaining parts can be used to jury rig.

Lets compare and contrast the TP52s with the VO70s using safety criteria as was done with the MacGregor 26x.

Frank L. Mighetto

[zerogara]

What racing boat maintains substantial value 2-3 years after the campaign that it was built for has passed. Very few anymore find a good home.
The market worldwide has been saturated with old (not that old) racers and some fitted and improved to e better than when they came off the shipyard. They are orphans. Once in a while some nut will buy them and try to utilize them in chartering and sailing schools. It is a thrill for most sailors to go on a wild ride on one of those beasts. But the market is limited.
http://yachtworld.com/listing/pl_boa...37&slim=quick&
http://yachtworld.com/listing/pl_boa...searchtype=buy

[usa2]

Who hates the VO 70's and mini transats because they have moveable ballast? Some people do not like the VO 70's and new supermaxis because they use engines to facilitate moving their ballast, but i dont think anyone has said that they dislike the them solely because they use moveable ballast.

[the_sphincter]

Frank: The Mac26x is a trailerable motorsailer, and the best trailerable motorsailor on the market. It is not a racing trainer any more than a catalina or hunter or island packet is, in fact it may be worse as a racing trainer because of the tiny wheel, which is much less effective than a tiller (which a boat that size should have) or a larger wheel. The mac does no have moveable ballast in the sense of a maxi, which would move ballast up to the windward side after every tack. As I understand it, the mac26 fills tanks up on each side, which in turn makes the boat float lower in the water, which in turn lowers the centre of gravity, which makes a more stable boat. Just because it is a cruisng boat does not mean you cannot race it. You can in fact race it sucessfully, just like any sailboat.

VO 70's and TP52's on the other hand, are in a category known as "pure racers". You cannot cruise on them, and having them undercrewed could be dangerous. This is because in order to make boats faster, they increase the sail area to displacement ratio (sort of like putting a bigger engine in a lighter car). When you increase sail are, guess what, you also increase the loads, which requires a larger crew to handle. Nothing wrong with that. They are raceboats, and not intended to do anything else besides race (go as fast as possible). Because they are built within a box rule, designers push the limits, which may result in less stable boats. Nothing wrong with this, again (if there was, we should ban dinghies).

Now, comparing a cruising motor-sailer like the Mac 26x with a racing boat like the tp52 is retarded and should not be done. You are primarily using this thread to promote the Mac 26x, and to slander the tp52. The tp52 rule is the tp 52 rule, and it's not going to change, so all your criticisms of modern designers who design tp52's are invalid, because if that's the case, you should criticize the rule for "lack of stability." This tp52 thread should discuss various design aspects of the tp52 (it's boatdesign.net), such as foil shapes, rig designs, and hull shape. Then if you want to discuss the design on the Mac 26x, you could make another thread about it. We can discuss the rig, the foils, etc. If you want to criticize the tp52 rule, you should go to a general sailing forum. Maybe they'll discuss it with you at scuttlebutt? maybe sailing world?
best of luck
-ass wipe

[sorenfdk]

Originally Posted by mighetto

Facts are legal concepts. When a court of law says its a fact it becomes one. For every other human decision making effort - especially boat design, what one is dealing with are assumptions and experiences. These get filtered by a belief system, by ones education and parenting, perhaps by genetics. I do not know. I do know that there will be endless argument about whoes facts represent truth and whoes facts are not consistant with the belief structure. One definition of truth is consistant with a belief structure. Sailors are philosphers. Berhaps designers need to sail more. Note smily. I am funning with you

Facts are much more than legal concepts. It is a fact that I am sitting here at my desk right now even though no court of law says so. Why not be a man and admit that You don't have any facts (and You don't have a clue either!)

Originally Posted by mighetto

Its kind of like pornography isn't it? We know it when we see it. What happened to Farr International is obseen. It was owing to the TP52s that the company no longer exists. Purchasers of TP52s who now have the fact that the boats did not pass the capsize risk ratio and hence can not be sold by any reputable broaker for trans pacific work can no longer look to Farr International for the loss of value associated with that design error. That loss of value is something in the range of the difference between 1.6 million and 350,000. She how this sits in the guts of designers who do not take resale value into consideration. There are no such designers on the west coast of the US, to my knowledge.

Or in other words: When You wrote that Farr International went bankrupt, you were lying, but You're not man enough to admit it!

[sorenfdk]

Originally Posted by mighetto

...my involvement in amateur boat designing.

Your involvement!? For God's sake - You haven't designed anything!

[water rat]

Frank
As a Puget Sound sailor and racer, I take offense to the garbage you have been saying about Puget Sound racing, PHRF and west coast sailors.

Mini Transat-You said that west coast sailors had not heard of Mini-transat until recently. Not true I have followed the event for at least 20 years. A San Fran sailor was a winner of a earlier event.

PHRF- Did you go to the Jan 22 meeting? I can check if you were there. There is no conspiracy from PHRF-NW to promote TP52's. And PHRF is not concerned about establishing 5 boats to have one-design racing. That is totally up to the individual clubs that sponsor racing. Sudie Parker: She is not "rating" Seattle boats. She was the handicapper of a West Sound Club only. I say "was" because the Chief Handicapper fired her last year. I read the letter. That was suppose to be rediscussed today. Although she can be a nuisance sometimes, she is in no position to cause you trouble. The best thing you can do is just race your boat. Oh, that's right you can't race your boat because everyone is after you, hunting you and trying to drive you off the water. GET OVER IT!

