TP52s

Frank,

In a spirit of good will, let me say that you are slowly bringing me around to the point of view that you are paranoid, and have only a loose grip on reality. If that is not the impression that you wish to convey, I suggest that you alter you style along the following lines:

1) Don't ascribe motive to others. Yeah, I know Limbaugh does it, but it's an unjustified cheap trick.

2) Don't accuse anyone of a felony without a shred of evidence.

3) Don't repeat yourself without end.

4) Keep a proper sense of proportion. Reading your rants, one might get the idea that the TP52 presented some sort of threat to MacGreagor. Well, it doesn't. Different boats, different markets, different people, different purposes.

 

Frank, the information I provided has largely been provided to you before. You admitted that you read it then. You produced nothing to rebut those facts. And yet, you choose to bring up these lies in another forum. What a cowardly move; rather than admit that you are wrong, you just find another place to spread your paranoiac views.

Your opinion on the Mac's worth as an ocean sailboat is not relevant in any way, because you have never been an ocean sailor and when you "research", you only choose facts that you believe support your case.

"Catalina yachts does not market outside the US". What a typical Mighetto load of rubbish, they are well known overseas. I know exactly where the Catalina main office is here in Australia. The Catalina 22 was sold in large numbers in Australia (as the Catalina Boomaroo 22) and the UK (as the Jaguar 22) and in Europe from as early as the early '70s.

And don't start up on Teeters. This forum is "published" (under legal definition) in other countries where your rants on Jim Teeters would DEFINITELY be considered defamatory. That could result in problems for this forum. If it cost you your house, that would be merely justice.

Before you raise it (because I know the twisted logic in your twisted mind, havng seen your tortured ramblings previously); Teeter's testimony was NOT impeached. It was ONLY relevant to the case IF the skipper was said to have been sober. The jury found that he had been intoxicated, therefore the question of stability DID NOT ARISE. Teeter's testimony re stability WAS NOT DISMISSED BY THE JURY and you are a liar when you repeatedly say that it was.

I don't understand your logic; a few posts ago you were implicitly supporting Macgregor's claims that he invented water ballast and the trailable sailboat, now you say there's nothing new. In that case, you twit, you were wrong - admit it.

Oh yeah, canters? Try Francis Herreshoff, about 1930.

 

249,

You have given me much to think about. But I am not concerned about defaming Jim Teeters. The public record and what is in print speaks for itself. I anxiously await the video Teeters prepared for his expert testimony. I expect it to be posted on the web.

Teeter supporters have posted comments on this forum and it is now time to present what others have said about his work and how improper his dealings appear. Making TP52s central to ORCA when the TP52 box rule allows vessels that do not pass the capsize risk ratio and then marketing them as TransPacific is just wrong, owner driven or not. Jim Teeters is negligent in not speaking out publically against that. I am speaking as a management consultant and not anyone with personal knowledge. Do you know the man?

This thread is about TP52s and the organizations that support them. Jim Teeters is featured prominantly of course.

I would also like the thread to be about problems in the boat design and building industry in the US. Problems like paying not to design or build which I was told today by a retired designer were pervalent around the great lakes when he was designing. He is not surprised at all that a designer with EU roots is unaware of that. That kind of thing just isn't done in civilized society.

These problems are preventing NMMA Product certifications (in under 26 footers), and the advancements of superior sailboat designs like the Mac26x in that size range and the Ocean 60s, 50s and VO70s, all which have forms of movable ballast.

249, since we last chatted on a different forum about Teeter's testimony, there have been new powersailer splashes. In a mater of months after the Teeters testimony was discredited and the GP RWP rejected his notions, Mac26x production in Australia began http://www.mackmanboats.com.au/mackman boats mach28.htm and a new British powersailer was launched http://www.tidemarine.com/. The British powersailer was followed by a Swedish one, the Oden 720, http://www.balux.se/ to complement the German Oden 820.http://www.lamprecht-yachtzentrum.de/test_pbo.html.

These vessels represent market share that MacGregor Yachts has lost owing to Jim Teeters involvement in the 2002 July 4th drunken boaters case. Total up the $ value , assume a reasonable profit, and you have damages that could well be assessed directly against Jim Teeters and because of the support US Sailing appears to have given him also against US Sailing. If I were Roger I would be going there. But Roger MacGregor doesn't appear to be doing so. He could well be looking just for more recognition, like was given him in 2000 with the Sailboat Hall of Fame. But I speak for Roger in the same way a dealer does - which is to say not at all. There is no doubt that all (Roger, Teeters, US Sailing, US sailors, MacGregor Yacht dealers and laborers) stop the damages by new production.

Your arguments are with Roger MacGregor. He is the one taking credit, and responsibility, for innovations both of us know must have been implemented pre 1950. I will be researching your last two posts. Thanks for the information.

 

Mighetto "But I am not concerned about defaming Jim Teeters. The public record and what is in print speaks for itself. "

249 - Yes, and what is in print clearly says that Teeters' testimony was NOT discredited by the jury and was NOT called into question.

Mighetto "Making TP52s central to ORCA when the TP52 box rule allows vessels that do not pass the capsize risk ratio and then marketing them as TransPacific is just wrong, owner driven or not."

