TP52s

I don't know why I can't attend to the joys of the season and Rossi without getting calls about paying attention to what is posted about me on the Internet. Tripp Gal had informed me off list that she did not want to be a part of this thread. I had respected that. Now the good enemy has lifted her hand. But wait, but wait, don't leave me behind in obscurity. Sexy Little Amish Girl whats to play the great race game.

To bring all good boat designers up to speed. This good enemy has a thing about hats. Hence Amish Girl.

I use to think of Tripp Gal as a comic book character. This was before I knew that IRL she actually has the name of a super comic book character out of costume. I do not make things up. She for months likely thought I knew exactly who she was and where she lived. The whole stalking thing. And this is all you will know about her from me except that she has supporters and that we battle over Crank Boy, a worthy mast man that I hope to turn from the dark side. May I save CB from her evil Keel Boat Ways. Huzzah Huzzah we raize the flag of Anarchy. CB always loved this gag. She has her supporters.



There will still be serious work done here. The question of why the Capsize Risk Ratio is so important, construction methods, the Mac26x construction and TP52 construction. But lets enjoy the season for now. Take Care and Be Happy All.

Frank

 

Welcome to the TP52 thread.

 

The mold sets used in Spain are Farr mold sets as per Seahorse International. What is most interesting about them is that they corrected exactly to SNAME'S capsize risk ratio and also pass US Sailing's Capsize screening ratio.

From an economic standpoint these ratios are important because no reputable monohull dealer will sell a boat that the prospect intends to use to cross oceans that does not pass the SNAME ratio. The US Sailing ratio is a quick check for the math challenged that approximates the SNAME ratio. With calculators, I don't see why they still teach it. Anyway, a reputable dealer will suggest a different vessel for ocean duty if the vessel of interest does not pass the CRR. Hence vessels that do not pass the CRR, should not and AFAICT do not command the same resale value as vessels that do.

From the standpoint of honor, the SNAME ratio honors those who died in the 1978 Fastnet. The ratio was developed specifically to reward designers who built vessels that when capsized could be righted.

Other ratios, such as those advanced by Jim Teeters to the GP RWP pretend that you can avoid capsize. In sufficient sea all boats can be capsized. These ratios put owners into a false sence of security and are hence less worthy than the CRR. But more to the point, if you are going to ignore the CRR, then why not consider a multi-hull? Ratios like those that Jim Teeters believed the GP RWP should support also support the notion that a multi-hull is worthy of ocean crossing. That is a hard pill to swallow for many. Perhaps it is correct. But even so a very hard pill for a monohuller to digest. Multihullers can take the blue pill because of solid flotation.

 

No no no. That is the conventionally ballasted contemporary as opposed to modern sloop MacGregor put out likely owing to Jim Teeter's and US Sailings apparent objections to the Mac26x during the 2002 July 4th drunken boaters case. These objections were made to look silly by an NA named Taylor and the later ruling by the GP RWP against Teeters Principles (and the TP52). This model uses a combination of fixed solid and fixed water (removable for trailering I suppose) ballast. The Mac26m boat is not intended to be sailed or motored unballasted except that unballasted motoring is necessary for water skiing with the standard hp engine. The X material you want to review is at
http://www.always-online.com/hardtlefamily/KnotShoreDefault.htm
You will want to click on the button Online Brochure. These really are more like mini-transats. They are meant to be sailed or motored ballasted or unballasted. But good eyes. The 26x brochure does not use the word removable to describe ballast.

 

Yes - we all know that Farr has sold some designs to Spain! It was "...moving to VO70s fast in order to save the farm." I wanted you to prove.
And since you can't/won't answer my question regarding the mathematically derived stability screening values, I'll leave you here. And this time I mean it!

 

STOP THE THREAD Mighetto banded from Sailing Anarchy and should be from here.

How do you have so much time I dont have time to read the essays!

Please no one post anymore!

 

The only truly self righting ocean going man made craft is the, Ping Pong Ball Mark 1.

 

Oh No it is franko spaghetto. I have time to post because it is mostly boiler plate worked up first on Sailnet.net and Sailing Anarchy. I have been through this many times before but did not recognize the Bravo Sierra source as coming from Jim Teeters and ORCA and TP52 supporters until just recently. Hey in honor of my 50th why not name a bush after me. Something prickly and hard to eradicate.

Andrew Mason welcome to the TP52 thread. True anarchists, thanks for thinking that I am Rad. (That is a good thing right?). As always you may contact me at mighetto@eskimo.com. It is a wonder this thread is still alive. Clearly we are doing good work here. We fly the flag of anarchy into the new year.


Owner Driver - what a stupid rule, just the kind of thing to be ignored. Someone get the SA burgee up on a TP52. The owners are so clueless that they will think it is a good thing.

Yachty4000,

What makes you think I have been banned from Sailing Anarchy and if true why would I care? Why would you care? Why would readers here care? My roll there was simply to get the SA burgee flying at a site claiming to represent us rather than ownership.

Huzzah Huzzah

 

Søren Flening

Lets not give up. I think that this answer below was a good one. Why are you ignoring it?