Puget Sound racing- Since 911, racing has continued for all sizes of boats. Races routinely cross ferry lanes, traffic lanes - many multiple times during a race. During the Duwamish Head race, we crossed to Vashon/Fauntlory and Seattle/Bremerton ferry lanes TWICE. On the second crossing of the Bremerton/Seattle ferry lanes, the Coast Guard escort waved a couple of small boats away, but there was no dramatic showdown or arrests. I was there and saw it, WERE YOU? There is no conspiracy to stops races because of large boats!

I have been sailing and racing in Puget Sound for nearly 40years and I despise you NEWBIES trying to spread garbage about my home waters. If you would race your boat you might learn something!

[mholguin]

Mr. Mighetto:

I must admit I'm beginning to fell a great amount of admiration for you. Either for:

a) Conducting a succesfull Field-Study of above average people's reaction to non-sense coming from an obscure source - or

b) Having survived massive doses of God - knows what...

[101]

Originally Posted by mighetto

The second is on the mini transats which I am pleased to discover are now being produced on the west coast of the US.

Frank, who on the west coast of the US is producing a mini? I have been following the mini's for a while and perhaps I've missed something. Looking forward to your information.

101

[TP 52 Defender]

Wow – now Frank has taken to mis-using and lying about law and criminology in his “sailing” posts.

Farr International – was a yacht brokerage not a yacht design company and had nothing to do with the TP 52 class.
A retractable keel – is NOT a center board.
No one is dumping TP 52’s on the sound – some folks there bought them and like sailing fast.

There rest of Franks lies, omissions and other assorted BS have been corrected time and again so we will let them go by without further comment here.


TP 52 News from KWRW 06:

The class was tight and the reaching fun in the mid to heavy breezes this year. Although Patches had to retire from the week early on to repair some damage the remaining 7 boats had a good week. The Generation 3 boats really seem to like the heavy air owing to their larger foil packages as can be seen by Wed. results and radio traffic. With Mast Height winds into the mid 30’s both Sjambok and ex Esmo seemed to really run. Stay Calm (latest TP 52) was right up there also – upwind top speed reported by the winner was 9.5 Kts and Down wind was 26.7 Kts (Highest reported TWS was 37.4 as the class held for a second race – which the race committee decided not to run due to RC issues).

In regard to Franks babbling post this highlights several of his miss truths and lies about the class:
1. The TP 52’s did race in 30 + Kts of TWS
2. They did so without the need to reef (although several boats did choose to hoist A5’s or A6’s on the second downwind leg).
3. While there is some truth to the improvements in newer generations the older boats can be very competitive.
4. The feeder race finishes went TP 52’s as first and second to cross the line and Sjambok lost to Rosebud on corrected PHRF (Final PHRF was Yellow Jacket [Farr 53 - ex Talisman], Rosebud [Gen 2 TP], Sjambok [Gen 3 TP]). Sjambok won IRC also – so for after life the 52’s look just fine.

More to follow ….. Questions?

[fatdog]

Defender, just a side question. Any idea what happened to YellowJacket? I heard that they had a break down early on?

[TP 52 Defender]

Yellow Jacket took a good knockdown in the knockdown the spin pole broke. When this occurred the boom crossed the boat and hit the V1 and D1 hard breaking the spreader. This was Wed. Race one. With some long nights work their captain repaired the pole and spreader and got them back out on the race course.

[oobayly]

Why why why why?
Like so many people, I wanted to read a discussion on the TP52s, admitedly, I've learned a bit about hull design, though the majority is common sense:
Keep CoG low, design a boat to be stable, not to capsize etc...

The one thing I don't get is (actually there's a lot I don't get, but I'll keep it simple): how can a Max26X get up to 17kts on sail???
The rough empirical formula I know is 1.34 * (LWL)^.05
As an aero engineer, most thing a proportional to the square or square root of a length, so simplify:
Vmax = k * LWL^.5

I race an X-362 Sport, we've got 14kts out of her, so
k=2.33
TP52: k = 3.46 roughly
Mac26: k = 3.33

please correct me, but this cannot be possible, if you were to plot this (I like plotting stuff ) you find that the Mac26 is up with F1 and ACC boats. WTF

Finally, I might get flamed relying on such simple maths, but even if I do, it was worth joining in on such an epic.
This thread was a page turner, I stayed up til 3am reading it, and no doubt kept my house mates awake laughing so much

btw. I've editided the animated GIF of Frank's start SNAFU, I've slowed it to 1.33fps, hope nobody minds

[frankofile]

oobayly, Your formula has the same form as others I've seen used to predict max hull speed based on the speed of the bow wave. Once you're planing, different processes are at work and max speed isn't as well defined. See the "Humpless Planing" thread on this forum.

Of course, the Mac26x is a thoroughly modern design that does not rely on physical principles to achieve what we deluded souls have come to think of as bouyancy, thrust, drag, lateral resistance, etc. I too have read this thread with interest and believe that the secret to the fabulous performance that the devine Roger MacGregor imparted to his creation stems from the heavy bulbous package attached to the rear end of the hull, dangling in the water. I believe that something inside the package is able to manipulate energy and forces in such a way as to propell the Mac26x to the surprisingly high speed of 17mph. Note the units, that part is crucial.

Your modification of the starting sequence is interesting. It seems to confirm the previous conclusion that the crew aboard Murrelet has no facking clue what the hell they are doing. How can that be?

[oobayly]

doh, not used to wave drag! Friction & vortex drag is my kind of stuff, thanks for pointing that out

I disagree with your opinion of the start though. Frank is an evil genius, what he does is scare the crap out of everyone else by poncing about so they stay well clear of him. Resolution is a bit dodgy on the photos, but I think he could be wearing a black cape.
I'm going to try it next time I'm out, maybe I'll get a **** hot start.

Regarding the propulsion method, you reckon Roger MacGregor would license the contents of the bulbuos package. Think of the things it could be used to power: horseless carriages and beyond