TP52s

Duty calls. Folks at Anarchy.com and at the MacGregor Yachts forums expect me to put in a major effort to get out of a situation that could have been easily avoided. I will not enjoy this, but what choice do I have? I must go forward with a sense of noblesse oblige. The main objective is getting the job done of putting down Jim Teeters and the notion of 128 limit of positive stability in an ocean racing design and coming out of it smelling like a rose. Success will find its way to the believers of movable ballast and under 30 foot ocean crossing vessels eventually.

By way of background. Jim Teeters, in a move that halted progress in movable ballast production designs in the USA, recently and inappropriately testified in a drunken boaters case.

The judge and jury in the case wondered why he even bothered to come to court when the death of two children on a MacGregor 26x on July 4th 2002 appeared to all, including the parents of the children, to be related to drinking by the operator. The case was recently concluded with the operator getting 7 years or so jail time. The boat was never on trial but owing to Jim Teeter's involvement it is likely that MacGregor yachts halted production of the Mac26x.

Production has apparently started back up in Australia and I would like it to proceed again in the US. There are 5000 of these boats world wide and they are the most extensively studied and operated movable balasted vessels in the world because of those numbers. The movement is simply on or off the boat. There is no side to side or forward aft movement. Just on and off, operated fully loaded with ballast or fully unloaded under sail or under power.

Jim Teeters attempted to show a stability design flaw by use of a video. His purpose for doing so appears related to support of the TP52 box rules. That is my theory on his going out of the way to be involved in the case in some manner.

He impeached himself by first stating in a deposition that alcohol could have been a contributing factor and then later saying it had nothing to do with the capsize. A fellow named Taylor disagreed with Teeters, testifying that there is no design flaw and the boat can be operated safely, and Taylors expert witness testimony basically devastated the principles Teeters has supported. What is most interesting is that I suspect Teeter's court involvement was not against MacGregor Yachts specifically as much as it was to support TP52s.

Basically, Teeters likely hoped that a limit of positive stability of 128, determined by mathematics, would be established for future ocean racing designs. The GP RWP, wishing to encourage movable ballast ocean racing designs, rejected this principle, which I call the Teeter Principle, in part because no vessel with a limit of positive stability of 110 can be knocked down by wind alone.

Of course all vessels in sufficient sea can capsize but the Grand Prix Rule Working Party (GP RWP) decided that it was the design's ability to be righted - tested via a test pool - that was most important and not the math. 5000 of these Mac26x vessels in operation didn't really support Teeters in his arguments for 128 stability and support of the TP52.

In a move that shocked no one, Jim Teeters, in his capacity as technical consultant to US Sailing's delegation to the RWP, orchestrated the US Sailing delegation's walk out from the RWP.

He then founded ORCA in May of 2004 which I believe to be an organization that is as close to fraudulent as you can get because the ORCA name is a name known in Ocean Racing since the 1970s but that organization has not operated for many years. Hence prospects for TP52s think the design has the blessings of a well established and reputable organization when the current ORCA is recently established and of questionable reputation.

US Sailing coincidentally reorganized Jim Teeters out of his director of research position, or Teeters resigned after being asked to, but in any case the situation is that now US Sailing has no representation on the GP RWP and the only vessel supported by ORCA is the TP52s which are being marketed as TransPacific vessels in spite of the first five being designed specifically for Atlantic Waters.

The TP52s are claimed to be the fastest growing ocean racing design but there will still be under 20 of them by the end of 2005. The stability requirement of 128 has harmed them on the Vic Maui race but not the West Marine TransPac Fun race where water ballasted vessels of less than 24 foot are allowed to enter. So here it goes. Defend Teeters, defend TP52s or concede by lack of protest the notion that TP52s are a defacto obsolete design based on Santa Cruise 52s from the 1970s.

 

Mighetto's Nemesis

This message is to try and let everyone know that this man is a crazed lunatic who needs to be controlled. He almost ruined a website designed to encourage sailors from all over the world to speak about legitimate sailing issues.

 

I'll second the above ,in softer terms......this 'fellow' does manadge to write the finest 'blabberfludge' going.--Don't waste time!

 

you know, I am in the market for a sailboat, and I have narrowed my search down to just two boats; a Megregger26 and a TP52 I just can't seem to make up my mind. hmmmm. I'm sure this happens alot, please help

 

I have a Nemesis as well as Minions? Wow. Lets get real. The crazed lunatic who needs to be controlled is Jim Teeters, and those involved in ORCA.

