TP52s

[sailsmall]

Don't forget to regale, Frank. All this mysticism is fun, but tell us what progress you have made making TP52s unwelcome in the world of yacht racing.

[longliner45]

it is my asumption,,that frank is against fixed keels,ballast in front ,,keel following and rudder behind ,please reply,,,,,,,longliner

[mighetto]

Originally Posted by sailsmall

Don't forget to regale, Frank. All this mysticism is fun, but tell us what progress you have made making TP52s unwelcome in the world of yacht racing.

Let us speak of progress. In case you are unaware, it is now possible to get into racing in a big way with a relatively small investment. Five young potentials with 10,000 apiece can bypass the Bravo Sierra of TP52s and purchase a new Flying Tiger. In the purchase they become instant rock stars and sail the same protected waters that TP52s now do. (transpac me arse;.)

You likely are not aware of the interest in simulators. Bethewaite isn’t the only one selling these contraptions and it will not be many more years where programs that do not have sailing simulators for use in distinguishing among the potentials are looked at as worthless. Simulators are popular at boat shows.

Pay attention to what will be happening to the US Sailing keel boat programs. In their present form they are worse that worthless. You are better off with a power boat class. Again, keel boats are used for training not because that is good for the student but rather because the school can put many aboard with a single instructor and make a lot of money. It is a rip off. You don’t see that in aircraft training. You see simulators. US Sailing really really needs to purchase simulators if this has not yet happened. It has hasn’t it?

Getting back to Tiger’s. The designer of the FT-10s also developed the Far Harbor 39. This vessel not only is transported in cargo containers, like Macgregors, but gets her stability from hard side chines. You should pay attention to the term “sailing on the knife edge”. In a sharp chined design, the boat uses the hull form to track straight and the vessel is thin. We see this less beemy form in the newest America’s Cup vessels as well, as well as those from MacGregor Yachts, and I am pleased to find that thin not beemy is a very traditional boat design. There is very little weather helm with this hull form because as the boat heels the hard-chine digs in keeping the vessel on track.

Part of the demise of the TP52s is related to sail changes. I have mentioned roller reefing. The FT-10 has roller reefing. We now see articles on how to reef and at least for my boat standards have been set for crew on how fast they should be able to reef. 30 seconds for the main sail. The notion that a boat sails faster reefed is becoming more accepted in our sport and soon it will be crews that do not reef at the first sign of white caps that are viewed as inexperienced.

Laminated sails stretch less and this means a boat can work up wind with less heel. That as well makes TP52s look foolish. With so many ways to get stability these days, why even think of TP52s. Weight is bad. Boats that sink when capsized are bad designs for the modern age.

There of course is more. Bill Lee is better known for Santa Cruise 27 footers than the TP52’s. These reigned over the Transpac for several decades. They have narrow beam and flat bottoms and can do 20 knots surfing. So the conclusion has to be that TP52s are for wimps, possibly for the clueless. At best they are training vessels. Smaller has and continues to be better.

Frank L. Mighetto
SSSS
US Sailing

[marshmat]

You don’t see that in aircraft training. You see simulators.

The cost of the simulator is comparable to the cost of the plane itself. And in that case, you're training two people to be responsible for the lives of 350.
On the water, though, you're trying to train a dozen people to crew a raceboat. Screw up on the real plane and you have a serious problem on your hands. Screw up on the real boat, and you dunk a few guys, pick them up, and go on. Much easier and more practical in boating to learn on the real thing.

In a sharp chined design, the boat uses the hull form to track straight and the vessel is thin. We see this less beemy form in the newest America’s Cup vessels

Are you saying you've seen the hull schematics of a new AC boat? Somehow I doubt that.
If hard chine is so great for sailing, why is it so rare among the real fast ones? (And why is the Mac26 not hard chine?)

soon it will be crews that do not reef at the first sign of white caps that are viewed as inexperienced.

Umm.... tell that to the VO 70 crews. I'm pretty sure more sail still gives more power, just as it always has. I'm not surprised that you find this effect on your Mac26, its ballast is so close to its roll axis that if you didn't reef you'd heel so far that the rig would be useless. Something with a lot of ballast on a deep keel has a lot more righting moment and so can carry a lot more sail in stronger winds.

