Discussion in 'Sailboats' started by mighetto, Nov 1, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mighetto
    Joined: Nov 2004
    Posts: 689
    Likes: 2, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: -6
    Location: water world

    mighetto New Member

    Sorry Søren Flening.

    This is a painful thread. Did someone chat with you to encourage you to withdraw from this thead? It happens. But there is glory in discussing the truth about TP52s. Glory you can no longer get by crossing an ocean in a small sailboat.

    BTW, those who do not know me may not be aware that I can be reached at So if you are for some reason shy about posting or have been threatened about posting you can communicate with me any way by email and straighten me out and provide me a supporting URL or concept.

    I am fed Bravo Sierra just as much as a TP52 prospect and am capable of getting it wrong. I do appreciate the email.

    I will respond here but will never divulge the source. This thread is not about me. It could have been about Jim Teeters but if Søren Flening continues to discuss TP52s it will not be. Søren is the only person to come close to defending Teeters. So Søren it is up to you. I lay off Teeters for a week. If you are not participating, his work will be analyzed as really it should have been by his peer designers. Do you guys (professional boat designers) have no professional peer review at all? Is it up to amatures like me to do that? Variable Stability ratios. Hog Wash. Isn't It? If someone can say Teeters is great here as has been done in the past, someone else can say he is faltering and that is fair is it not? Well I lay off for a week and hope for more participation.

    The sailboat ocean racing design field is an inbred one. If you go to the Farr site and click on the banner when it discusses Volvo 70 design you will note that Farr has a "turn key" design just waiting for a buyer.

    is likely the concept. That article has a graphic of Farr Yacht Design's early vision of a new VO70. These are media machines meaning we will be watching from them on the Sailing Channel. Reality TV at its best. The TP52s really have a short time to be in the lime lite. Actually they deserve less than they have been getting.

    The TP52 has its roots in the SC52, a Bill Lee design from 1992. It really is correct to say that by the end of 2005 it will have taken 13 years to produce 19 TP52 hulls. This is not the kind of production worthy of press really. Lee invented the "fast is fun" slogan. He teamed up with a former Farr designer named Bob Smith who had ties to the Bruce Farr Office in Annapolis to develop the first SC52. Shortly before splashing hull number one some legal issues involving a customer, a bankrupsy and ownership of Santa Cruiz Yachts, slowed down the process. Bill Lee severed all ties and likely all interest in what are now called SC52s or TP53s but really they are TP52s with a few more cruising amenities. The ties were severed I believe just this year. I understand that any TP52 whoes owner decides to no longer race her will be renamed a TP53. That preserves the notion that TP52s are racers. Can that be true. I suppose owner driven means you can make anything up. In fact Lee had decided in 1991 that there was no market for an ocean racer in that size and had intended the SC52 to be an ocean cruising boat, all be it a high performance one.

    This history can be easially verified. I have the base facts correct. Some of the details may be missing. Like the barn, which was torn down last year, etc. It is a sad story really but it supports the notion that the TP52s should have been on the water in numbers in the 1990s and that the window of opportunity is lost to them now. They are not boats for 2005 and beyond are they? Hasn't the state-of-the-art moved beyond that? Isn't that what the GP RWP said by rejecting mathematical stability limits in order to support canting and movable water ballast designs?
  2. dougfrolich
    Joined: Nov 2002
    Posts: 661
    Likes: 21, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 225
    Location: San Francisco

    dougfrolich Senior Member


    You have really proved yourself to be the following end of the horse, you have no idea what you are talking about. Will you just go away, you are littering the forum with your garbage.
  3. mighetto
    Joined: Nov 2004
    Posts: 689
    Likes: 2, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: -6
    Location: water world

    mighetto New Member


    The following end of the horse? You probably do not know my boat. She is one of these Mac26x vessels. Her name is Murrelet. A murrelet is a small sea bird known by the old timers in the Pacific NorthWest as a "kiss me arse". The name was chosen owing to that. By way of introduction


    scarry huh? Anyway lighten up. Smiley when you say things like that :rolleyes: . No one forces you to read my stuff and I created this thread so it isn't like I "hijacked" it. I mean you would think that chatting on a thread with a title like "Frank is an Arse" would be fair game. Sigh. The real scarry thing is how Saint Francis Yacht Club could sponsor a big boat event featuring TP52s as trailerable boats like mine.