Seamonkey if I were trying to be cleaver and "ruin a website designed to encourage sailors from all over the world to speak about legitimate sailing issues" I wouldn't use my own name. (really I am not that powerfully, but wow. Thanks. I am honored.)

Remember that I was invited to defend Macgregor Yachts at SailingAnarchy and it isn't my fault that pay per view is now more popular. Let me just say that there is way to much pay for content going on on some boards. At least on a pay for view board there is the possibility of less of that. Any board that sides against R Coutts and the Sea Scouts and supports these TP52s as an advanced design is suspect.

Lets keep on topic. I mean this thread to discredit boats designed by the Teeter Principle or I mean to be convinced that the man Teeters isn't cashing in his reputation (in otherwords getting paid to support notions on design he knows are past their prime).

Jim Teeters is often referred to on boatdesign.net as a worthy sailboat designer. Yet there appears to be recognition that the last 30 years of sailboat design have - with a few exceptions, the Mac26x being one of those, produced inferior designs to those of the 1950s and 1960s.

Teeters, in what has to be the biggest joke of all time IMO has coined a new term.

Variable Stability

He is using it in seminars on slide presentations. So let me get this correct. A movable ballasted sailboat has variable stability but a TP52 does not. Well yes that would be true until you put up a sail or load her. The amount of sail you put up and the wind creates uh variable stability. The loading of gear creates uh variable stablity. Only a lubber should believe the kind of Bravo Sierra Teeters is putting into his slide shows. A lubber like, well the King of Spain. So sad be it.

I do not intend to be rude. That apparently comes just from speaking out. But in a sailing world where weight is the enemy, why would one purchase a TP52? They so clearly have two much weight in the bulb keel. Am I really wrong about this? Aren't TP52s simply one more example of a sailboat meant for lubbers? A boat for fools? OK, a hint, they likely are not as bad as all that. But no designer outside of ORCA is defending them. All that is said is that they represent "vested interests". Look if there are sunk costs involved that means little in decision making. The standards of the Volvo Ocean 70s probably should be followed. Does anyone really disagree? What does crewing on a TP52 do to the novice sailor. Does it ruin him/her from sailing better designs. I am thinking that it likely does.

dougfrolich

Lets say your are in the market for a West Marine Transpac boat. The rules allow water balasted boats as small as 24 feet. These are proven concepts on the atlantic. they are called mini-transats. Research on these designs is freely available. Here is a URL http://www.xs4all.nl/~blvrd/html/design.html. Now what is wrong with designing sailboats with concepts from that URL. There is only wrong for the vested interests in fixed foil fixed solid ballast designs like TP52s.

Lets say you want to market TP52s. Doesn't it look foolish for the TP52 owner to sail in the same race that a $25,000 production sailboat also may sail in. Of course it does. These TP52s are ships for fools. The GP RWP has as much said so. Will no one defend them? Must they attach the messanger, me, instead?

Lets be clear about my motives. I forsee a day when TP52 owners orchestrate movable ballasted monohulls out of the West Marine Transpac for no other reason than because it is embarassing to have them sailing in the same event. They may even pool resources and pay West Marine to remove such vessels from the Transpac. I want to see that stopped. The way to stop it is to allert the world to the foolishness of boats designed to the Teeter Principle. Do we really need 19 of these vessels by the end of 2005?

 

Beware

This guy is a complete nut job, and ABSOLUTELY can not be reasoned with. Do not respond to him, lest you get sucked into a depressing cycle that looks something like this:

Mighetto: The sky is green
You: Um, no the sky appears blue during daylight, and black at night

Mighetto: Oh no, the great apes at Microsoft might claim otherwise but it is most definitely Green

You: *puzzled at the ape reference* Sorry, but I am looking out the window right now, and it is most definitely blue

Mighetto: It is all a conspiracy by Teeters. This man is a menace, and a fool. He may say it is blue, but the sky is green. And planes at 4 knots with a 500 horsepower motor on the back.

You: *Getting frustrated* The scientific explanation of prisms and color absorbtion would definitively prove the sky can not be green on our planet. Sorry, but you are mistaken.

Mighetto: I am the seretary of SSSS, and therefore my word is that of a god. All must bow and obey. And I say it is green. And the only reason you say that is because you are from the East, and the East is Least and the West is Best. And we sail south until the butter melts.