They have narrow beam and flat bottoms and can do 20 knots surfing

And a Nonsuch can do 500 million knots, if you fit it with a dilithium-crystal warp drive. Yes, the SC27 has its place, and its devotees. But if we're going to be using speed comparisons, let's use the speed a boat can reach under sail in the conditions we'll race it in, not the momentary peak that it can surf at if we get a big enough rogue wave.

[mighetto]

The cost of the simulator is comparable to the cost of the plane itself. And in that case, you're training two people to be responsible for the lives of 350. On the water, though, you're trying to train a dozen people to crew a raceboat. Screw up on the real plane and you have a serious problem on your hands. Screw up on the real boat, and you dunk a few guys, pick them up, and go on. Much easier and more practical in boating to learn on the real thing.

No, I disagree. What the dozen are learning on the big keel boat they are training on is not sailing. They are learning to keep their mouths shut about what is obvious. Like that obvious crash tack off a shoal. Or that less than seamanly like maneuver at the start. Or that all the multi hulls passed them or that the Santana 20s passed them. They learn to not see Melges 24s, J-24s yes even Macgregor 26s plane. They learn to pretend that upwind work is difficult and that direct down wind isn't the SLOWEST point of sail. Worse of all they come to think that the first leg of a race must be upwind when there is no such rule requiring that. Somehow they come to think that the USA still produces competitive sailors when we are so non competitive internationally it is appalling. We really are seeing a dumping of old race vessels on the less knowledgeable. Those who use large keel boats for training deserve no tax breaks for that. They do US potentials harm big time. Now for team building, again I suggest power boats or tall ships. But you do not learn on large keel boats.

Are you saying you've seen the hull schematics of a new AC boat? Somehow I doubt that.

This year the skirts came off of all the AC boats. These things are now knowable. Seattle has no chance of ever becoming a sailing town after 2003. The design cheating will not be forgotten even though the current philosophy is more open schematics.

If hard chine is so great for sailing, why is it so rare among the real fast ones? (And why is the Mac26 not hard chine?)

The current 26 is soft chined. The Mac26x, which was built for heavy weather ocean racing is hard chined. The move to a more rounded form in the current model was for comfort. The round chine rolls pleasantly in ocean swells. The Mac26m is not advertised as a race trainer, but rather a fine ocean pocket cruiser. They are plenty fast nonetheless and are good sailboats as well as life boats. (this boat doesn't sink thing is a big design deal.) But do consider a knife edge. Think how that form might be like a full keel. The course matters. In a short buoy course the hard chined boat drags on every turn. We find in racing Murrelet that this is a problem when fully ballasted. When unballasted the boat accelerates quick enough to compensate. There is a choreography that can also be deployed. In modern designs there rarely is a pure form. The Mac26x has rounded chines forward and sharp aft. So moving crew and ballast is effective in getting the best from both forms. Am I passing this test?

Umm.... tell that to the VO 70 crews. I'm pretty sure more sail still gives more power, just as it always has. I'm not surprised that you find this effect on your Mac26, its ballast is so close to its roll axis that if you didn't reef you'd heel so far that the rig would be useless. Something with a lot of ballast on a deep keel has a lot more righting moment and so can carry a lot more sail in stronger winds.

All modern designers think of the ideal heeling angle. But not all owners think to find out what that angle is. If you are in stronger winds and can not maintain that ideal angle you need to reef. The reefing makes it easier to maintain the ideal heeling angle and the designer will confirm that that makes the boat go faster. The current MacGregor model is meant to roll and heel more than the X. On my X model the ballast tanks are as far off centerline and towards the outside skin of the hull as desirable. The X model is meant to be sailed without ballast when conditions warrant that. The newer M model is sailed with full ballast all the time and drops ballast only for water skiing. But I was answering the question of TP52 demise. The demise comes from challenging a Roger Macgregor movable ballast design (the X) in a court case. The challenge involved movable ballast of all forms - canting keels as well. Stability from weight on a fixed fin bulb keel will never be viewed favorably from a design standpoint again. It really never should have ever been. Maria was the first American race machine. She was a daggerboarder and the daggers were not on centerline.