    I just could not believe the photos of the TP52 on I-5 stuck under an overpass because the transport company got the measurements wrong. Are TP52s still gracing San Francisco Bay? I really do not think the boats are without merit. Just the wrong ocean racing boat for 2004. They likely are a smart racer cruiser when fitted with Lees vision. I think Farr (FYD) agrees.

    The Volvo Open 70 that will represent Spain is being developed by FYD in Annapolis as we speak. I doubt even Spain will be interested in producing TP52s for much longer. The plant in Spain doing that TP52 work is likely doing it as practice so they can move to VO70 production quickly.

    Right now (2004) it is all about dumping TP52s into markets where the sailors are insulated from world class competition. The US east coast is perfect for that if ORCA does its job. This is because those who have been associated with NYYC still pretend they know a thing or two about sailing. This in spite of not being able to challenge in the AC in 7 years and in spite of the worst showing in the Olympic sailing events in over 60 years. (So does anyone believe the silver in Tornado class wasn't won by cheating?)

    Look Lee is a god. I do not blame him for what happened to Santa Cruise Yachts. Stuff happens. I am hoping he resigns from ORCA and moves back to the correct about sailing coast of the US as quickly as possible.

    Endorsements are purchased just like space in a sailing magazine or on a web site for a favorable TP52 article. Lee probably had to do what he did involving ORCA support owing to contracts he had with the new owners of Santa Cruise Yachts or others, perhaps Farr (FYD). Anyway more of the story of TP52s.

    Prior to the US Sailing delegation of Peter Reichelsdorfer and Stan Honey walking out on the grand prix RWP, perhaps because of advice given to them by their technical advisor, and at the formation of ORCA, a fellow named Bruce McPherson alerted the world to the fact that the US Sailing delegation and others had reached an agreement with the TP52 class to embrace that fleet in any grand prix design rule.

    What does that mean. It could mean a bribe. It could mean money changed hands. I think we have to assume it means money changed hands. It would be like a Melges 30 owners group paying decision makers at the Olympics to chose thier vessel for equipment in the next games. But of course this can not be proven. Bruce says it was consistent with a needs assessment at various clubs but fishy it be especially when Bruce was so bold as to send letter or letters, one of which reached Seahorse International Sailing and they actually printed it. See page 30 of the July edition. Less than a dozen owners at clubs could have even known about TP52s. The only need was a need for Farr to have something for Far 40s to move up to before they orchestrated the demise of the Farr 40 one-design class IMO. I would love to chat with Bruce MacPherson. Does he post here at all?
  4. mighetto
    Joined: Nov 2004
    Posts: 689
    Likes: 2, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: -6
    Location: water world

    mighetto New Member

    What happened to Nico's post? I can not respond if I can't read it. Did some thug contact Nico and have him delete the post. These guys from RI are just going to have to realize that their guy didn't win yesterday. They are no longer mainstream. Might as well admit the US is different today and get on board with it and move US Sailing's HQ to Saint Augustine Florida;) Note smilie; this is a joke. Don't go ballistic. No one forces you to read my stuff.

    Oh well, let me start the morning off with an observation. US Sailing has included an article by Dave Perry called "Playing by the Rules" in the Sailing World Special Issue called dream machines. So as not to offened entrenched interests who do not play by the rules but make them up, the article is on a separate flyer insert. I find the flyer ironic because TP52s are about making up new rules and it is about a new "rating rule initiative named Offshore Racing Club of America (ORCA)" rather than playing by established ones such as those set up by the GP RWP. See

    ORCA has reached an agreement with the Transpac 52 Class to embrace that growing fleet as central to its grand prix rule. These boats embody much of what grand prix racing is about: fast, fun and seaworthy boats with close racing and simple scoring. Moreover, this is where the market is and where it is going. New boats have hit the water this year and class events will be held at the NYYC spring regatta, Chicago/Mac Race and 9 boats expected for St. Francis Big Boat. At least 4 TP 52s will compete in the Newport Bermuda Race.

    It is this kind of thing (may 2004) that gets US Sailing in trouble with its tax exempt status as well as honest racing enthusiasts and those who would like to see US sailors competitive with those in EU and down under. The material is even so bold as to imply that this ORCA will be an international standard.