Other ratios, such as those advanced by Jim Teeters to the GP RWP pretend that you can avoid capsize. In sufficient sea all boats can be capsized. These ratios put owners into a false sence of security and are hence less worthy than the CRR. But more to the point, if you are going to ignore the CRR, then why not consider a multi-hull? Ratios like those that Jim Teeters believed the GP RWP should support also support the notion that a multi-hull is worthy of ocean crossing. That is a hard pill to swallow for many. Perhaps it is correct. But even so, a very hard pill for a monohuller to digest. Multihullers can take the blue pill because of solid flotation.

Yes - we all know that Farr has sold some designs to Spain! It was "...moving to VO70s fast in order to save the farm." I wanted you to prove.

See http://www.farrdesign.com/546.htm. Very clearly Farr sees itself as out of time. 8 months to disaster so a need to move fast. Again check Dunn and Bradstreet. I forsee a lot of asset protection about to happen at Farr. Farr was started in 1981. I think they suffer from groupthink. You know design by committee. But there are signs of brilliance. For example: http://www.farrdesign.com/students.html

Competitive sailing is the proving ground for the competitive naval architect. Get a feel for what makes a boat fast. Good big boat sailors learned in, and most continue to sail in, dinghies.

--- G. Russell Bowler, Vice President


Farr's VP is saying pretty much what I am. New to sailing folks should stay out of TP52s. Those boats are for a kind of sailing that will not be relevant in the near future. They really are not big boats. The crews for the big boats will be comprised of the dinghy and not the TP52 trained. TP52s really are sailing career limiting. They are the last boat sailed before taking up golf.

And since you can't/won't answer my question regarding the mathematically derived stability screening values, I'll leave you here. And this time I mean it!

Damn. I will be in monolog mode until the 9th. I really do intend to close off this thread before heading to the Galapagos Islands. Wish you the best. Let me try another argument.

http://msacademic.formsys.com/uploads/85/21/stab2003PRC-word.pdf

points out that architecture terminology regarding stability criteria involves many dialects. Each design office has its own meaning. The author shows that even something as simple as the definition used for length is specific to the office.

For a fellow like me, the length at water line is the length appropriate for deterimining when the boat will plane. So if crew are aft so the bow is lifting over its wake, the appropriate length is a foot or more shorter than when the boat is at rest. This is not unlike vessels with short waterline lengths that owing to overhang have a longer waterline length when on heel. In light air the boat can not heel much. Owing to drag, it is advantageous to have less wetted surface and hence a short waterline length. When there is enough wind to carry and ignoring planing, the longer the length at waterline the faster.

I note that the TP52 rules do not favor overhangs. Hence we have a chopped off bow and stern that classic yacht owners view as ugly.

 

"For a fellow like me, the length at water line is the length appropriate for deterimining when the boat will plane. So if crew are aft so the bow is lifting over its wake, "


then why do you make your wife move up to the bow dick head? i am confused

 

Wow, that is a bold statement. It is not the kind of thing you would say normally if you were a sailboat designer from the east coast. MacGregor Yacht owners are taught to think of a sailboat like it was one of those punching toys. You know, the clown blow up things that are weighted on the bottom. No matter how hard you punch, the clown will come back up. I prefer the notion of a beach ball that is weighted. Seaworthiness has to do with the vessel's ability to remain floating on the surface right-side up. When it is possible to retract foils and drop masts as well as close hatches, you start to approximate a weighted beach ball. When a beach ball grounds it often does so in shallow water that will not support pounding breakers.

Contrast with a design that has structure that might be ripped off during a capsize. Like a thin fin heavy weighted by bulb keel. It turns out that port holes weaken dog house and cabin top structure. Hence these should be removed from an ocean crossing design. Any structure that can be ripped from the hull during a capsize will allow water to enter. If the boat doesn't have positive flotation, she will sink putting her crew in grave danger. Chapman's 64th edition very clearly claims a sphere as the most seaworthy of objects, followed by a log form. This is not a mighetto-ism. You have to through out Chapmans to ignore this. Apparently many sail boat designers have already done so. I can not. The book is correct on this and on the spoon test we previously discussed.

In the early 1700s, the Swiss scientist Daniel Bernoulli established that changing the velocity of flow of a fluid, such as air or water, at a specific point brings about a consequent inverse change in pressure at the same point. Bernoulli's law led to its application in the venturi effect -- such as when the flow of a fluid in a tube is constricted resulting in increased velocity and decreased pressure - and the development of the curved foil. The most convincing demonstration of the venturi effect is easy to perform in the kitchen. First, run a stream of water from the faucet. Then, dangle a soup-spoon by the tip of its handle and move its convex surface slowly toward the stream. Rather than being pushed away, as your intuition might suggest, it is pulled into the stream.

- Chapman's Seamanship Under Sail 64th edition page 276

Take a spoon full of suggar to make the medicine go down

 

Sux,

If you have done any kind of water skiiing using a somewhat under powered boat you will know that moving crew forward at the correct time pops the boat over its bow wake and puts her on plane. This is why you move crew forward on my kind of boat. On other planing sailboats there are things that you do with foils (retract them) which also change the attitude of the hull and help get it on plane.