You: *Pissed* You ******* ******, stupid *********** idiot. Blowhard, brain dead useless piece of crap......


And so it goes. Heed our advice when we tell you to ignore this human train wreck.

 

Rail Meat,

My old adversary. How kind of you to chime in. A real treat. How is Mystic Seaport doing? You and Sail One just have to admit that I have a track record of being correct. Melges with canting keels. Who would have thunk it but me. I know it is painful for you but any design coming from near Road Island is suspect. There is too much entrenched thinking of the kind that produces athelets that can't compeet except against others of their kind. Hardly world class. And Connecticut has to much back room dealing. RC made a fool of those who support the AC musium, otherwise known as the ship of fools musium. And SA, I couldn't believe that they ragged on a Columbia 32 because she has the form of movable ballast known as a centerboard. Lets have real discussion. I opened knowing it might be painful. I might have been wrong about V15s. They were used in the Koch Cup. Have heard only good things about them since. But lets stick to TP52 design OK.

I created this thread to chat about TP52 design. SA is history we do not need to discuss.

 

Ah ha, how many web sites do you need to get banned from beef ***** you STFU Frank?

You got some issues eh bro.

 

Could all of you please take this somewhere else? It's not funny, just boring!

 

Teaky,

I have not been banned from any web site. You are mistaken. If you want me to prove that, just ask and identify the board you wish me to post on. If you want me on Saint Francis Yacht Club board you will have to pay my fee. But any web site, just invite me.

The only issue here is design. I am not the issue unless I am made so. Jim Teeters is the issue. Any designer involved in ORCA is the issue. Are TP52s worthy of consideration as a modern ocean sailboat design or are they a contemporary AC related boat, closely aligned with a SC52 design from the 1970s that are effectively obsolete because of what happened at the Grand Prix Rule Working Party in May?

Look I can only offend a hand full of designers and a not even two hand fulls of owners by speaking ill of TP52s. The entire line has caused a lot of harm and like it or not I am an insider who speaks out. The system of patronage that has made the US a joke in the sailing sport will give way eventually. Keeping your nose clean while losing races to EU competition is not going to get you an Olympic Sailing Committee Chairman position for much longer. Here is a hint. US mobility up is no where as fast as US mobility down. There are a lot of US sailing fools that are hanging on by thin professional and financial threads today. I say cut them loose as quickly as possible. Starting with Jim Teeters if necessary. Does he possess the intellect, friends or resources to be of value to the US Sailing sport or is he, as I suspect, the kind of designer you should run not walk from. The kind of designer that is in ORCA. There are others.

Currently TP53 molds are white elephants being unloaded on the unwitting wannabe racing sailors like the King of Spain. The financial risk of producing obsolete ocean racing vessels is lessoned by ORCA in that should TP53s do poorly on the Med (and they will) there will be a market created for them on the east-is-the-least of sailors coast of the US by ORCA. Only they do not even want them. Hence the labeling of the boat as TransPacific.

http://www.braveheartracing.com

Call the crew and captain. Get them to defend the breed. Or stand down. Research on this design will continue. All indications so far are that it is something that should be halted as a farce. Show me otherwise. Stop chatting about me. Chat the TP52. I am a reasonable man in feeding mode. Feed me.

 

Søren Flening

I could use a moderator. The TP52 story is far from boring. Farr, Farr, Farr from boring. We in the US will need to follow such a story. In just a few more hours when the poles close and life gets beyond the US elections, this story may well sustain us. Do you know anything about the TP52 boats. Braveheart is a Bakewell-White of Auckland, New Zealand design and built by Lloyd Stevenson Boatbuilders. She is not out of one of the Farr molds that apparently have been dumped in Spain. Farr apparently is abandoning the TP52s and moving to Volvo Ocean 70 development. Anyway, help keep me on track with this. There are many tuning in, just because I am speaking out. There can only be good for designers coming from that.

 

No, you're right - the TP52 story isn't boring. Neither are the TP52s.
But I think the tone of most of the postings in this thread is way out of line! Stop chatting about Jim Teeters. Chat about the TP52s.
BTW: On september 13th, Farr Design issued a press release that they had just secured three TP52 designs. That doesn't sound like they're abandoning the TP52s.