    Although ORCA is a US-based organization, it also believes that an international rule with broad acceptance would be a boon to sailors worldwide. We will keep our colleagues at ORC, RORC and other international organizations informed of our progress.

    Argh. But there is some information for amateur designers like me to play with.

    Specs: (Esmeralda): LOA: 52; LWL 49'2"; Beam: 14'1'; DSPL: 16,499 lbs; SA (u/d): 1,690/3,638 sq. ft.; Draft: 10'6"; Builder: Goetz Custom Boats; Sails: North Sails; Mast/Rigging: Hall Spars, Navtec; Electronics: B&G, Sailmath WTP; Hardware: Harken; Designer: Reichel/Pugh; Generation: 2001

    Specs: (Rosebud): LOA 52'; LWL 48'; Beam 13'3"; DSPL: 16,945 lbs.; SA (u/d): 1.695/3,650 sq. ft; Draft: 10'6": Builder; Westerly Marine: Sails: North; Mast/Rigging: Hall Spars; Navtec: Electronics: B&G; Hardware Harkin; Designer: Farr Yacht Design; Generation: 2004

    Right off the bat an amature designer would predict that Esmeralda with her extra foot at the waterline would be faster than Rosebud and this is the findings from the St. Francis YC Big Boat series as well as from the Chicago-Mac race. We can make other predictions as well. How about that the owners will vote to redefine the box rule so that boats with Esmeralda's water line length are no longer TP52s but TP53s. That is how owner-driver classes work. It is not the kind of thing that US Sailing should be involved in. It benefits two small a group of owners, of sailors and of designers.

    Frank Mighetto
    The Sailor's Voice of Reason :)
  5. mighetto
    Joined: Nov 2004
    Posts: 689
    Likes: 2, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: -6
    Location: water world

    mighetto New Member

    My oh My

    The Capsize Risk ratio was designed to penalize boats with a large beam for their high inverted stability and light boats for their response to large waves. Values below 2 are ocean passagemakers. The interesting thing is that Esmeralda comes in at 2.129. She doesn't pass the screen. I really have had a hard time with this but now after checking and rechecking I believe the calculation.

    My Mac26x is more worthy of an ocean crossing than Esmeralda.

    This explains Farr's correction in its TP52 class in 2004. Rosebud's Capsize risk comes in at 2.00.

    Capsize Risk = beam/(disp/(.9*64))^.333

    Thanks to all who helped me with the calculations. It couldn't hirt however to run them again. A reasonable man would not consider TP52s, at least the 2001 vintage, ocean worthy (assuming others of that vintage have a similar capsize risk.) I obviously still am having a hard time believing.

    TransPac me arse. These are really lake boats if the calculations are true. What the hell is going on? How do things like this happen. Please someone have pitty. Confirm the numbers. Do not let bullies from ORCA, or US Sailing, Sailing Anarchy or other prevent you from doing so. This is a design flaw for a boat being marketed as a TransPacific vessel.
  6. as_aus

    as_aus Guest

    mighetto, stop poluting the board with this crap.

    Do you actually have a point and if so could you try to explain it in less than 1000 words.

    we have already established that you are seeking to discredit a good racing class for what ever reason you may have. But aside from expressing personal grudges againt designers and having a whinge, all you have acheived in the previopous two and a half pages is piss people off.

    If you intended to start a discussion, maybee you shouldnt post 90% of the stuff here cos from my chair is seems like all you are interested in is condeming the TP52 to hell for being a far more exiting boat than your mac 26 ever will be.
  7. ummmm