249 - Read what your own link says about the capsize risk ratio - it is a simple and crude approximation. Put it this way - it draws no difference between a Mac 26X with no ballast in, and a Mac 26X with full ballast in. Yet even the Macgregor site says that a Mac should not be sailed in heavy condituions with no ballast. Ballast is vital, and righting moment is n ot covered in that crude ratio.

Read Bethwaite, your guru, about stability and he'll say it comes (in monos) from having the C of F awayt from the C of B. That is NOT COVERED IN THE CAPSIZE RATIO!!!

How dare you, a sheltered water ignoramus, tell some of the world's most experienced sailors that they are fools in unsafe boats! When you have done 1/100 of the deep ocean miles that someone like Staggy from Farr did before he was 25, then perhaps you can talk. Most of these men were round the world sailors before you knew what a boat was, and they know vastly more about the history and the physics and the practice and every other aspect of the sport than you do.

Mighetto "since we last chatted on a different forum about Teeter's testimony, there have been new powersailer splashes. In a mater of months after the Teeters testimony was discredited and the GP RWP rejected his notions, Mac26x production in Australia began http://www.mackmanboats.com.au/mack...ts%20mach28.htm"

249 - More lies. The Machman Boats is NOT splashed. Splashing refers to buying an existing boat and using it as the plug for a mould. The Machman pics clearly show the plug being built from the ground up.

Not only that, Lyons (the designer) and Machman already have reputations. Lyons is a proven NA. Machman is a superb builder and plug/mould constructor. They have no need to splash a Mac.

Mighetto "These vessels represent market share that MacGregor Yachts has lost owing to Jim Teeters involvement in the 2002 July 4th drunken boaters case. Total up the $ value , assume a reasonable profit, and you have damages that could well be assessed directly against Jim Teeters and because of the support US Sailing appears to have given him also against US Sailing."

249 - Bull. Where is your proof that evidence in a court of law can be a source for damages?

Where is the evidence that anyone in Australia or Europe knew about a minor incident in a lake in the USA. For a start, the Teeters testimoney only came a few months ago or so; I bet the Machman and oth4er boats were in planning long before that.

Mighetto "We are products of what we are fed"

249 - Only if you just graze on the information others supply. If you get real knowledge and experience you can understand things better.

 

249 - Yes, and what is in print clearly says that Teeters' testimony was NOT discredited by the jury and was NOT called into question.

I will respond to this rephrasing: Yes, and what is in print clearly says that Teeters testimony was NOT called into question.

Cris 249, You live in a dream world. Teeters professional ethics and competency were called into question in the court case as every expert witnesses ethics and competency are called into question in every court case.



That is how the system works. The judge and jury are assumed incapable of understanding complex technical maters, so instead they are required to pass judgment on the credibility of the witnesses. Because Jim Teeters was so badly discredited, his status as a designer worthy of praise has been tarnished greatly. He can polish it up or retire. No one should expect great things from him after this case, however. The TP52 is a good example. His association with it and ORCA and US Sailing tarnishes those organizations. The GP RWP, through its actions, said just about the same thing. They just said NO to the Teeter Principles as I say no to TP52s as TransPacific or ocean crossing vessels. TP52s are meant to be TransPorted across oceans where they may very well make fine one-design owner driven buoy race boats.

Again, making TP52s central to ORCA when the TP52 box rule allows vessels that do not pass the capsize risk ratio and then marketing them as TransPacific is just wrong, owner driven or not. Farr's correction to that ratio in its 2004 vintage TP52s corroborates my statement. The correction came at the cost of hull speed, so Farr must have thought this important.

249 - Read what your own link says about the capsize risk ratio - it is a simple and crude approximation. Put it this way - it draws no difference between a Mac 26X with no ballast in, and a Mac 26X with full ballast in. Yet even the Macgregor site says that a Mac should not be sailed in heavy conditions with no ballast. Ballast is vital, and righting moment is not covered in that crude ratio.

I respond: That link is US Sailings. CAPSIZE RISK = beam/(disp/.9*64)^.333 A seaworthiness factor derived from the USYRU analysis of the 1979 FASTNET Race, funded by the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. The formula penalizes wide boats for their high inverted stability and light weight boats because of their violent response to large waves. You chat like you are defending a multihull design. Indead multihulls are excluded from consideration as ocean crossing craft owing to this ratio. If you ignore it, why not just go multi? At least go to a design that floats when swamped.

US Sailing, likely because of Jim Teeters and his influential role as Director of Research for the organization, is sloppy in not discussing this ratio fully, or is acting purposfully to support lesser designed vessels like the TP52.

The lightest weight of the vessel with ballast unless ocean cruising is the definition of displacement. When ocean cruising, displacement is the weight at the half way point of the passage. US Sailing's training materials may or may not make that clear.

It is displacement, and not ballast that is vital in ocean crossing. Ballast is just weight, like everthing else on the boat and the hull itself.

This is probably why ballast isn't a statistic given to us in the stats for TP52s. Regardless...