 

Søren Flening posted

No, you're right - the TP52 story isn't boring. Neither are the TP52s.
But I think the tone of most of the postings in this thread is way out of line! Stop chatting about Jim Teeters. Chat about the TP52s.
BTW: On September 13th, Farr Design issued a press release that they had just secured three TP52 designs. That doesn't sound like they're abandoning the TP52s.

I respond:

OK no chatting about Jim Teeters. Perhaps he is just caught up in all this like many others. Farr Yacht Design can not be happy about the GP RWP. Farr obviously had put up reputation and big money into TP52s. Almost a bet the farm kind of investment. You can tell they are transitioning out of TP52s from their web site http://www.farrdesign.com/. Click on Volvo Ocean Race 2005-2006. See what little is mentioned on TP52s. Wonder what they are working on for the Volvo Ocean Race.

The TP52 boats simply were made obsolete when mathematical stability ratios were rejected as legitimate factors in design rules by the RWP. There has been a significant technology and philosophy change involving ocean racing sailboat design. Those who want to stay on the leading edge are going to movable ballast. They are moving out of fixed fin weighted keels. Unfortunately they may be doing so gradually to milk those slow to recognize the significant changes that have taken place.

Look, Braveheart bettered Icon in the TransPac. I am thinking ICON had the heavy bulb mounted instead of the light one. They have two and change between them with some crew thinking the heavy one best and others thinking the light one best. (This is a feel kind of thing. Those who like the feel of a powerboat or the land probably like the heavy bulb. Those who like the feel of the sea and are sailors - meaning they know how to reduce cloth when weather requires that - prefer the lighter bulb on the keel. Perry tells me it takes a day or two in the yard to change bulbs on Icon. So I imagine the heavy bulb is for the keel boat trained crews and the light bulb is for dinghy trained crews. But who knows. The theory sounds good.

ICON has a retractable bulb keel like Mirrabella V. This is a form of movable ballast were the movement is up and down. It is my understanding that bringing the bulb weight closer to the hull makes the boat faster like bringing the arms of a twirling ice skater in makes the ice skater twirl faster. Today craft such as the F/A-22 are redefining aircraft design by moving missiles and fuel internally rather than beneath the wings. This gives them low aerodynamic drag allowing less fuel use and also making them faster flyers.

The conclusion is that weight on the end of a foil in the form of a bulb is an artifact of design rules and not better design. This explains why you just do not see bulbs on designs from the age of commercial sail. The bulbs represent potentially a failed experiment in design that ran from the 1970s through the 1990s and is only believed in by those slow to recognize the failure. The better design is to just get rid of the weight on the fin and put it closer to or internal to the hull. Use less weigh and gain stability through hull form, movable water ballast, reduced weight aloft and most obviously by reduced sail when conditions require that.

The TP52s are related to the Farr 40s because Farr very much saw owners moving to TP52s from Farr 40s. In fact the predicted demise of the Farr 40 as a one-design class is very likely an orchestrated marketing move by Farr to get owners to "move up" to TP52s. See http://www.ims40.org/. Only it isn't working.

Owners are aware of the boats about to start the Vendee Globe, of the Volvo Ocean 70s and the fact that AC boat design will be radically different after 2007. They are aware of the financial risk of owning a TP52. In particular the very fast depreciation. These boats just will not be holding their value, unless movable balasted boats can be disparaged.

The notion of multiple measurements of "variable stability" being advanced for IMS 2004 VPP Changes is to be questioned and questioned rigorously by designers because all it really serves to do is slow down what should be adopted quickly - that being the principles of the GP RWP and movable ballast.

Of course perhaps I have things wrong. Can or can not a boat be knocked down by wind alone if it has 110 stability. Wasn't that why SH boats were allowed to race with that ratio up until 1999 and are grandfathered in even today. Instead of reacting as the TP52 rules demonstrate with a requirement of 128 stability shouldn't water ballast be considered instead because the flat, thin, planing, water ballasted, center boarded extreme sailing machines took the exact same storm at about the same place and did so without undo problems and single handed under sail!

It is the above that gets fellows like me in trouble with those entrenched in TP52 thinking. But before me there were multihullers. Light is Right and the ship should float, not sink when flooded. This is the mantra or should be the mantra of today's designers of ocean sailing monohull craft. That and the capsize ratio.

 

Maybe,

 

Why would Farr Design want owners to "move up" to TP52s if they're (Farr Design, that is) transitioning out of them?

No - you got this one right

I'm withdrawing from this thread - it seems to be a waste of time!