    I have to say...this is the perhaps the MOST bizarre thing I've ever read on this forum. The idea that there is someone out there trying to link up TP52's with Macgregor 26's (the only sailboat that is actively marketed as being ski-boat capable) and some vast conspiracy from the omnipotent offices of Bruce Farr is beyond ludacrous. the whole thing about Farr dropping the 52's for Volvo boats is so funny. A couple of things should stick out as far as timing and realities are concerned. A) Farr designed some spec boats for the Volvo race and invested heavily in this undertaking. Securing design fees for heavily sponsored campaigns like this is good for business....FYD is a business....a business with an admirable record of producing fast race winning boats. Last Volvo race saw all but one boat designed by Farr. I know that this fact will just be used as some sort of justification for your wierd theories, but agin you do forget another very important aspect of the yacht racing world. People who buy these boats all have the fact that they are rich and successful in common. They do not like to lose, and they will pay for whatever is going to get them to the finish fastest, or get them the hottest chicks in Antigua. This is a really simple concept that really has nothing to do with RWP's or movable ballast.
    This brings me to another point (gosh...I'm feeling a bit like the nutcase here being so longwinded), which is that there happens to be tremendous interest in moveable ballast. Most moveable ballast boats (and lets not get into a symantics discussion here bringing centerboarders into the discussion) happen to be very expensive, all that is except for the Mac 26, which we all know is a hopeless piece of ****. The TP52 rule was designed so as to keep it simple, fun and fast. I think it meets all of these objectives. Having raced against several of them, I can say with absolute confidence, that these things haul ***..maybe even faster than a Mac 26 with the Merc 60 hammer down. Not only this, but everyone who has been racing on them is really pumped about them for the above mentioned reasons. Everyone I know who has been racing on them is a very good sailor, not a "wannabe" as you suggest. What is so funny is that you call King Jaun Carlos a ridiculous is that? I would bet all the money I have on a race between you and the king in Mac 26's, and I would take a nap and be assured that when I wake up the King will already be sipping cocktails whilst you are still trying to figure out your points of sail diagram.
    So thanks for this late night entertainment. I really never thought in my wildest dreams that I would have hear some kind of link between Tp52's and Mac26's...priceless really. Oh man off to bed now with a grin on my face
  8. mighetto
    Joined: Nov 2004
    Posts: 689
    Likes: 2, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: -6
    Location: water world

    mighetto New Member

    Head Scratcher

    Thank you for your post. You are doing good. I am reasonable and am considering your points. Please remember that I started this thread knowing it would be painful. There are a couple of things that you and others bothered by my expose' on the TP52s are not aware of. I, by the way, am also bothered by my findings. Perhaps most in the grand prix racing world are unaware of things that I assume most folks already know.


    The King of Spain has dropped his plans to purchase a TP52. If he ever had them. The sailing press will be spinning the story this month. Did they get the story wrong. Was the King really ever purchasing one? I like to think King Juan Carlos of Spain was saved by my posts here and elsewhere and that he is considering a Volvo70 from Farr instead.

    There are several other aspects of this that you may not be aware of. I often forget how little sailors involved in sailboat racing know about the boat building business.

    1. It is common in the business to pay designers and builders NOT TO PRODUCE models that are superior to those that have already been splashed. On the Columbia River here in the Pacific Northwest there is a famous story of a business that actually built into its startup plan several years of payments from existing ferry services to delay the launching of a competing and far superior stern wheeler. The existing services refused to pay (probably because such a bold statement in a business plan made public to attract investors was offensive) and in spite the superior boat was moved quickly from San Francisco to the Columbia river. There is more to the story. If any are interested I would be glad to elaborate.

    The point is that MacGregor Yachts knew from day one that these X craft were superior. They actually cut up all the molds for all the other boats they produced and turned to one-boat only production for the first time in their history. Well they did keep the Mac65 mold but even there they noted that the X would out motor the Mac65. There is a Mac65 called Braveheart and I wonder if the TP52 Braveheart owner use to own her. I looked into purcasing the Mac65 about 2 years ago. My wife didn't like her. Anyway no real marketing from MacGregor Yachts and by word of mouth alone 5000 X boats in less than 7 years. This production rate has never and will never be matched again by any cruising boat manufacturer.

    From the above, there is a possibility that MacGregor Yachts is being paid not to produce Mac26x vessels or discuss the merits of the design today. There is a yard in Poland that is known to have copied the boat (this confirmed by MacGregor Yachts) but it is not producing either and may also be getting paid. The Austrailian yard is not exporting. MacGregor Yachts claims to have invented water ballasted sail boats.

    2. Wealthy people, just like the rest of us, live close to the limits of what they can afford. When these folks get into racing and it consumes their efforts, they do sometimes find themselfs less able to infuence those around them because of cash constraints. You will be surprised to find out how many race boats with 300 plus races behind them are operated by formerly wealthy or land poor - meaning lots of money tied up in real estate. But they are no more influential than I or anyone willing to speak the truth.