 

Old Business

A honeycomb core material was used in construction of the Mac26x.

mat,

There are two or more ways of handling an innovation. In software design and in boat design, for many years, the preferred method was through non disclosure agreements - trade secrets. If you are thinking of doing any kind of ocean work involving your sailboat then it is a good idea to visit the manufacturer to see the secrets.

I was not allowed to photograph the honeycomb material used by MacGregor Yachts. I can tell you it came on a roll and I recall it being white or clear in color. However, MacGregor Yachts has this annoying pigment thing in the hull that prevents much of the light from shining through it.

This I was told this was for quality control so that the plant owner (Roger MacGregor) could more easilly count the layers of stress point reinforcement. On ocean craft an unpigmented hull would tend to show defects and damage more easy than a dark colored hull is my thinking. It is the same reason that you do not want hull compartments painted or covered in anyway. That is fine for a protected water vessel but for ocean, you should want to be able to inspect every portion of the hull, just as you want to be able to inspect every important mechanism involved in steering.

The finding that the honeycomb core material used in TP52 Trader is pigmented a wood color is not enough to conclude that the color is good or bad only that it is something to ask about should you ever be in the market for a TP52 and visit the manufacturer. Because the material is shown in photos I suspect that it is covered by a patent rather than trade secret.

When the X was discovered to have been copied in Poland. MacGregor Yachts sent out investigators. They decided not to try to halt the copies. This is partially because the copied vessel weighed in about 300 lbs heaver than the original. I am now thinking that was owing to the honycomb material not being available. Anyway, it has been a year and AFAIK, no Polish copies are marketed.

New business:

http://www.sailinganarchy.com/general/2004/barran%20letter.htm

was not written by me. It is on target however. The support of TP52s and this kind of letter on Sailing Anarchy represents a disconnect. It is BECAUSE of TP52s that US Sailing's delegation to the GP RWP walked out and it is BECAUSE of TP52s that US Sailing is hesitant on IRC. If true anarchists choose to forward such a letter they should also express displeasure with TP52 advertising and likely payments for content on the Sailing Anarchy site.

I have yet another theory based on SH action. The ability to re-rate quickly for IRC supports the notion of an AI tool known as a neural network. We have discussed this before. Currently, it appears that a Jim Teeters influenced VPP is used to assist PHRF raters. That has to be re-engineered (thrown out).

It can be replaced with a neural network that will likely be better than that used for IRC because PHRF has more data from which to plug into it. The advantage of a neural network for rating sailboats is that you can not determine the math used. Indead the neural network is changed with each new set of race results entered into it and can not be audited. You can not find out why a design was rated the way it was. But it can predict future winning vessels by inducing rating rules from past race results.

What this means is that designers will have to concentrate on what makes a boat go fast and go seaworthy rather than what makes a boat rate well because there is no answer to that later question.

An expert system is a computer program capable of considering a vast body of knowledge, reasoning, and then recommending a course of action.
The major difference between the modern technology of expert systems versus classical algorithmic techniques is the ability to develop systems that infer answers from complex and incomplete knowledge bases. In other words, just as an acceptable answer -- although not necessarily the optimal answer -- can be determined by a human, given incomplete and perhaps unrelated facts, an expert system can be made to choose rational and perhaps multiple answers from a set of rules and facts. I tend to think of these neural nets as expert systems.

Perhaps the easiest description of an expert system comes from Digital Equipment Corporation's XCON. This system is used to configure complex computer systems and was once referred to as R-1 (as in "we are one").

R-1 was the short hand answer to the question "What is an expert system?" and was developed in 1980. The first expert system was developed by Edward Shortliffe in 1975 at Stanford University. The HAL computer of "2001" is a well-known example of a futuristic expert system. But in any case this branch of computer science, like CAD, is just one more reason for designers to move west or at least away from RI, the sailing museum state.

 

Your opinion that US sailors can not compete globally because they are taught the wrong things about sailboat design and taught to sail wrong is a pretty stupid opinion but it is an opinion you have a right to have. the problem with you is that in support of your stupid idea you insult, defame, and harm people around you. i read sailing anarchy occassionally and have seen some pretty nasty things said about your club and about PNW sailors in general because of your lunacy and arrogant blow hard attitude. people have offered to help you learn to sail (even sail your own boat) and you have returned their friendly gestures with insults. i also recall some people in your area who hav esaid that they will no longer support your club or participate in any of your clubs functions because of your behavior. are you really helping anything frank?

 

mat

Quote:
I was not allowed to photograph the honeycomb material used by MacGregor Yachts. I can tell you it came on a roll and I recall it being white or clear in color.


Sound like they are using coremat to me? It is white, comes on a roll and has an octagonal pattern on it.

If it is clear then maybe they are using bubblewrap? Was it around 4mm thick?

All good quality core materials come in sheet form, not on a roll.