And a Nonsuch can do 500 million knots, if you fit it with a dilithium-crystal warp drive. Yes, the SC27 has its place, and its devotees. But if we're going to be using speed comparisons, let's use the speed a boat can reach under sail in the conditions we'll race it in, not the momentary peak that it can surf at if we get a big enough rogue wave.

The SC27 makes TP52s look even more like ships for fools. It is like Lee, after financial troubles, sold an endorsement he not only did not believe in but also knew would be recognized as a farce by those researching his work.

Frank L. Mighetto

[ALowell]

Originally Posted by mighetto

Getting back to Tiger’s. The designer of the FT-10s also developed the Far Harbor 39. This vessel not only is transported in cargo containers, like Macgregors, but gets her stability from hard side chines. You should pay attention to the term “sailing on the knife edge”.

Have you seen a Flying Tiger before? I looked around the net for two minutes and it is very obvious that this design is not a chined hull.

You seem very excited about the fact that Macgregors don't sink. Unfortunately they will roll over like a top in any kind of survival situation. Keep in mind that life boats are self righting, but they are also ballasted to prevent rolling in the first place.

I would much rather be in a heavy cement-ballasted motor life boat than a flimsy Mac26 that will splinter to pieces after the first rogue wave hits.

~ ALowell

[sailsmall]

Welcome to the tribe, ALowell.

[dumbass]

Originally Posted by mighetto, the village idiot

The Mac26x, which was built for heavy weather ocean racing is hard chined.

Let me guess - the voices in your head told you that.

[ALowell]

Originally Posted by mighetto

The Mac26x, which was built for heavy weather ocean racing is hard chined.

HEAVY WEATHER OCEAN RACING?????????? The Mac26x is shaped like - and has the structural properties of - a Kleenex box! The manufacturers would be criminally liable if they recommended their boats for heavy weather anything. Running this boat through the Capsize Screening Formula results in a CSF of 2.34. That is a full .34 over the limit of minimum stability. This boat is so light it would be airborne in severe weather.

By the way: it is also not hard chined.

~ ALowell

[marshmat]

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here of what the Macgregor 26 is meant to do. I can't find anything from the factory or designer that claims it's designed for, or even capable of, heavy weather ocean racing.
I do find little gems such as:
"Sailing with the wind is easy. Just aim the boat and the wind will blow you along." ( http://www.macgregor26.com/how_to_sail/how_to_sail.htm )
This is the philosophy behind the 26x and 26m, as far as I can tell. Cheap to buy, simple to use, versatile, and capable of doing most of the things the average first-time boat owner would want to do on a long weekend. No experience necessary, just read the book and stay out of trouble.
Now look at the TP 52 (photo below, from the Breitling Medcup). Big boats, with experienced crews, separated by only seconds in waves that would at the very least render the Mac26 a very uncomfortable place to be. And this is what's considered fine weather, 'easy going' in that class.
They are completely different boats built for a completely different purpose.

[SailDesign]

Matt,
Do us a favor, would you? Try to show a few of the US-built TP52s in the shot next time Thanks
Steve

[RHough]

What would really help this thread is to ignore the rantings of the madman. If no one responds to his drivel, he will have nothing to react to.

On the other hand, the thread is like a train wreck, you know that nothing good is coming out of it, but you can't look away either.

Frank (is it really one person or a group of people smoking crack and posting to see what reaction they can get?), has shown how little he/she/they know about boats, sailing, and racing that it is a wonder that people still reply to his posts with thoughtful coments. "Frank" is either a *****, or Boat Design's court jester, one of our very own stooges.

[sailsmall]

Originally Posted by mighetto

... In a short buoy course the hard chined boat drags on every turn. We find in racing Murrelet that this is a problem when fully ballasted. When unballasted the boat accelerates quick enough to compensate. There is a choreography that can also be deployed. In modern designs there rarely is a pure form. The Mac26x has rounded chines forward and sharp aft. So moving crew and ballast is effective in getting the best from both forms. Am I passing this test? ...

You're doing great!

[mholguin]

Does Frank knows what a chine is?

[101]

Hey Frank, I've had too much to dirnk but the thought crossed my mind, I'm up in Bellingham and why don't you come on up here and go out sailing with me.

101