    3. Contrary to the myth, movable Water Ballast and Canting Keels have operated together in races for almost a decade now. In my opinion, water ballast is superior because it is the form of movable ballast used during the commercial age of sail and it is simple. Keep It Simple Sailor (KISS) is usually the superior design philosophy . Then there is the ability to drop the weight in the doldrums. You can not do that with a canter. Canting Keels are hyped today because designers have been able to get patents on them. But you needn't take my word on this. There is a water ballasted vessel being converted to canting techology for 2005. She is the 98 foot Knonica Minolta and there is a nice article on page 52 (like TP52) in November's Sailing World. In the article it is mentioned that when wind is light Skandia, her rival, just doesn't show up. So Knonica Minolta (also known as Zana) doesn't get the shine she should in victory. Her owner owns half a boat yard so he benefits by converting to canting technology in that the boat yard benefits from the experience. We all benefit if we find that Zana is still bettered by Skandia. It really is a nice test of the techology. I suspect that Zana's hull form or rigging and Skandia's race management explains more of why Zana does not prevail more often. A decade of mini-transate races has not demonstrated canters to be suprior on ocean races because of doldrums where the water ballasted boats drop weight and first catch and then pass canters.

    TP52s have neither canting keels, nor water ballast. The hype involving them is completely artificial. Bruce points out in his letter printed in Seahorse that the ORCA rules constitute really a one-design class. It is to Saint Francis Yacht club's credit that the TP52s in the big boat series were described as one-designs. ORCA doesn't want the TP52s classified that way because of the Swan 60 one-designs. They need to portray TP52s as being different from Swan 60s and 45s when they are really as Bruce states just another one-design. The Swan 60s hit the EU circuit in 2005. I am hoping it will be the end of TP52s as big boat race boats and that Lee's original vision for the boats as racer-cruisers (TP53s) is re-established. The TP52s are designed for crews of 11. Perhaps water ballast can be retrofitted to them to get them to the average crew size for a crusing sailboat - which is 2. There really need NOT be or should be more of the boats produced. Designers just can and have done much better.

    Again, know my biases. I am not happy about Jim Teeter's testimony against my ride. So his work, his founding of ORCA, his notions on variable stability, might never have been discussed by me if Teeters had not testified. But I am not the only one speaking out and my biases do not mean I am wrong. Bruce is not wrong.
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2004
  9. SailDesign
    Joined: Jan 2003
    Posts: 1,964
    Likes: 146, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 650
    Location: Jamestown, RI, USA

    SailDesign Old Phart! Stay upwind..

    Well, if that were true, I would have seen or heard about it in 20 years in the boat design business (25 if you include my time in England). Also, if that were true, I would never have to work again because half the boat builders would be paying me not to :)

  10. yachtie2k4
    Joined: Jun 2004
    Posts: 51
    Likes: 2, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 32
    Location: Sydney, Australia

    yachtie2k4 Anarchist

    Then, in the Ingles Sydney To Gold Coast 2004, which was in winds lighter than 5 knots for most of the race, Skandia was leading until they had to pull out because 4 of the crew were doing the etchells worlds? I think you are f****d in the head. & those mini transat boats have both water ballast & canting keels. in winds under 5 knots, you can heel a canting keel boat to leeward, allowing the sail to have some shape, which allows you to move, unlike your piece of **** Mac26X or whatever it is, bet that could never do the sydney to hobart.
    **** off & dont come back to this site.
  11. mighetto
    Joined: Nov 2004
    Posts: 689
    Likes: 2, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: -6
    Location: water world

    mighetto New Member


    The etchell worlds story is similar to my frustration with the way US Sailing operates. Kahn is getting very vocal about it even to the point of starting his own tax exempt US organization that will train sailors for the Olympics and work around US Sailing's scheduling of major events (like US Olympic trials) when other events (like Finn, 505 or etchell worlds) are also scheduled. The schedule is part of the race game and to the extent that you can control a schedule, you can control who will show up by cleaverly picking a place and a time that conflicts with events you suspect your competitors will be involved in.

    I do not think US Sailing scheduled the Olympic trials when they did without knowing there was a conflict. It was done with a purpose to assist favored sons from Road Island. That statement would get things rocking on a forum that is not oriented to design. It is of course related to the design of the equipment used in the Olympics.
    I personally think the Tasar for the Olympics should be seriously considered. They are sailed like Mac26x boats you know :) The equipment used at the Olympics need not be the fastest or newest and the notion of one crew being a male and the other a female (which is what Tasars are designed for) is appealing. In years past it is clear to me that the Olympic committee selecting sailing equipment has been lobied a bit to much for propriety to select the lobiest's designed racing skiff, rather than popular designs that make more sense owing to the numbers racing them and their world wide grass roots acceptance.

    But we get off topic. Lets try to chat about TP52s. Here is the conclustion I have come to after trying for several years to get Mac26x boats racing. We have PHRF racing in the US which in theory should alow for movable ballasted vessels but has not until the 2004 racing season and then only in the Pacific Northwest. Right now you can only move water and cant keels. You can not yet lift foils. That should be allowed. The fix currently is that when 5 boats of identical type race PHRF they can opt to race one-design and in one-design the boat can be sailed as the designer intended (as opposed to being raced so lesser designed craft can win a few races) :rolleyes:

    The conclusion in a sound bite: One-design is a mechanism meant to keep some vessels off the race course. TP52 advocates know this and hate the fact that Saint Francis Yacht Club referred to them that way. Advocates prefer to spread the notion that these are a design class, which Bruce and I, and apparently many at SFYC disagree with.

    Keeping on topic, I brought up US Sailing by way of introducing the

    Capsize Screening Formula Calculator used in their basic keel boat classes.

    Plug in the numbers for Esmeralda (16499 and 14'1") and for Rosebud (16945 and 13'3") and note that Farr's 2004 vintage design corrects to this ratio in comparison to the Reichel/Pugh 2001 design. Sailing World has selected two TP52s that very clearly bring this concept to the amature designer.

    The TP52 are buoy racers and not ocean worthy vessels.

    I am even going to go so far as to state that the "TP" in TP52, 15 or 20 years ago, was meant to refer to how the 52 footers are easily TransPorted and marketers have repositioned the boats to mean TransPacific.

    There is support for that notion from articles posted on the web and elswhere about how a TP52 can be placed on a semi-truck. The boat was repositioned to be a TransPacific vessels from a TransPortable vessel inappropriately is my point. The US Sailing trained should recognize the early models (at least) as unworthy of transpacific crossing.
  12. mighetto
    Joined: Nov 2004
    Posts: 689
    Likes: 2, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: -6
    Location: water world

    mighetto New Member


    The practice of paying not to build is documented by James A. Gibbs in the book Pacific Graveyard which was first published in in 1950. My copy is a third edition. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 64-21182. The Puget Sound Maritime Historical Society and the Oregon Historical Society keep the book in print.

    In recent years designers team up with each other so there is less direct competition. This is a kind of back room deal making that is in keeping with the pay-not-to-produce notion. You can think of it as a designer/ builder support group but it really is an impediment to radically better designs.

    I know nothing about your firm but that it is in Road Island. This alone is enough for me to worry. Move west man. :) Any sailboat design out of RI is subject to the influences of the area which are not just coming from other designers and the fools who still think US Sailors competitive (NYYC) but from the place itself which is unique in the way the wind blows.

    On the east coast of the United States the warming and cooling land mass does not create winds that fully overcome the ocean weather or trade winds that a very tall mast can capture. Hence, for some commerical sailing vessels following the same courses trip after trip the taller masts were desirable even though the larger sails required additional crew to handle them.


    The Lady Washington was one such trading vessel. She was built for duty on the east coast of the Americas as a tall masted sloop and was converted to a split rig (two relatively shorter masts) in 1787, about 20 years later. Ted Brewer has discovered that the vessel was built in Essex, Connecticut and crossed the Atlantic at least once bringing Irish immigrants to the New World.

    She was later sailed to Hong Kong where the shorter masts and easier to handle sails were installed. The Lady Washington was the first US built vessel to circumnavigate the globe. Her furthest aft sail, I have been told, is called a spanker on European built square riggers. Perhaps you can confirm that. American sailors in her time prefered to call her kind brig-like or brigantine, which is appropriate given that what looks like a spanker is the largest and hence really the main sail. Most sailors today call her (incorrectly) a brig. I do not know about the Lady but many of the sailing vessels in the later years of commercial sail were built so that they could be handled by crews of 2 (not 11 as is a TP52). The Lady Washington was used in the film Pirates of the Carrabean where she was portrayed as being crewed by two.

    When I first became aware of the TP52s, I speculated that they may have masts more appropriate for the east coast of the US and questioned the notion that the boats really were meant for the Pacific. My wife and I had chartered the Lady Washington and her crew for an event and I was keenly aware of the east-coast tall mast design rational owing to that. The questioniong resulted in clarification that indead the first 5 TP52s were fitted out for Atlantic (not Pacific use). I suspect that means a taller mast. Regardless, about half of the current TP52s likely need refitting, just like the Lady Washington did, to sail outside of the area around Road Island.

    BTW, Rail Meat and I have had extensive discussions about the sad state of sailing on the east coast of the US. Here there is this great resource at Mystic Seaport and designers fail to gather any information, from what is archived there, prefering instead to design sailboats like those that fools have been sailing at NYYC for the last 30 years. Designs like those used in the AC and these TP52s. Designs that I view as examples of an experiment involving long thin fixed weighted foils that has failed and needs to be abandoned.

    Wednesday I let loose on Jim Teeters unless some one moderates. We know from the recent presidential election that this is the US way. Rag on the man. But hold me back, I do not do this joyfully. I just do not see the kind of professionalism that there should be in the boat design field.
  13. 249

    249 Guest

    Just for old time's sake, not because of any hope this psycho will ever actually understand anything......

    "MacGregor Yachts claims to have invented water ballasted sail boats." (from the Mac class site and other areas IIRC).

    In that case they are LIARS. What about the 1888 water-ballasted RNLI boats like "Royal Stuart"??? Eric Tabarly was using windward water ballast in his Bigouin design (35' mono) '69 IIRC for the singlehanded Transpac. The square-riggers like Herzogin Cecilie (1902) had water ballast tanks.

    A look at some other LIES from Macregor's history;

    "Before 1967, all sailboats were built one-at-a-time, until each one was finished."

    IT'S A LIE. To quote a single example, the Finns for the 1952 Olympics have been photographed on a production line. There were many, many builders who had production lines.

    From the Macgregor page;

    "We invented the retracting keel".....WHAT! WHAT??????

    For godsake, the British Royal Navy had retracting keels in ships like Lady Nelson, launched at Deptford on November 3rd 1798.

    Hey Frank, that's over 250 years before Macregor, you ignoramus.

    " and started the trailerable sailboat market"

    What a laughable and sad which abuses the decades of sailors who had been sailing trailable boats. Hey Mighetto, do you know the Snipe was designed for the development-class TRAILER SAILOR class in 1931??? Do you know that the Jollenkreuzers, lift keel cruiser/racers, were racing in Germany by the '30s (and they're STILL much faster than the Mac 26!).

    The Hartley (New Zealand) TS 16 was designed in the '50s. Jeezers, by the time the Macregor company came around, there were hundreds of cruising trailerable sailboats in Australia and NZ. And in the UK, there were boats like the Fairey Atalanta (1955) which has had an association since 7th January 1959.

    What sort of arrogant fool is Roger Macgregor, if he thinks he can get away with such stupid lies???? Oh, wait, ****** like Frank believe him!

    "Tasars are sailed like Mac 26s". Complete rubbish. I've got a bunch of Tasar trophies from championships. Tasars plane. I've seen Frank's pics of "planing" on a Mac and they show no such thing. Frank doesn't even know the true definition of planing, I'd say.

    The Capsize Risk formula page says very clearly that it "gives only guidance" and that it does not take into account the vertical Centre of Gravity. In other words, it's not much use.

    What is that rubbish about TP 52s being TransPortable 15 years ago? The class was only created about 2000, you dork! I was in discussion myself with people who were involved with the TP boxes, and I'm damned if I'm a liar; I leave that to you, Frank.

    "In years past it is clear to me that the Olympic committee selecting sailing equipment has been lobied a bit to much for propriety to select the lobiest's designed racing skiff"

    What foolishness. There is only one skiff in the Olympics, so how many "past years" are we talking about? And that sole skiff (49er) came from the same "lobbiest" as the Tasar - the boat you want in!

    "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!"

    LIES. LIES. LIES. LIES. (1) the 128 stability is better than the 110 allowed in the Hobart - and at least 110 stability boat rolled with two deaths. I was there at the inquest when the role of the stability was brought up. You're a LIAR, an ignorant liar, Frank.

    The "extreme" shorthanders are exceptionally BEAMY (20' and more on 60' LOA). They are NOT narrow.

    As has been pointed out to you before, you sneaky scumbag, the Hobart fleet was well north (by hundreds of miles) and a different weather patter. You low-down abusive idiot, this has been pointed out to you before, complete with reference to the logs and writings of the skippers of those singlehanded boats. Yet you have so little honesty, so little human decency, that you prefer to bolster your sad ego and your boat by defaming Hobart sailors caught in a severe storm.

    Listen, ***** (and I mean that in the nicest possible way, which isn't very nice; nah, what the hell, i mean it in a nasty way). The facts are that the singlehanded boats are NOT slim, they were NOT in the same area, they were NOT in the same conditions.

    Oh yea, at least 3 of them capsized and stayed capsized too, you fool. SO much for your "safe boats".

    " I like to think King Juan Carlos of Spain was saved by my posts here and elsewhere "

    Oh my god....the King, with Bruce Farr and Russell Bowler and Coutts and R/P and all the world's best sailors and designers at his disposal, bothers to listen to the ravings of some nutcase who has never been on an ocean passage and never races (well, he did race once, in a twilight beercan race, and he came last - but he reckons he would have beaten a TP 52....Yep, get that, he comes LAST in his Mac (waaay behind old 25 footers etc) and reckons he would have beaten a TP52 OVER THE LINE...the insanity is bewildering).

    Ahhh, I feel better now.
  14. SailDesign
    Joined: Jan 2003
    Posts: 1,964
    Likes: 146, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 650
    Location: Jamestown, RI, USA

    SailDesign Old Phart! Stay upwind..

    What mighetto is trying to tell us, if I read him correctly, is that boats designed by New Englanders and sailed by New Englanders have rigs suited for new England.
    This is a surprise?

  15. mighetto
    Joined: Nov 2004
    Posts: 689
    Likes: 2, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: -6
    Location: water world

    mighetto New Member


    I do not intend to lie. We are products of what we are fed and we eat differently on the West Coast of the US. Thankyou for the information. Clearly more research is necessary. My come back to your post is that Roger MacGregor and MacGragor Yachts are honered in the Sailboat Hall of Fame.

    Selections for the Hall of Fame are made by a committee of magazine editors which include, SAILING magazine, SAILING WORLD, and SAIL. Half models of the Hall of Fame boats are displayed each year at the Sail Expos, and are on permanent display at the Museum of Yachting in Newport, Rhode Island. The MacGregor 25 is in a select group of only 24 boats such as the Laser and J-24 and F27 that helped usher in the fiberglass era. So there likely is something to the "lies" as you describe them. The Mac26 line of boats exceed the Mac25 as ocean sailboats IMO.

    Like it or not, these Mac26x boats and Jim Teeters objections to them have lifted the MacGregor Yacht company to probably the most prominant position ever held for a US based designer/builder. There has never been as much world wide attention paid to a US production boat builder.

    Catalina Yachts does not market outside of the US and while Pacific Seacraft is well known, the numbers of boats produced is still relatively small. Hunter is prominant but continues to be for the most part ignored in favor of well TP52s argh.

    There is currently an article in Good Old Boat November/December 2004 and it states that "The company (MacGregor Yachts) is one of America's most successful boatbuilders". Yet during the period of time that Jim Teeters chose to identify himself as the source of disparaging remarks that had filtered from the top down at US Sailing, the MacGregor Yacht Company could support only one of its four production lines and lost half of its dealerships. The Mac26x went totally out of production with "baby killer" being labled on her. Jim Teeters and his co-supporters for TP52s have done real harm to American Boat building in the US and continue to harm all US Sailors and the boat design and build industry in the US through ORCA.

    The rest of the world has adopted design and production standards that only Roger MacGregor would claim to be his own. But lets do get real. In the thousands of years of sailing, the notion that anyone came up recently with an innovation that had never been thought of before is just silly. This is why I am confused that folks can get patents on canting keels. Surely someone had a centerfoil that did something similar 100 years ago. Well I hope to post more later today. But likely you will not hear from me until Friday. Take Care.
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.