US Sailing's reputation was tarnished by Jim Teeter's testimony. It appeared that Jim Teeters was endorsed by US Sailing to disparage one of the most successful boat builders in the US, with probably 50,000 hours of operational experience involving the craft he and by association US Sailing attempted to put on trial.

Again the Mac26x was never on trial. Jim Teeters was intent on doing so for reasons that appear related to his battles with the GP RWP and support of the TP52 and this is why he IMPEACHED himself by first stating in a deposition that alcohol might have been a contributing factor and then on the stand stating that it was not. There was a likelihood that Teeters would not have been allowed to testify at all if he had stuck to his deposition. It was so important to him that he do so that he contradicted his deposition. I think this testimony was fundamental to arguments he planned on having presented to the the GP RWP, arguments that were soundly rejected, but might not have been if Teeters could get them blessed by a court of law.



Bottom line: US Sailing needs to re-engineer its basic keel boat training. Re-engineer means you though-out everything and start over. Nothing polluted by Teeters and the top-down approach used at US Sailing for so many years (roughly called Keel Boat Training) has value because the material is likely designed to lead those trained with it to conclusions that are incorrect. Conclusions like some boats can not be capsized and hence the fact that they sink when flooded should not be considered risky. This is the story of the TP52 even though US Sailing's training using the crude ratio indicates that TP52s are not for ocean crossing.

249 states: Read Bethwaite, your guru, about stability and he'll say it comes (in monos) from having the C of F away from the C of B. That is NOT COVERED IN THE CAPSIZE RATIO!!!

I respond: Sure, but you are distracting me from the topic. WHICH IS TP52s. We do need to discuss stability. The multihulls are stable because a capsize requires a resque. Hence it is a disaster where a boat that can be righted when seas calm would not be. The same is true with TP52s only worse because most multis will still float after capsize. The TP52, because it has all that extra weight in the keel is likely going to the bottom and to the bottom fast. Even so, I do not want to imply that they are dangerous. Freeway driving is likely more life threatening. However, if you are the type that has excluded multihulls from ocean crossing consideration, you have to also exclude TP52s. That is a fair statement; is it not?

249 states: How dare you, a sheltered water ignoramus, tell some of the world's most experienced sailors that they are fools in unsafe boats! When you have done 1/100 of the deep ocean miles that someone like Staggy from Farr did before he was 25, then perhaps you can talk. Most of these men were round the world sailors before you knew what a boat was, and they know vastly more about the history and the physics and the practice and every other aspect of the sport than you do.

I respond: While but an amateur designer, I am capable and expected to sit on juries. The capability I am assumed to have on a jury and as a voter is the capability to judge the competency and capabilities of others. As a sailboat captain, I am expected to pass judgment on the seaworthiness of craft. I am required to talk, as a consumer, as a US citizen, as a captain of a sailboat. I also likely am one of a handful with extensive experience involving the kind of craft Teeters objects to.

Teeters may have nothing personal against MacGregor Yachts. If he does, and there is malice, well WOW. At this time I think Teeters objects to all movable ballast designs and that includes any kind of retractable as well as canters and movable ballast machines.
Since we last chatted on a different forum about Teeter's testimony, there have been new powersailer splashes. In a mater of months after the Teeters testimony was discredited and the GP RWP rejected his notions, Mac26x production in Australia began http://www.mackmanboats.com.au/mackman%20boats%20mach28.htm

249 - More lies. The Machman Boats is NOT splashed. Splashing refers to buying an existing boat and using it as the plug for a mold. The Machman pics clearly show the plug being built from the ground up.

I respond: Thankyou, that is what I think it means. I strayed from that definition owing to poor feeding. You are correct and I am wrong. When the model Macgregor Yachts currently produces was first marketed there was a long discussion of plugs. Computer designed boats do not need plugs. I do not think the X ever used one, only females. But your statement supports my notion that the M was splashed to provide MacGregor Yachts with a model it could sell should the decision to halt production of the X owing to adverse developments in the 2002 druken boaters case develop. They did. That was Jim Teeters/ US Sailings involvment in it. It is my belief that at that point, renewing business insurance for X production became cost prohibative. The X will never be produced as inexpensively. Machman likely charges twice for its copy. Consumers have been harmed.

249 - Not only that, Lyons (the designer) and Machman already have reputations. Lyons is a proven NA. Machman is a superb builder and plug/ mold constructor. They have no need to splash a Mac.

I respond. A former dealer of Mac26x vessels apparently took the Mac26x after authorization from MacGregor Yachts to Machman because he didn't believe the model Macgregor Yachts is currently selling, the Mac26m, more advanced. This is public knowledge on the MacGregor Yacht boards. I have not seen the information in print. The hull is supposedly as identical as possible. This supports racing.

These (Machman) vessels represent market share that MacGregor Yachts has lost owing to Jim Teeters involvement in the 2002 July 4th drunken boaters case. Total up the $ value , assume a reasonable profit, and you have damages that could well be assessed directly against Jim Teeters and because of the support US Sailing appears to have given him also against US Sailing."

249 - Bull. Where is your proof that evidence in a court of law can be a source for damages?

Where is the evidence that anyone in Australia or Europe knew about a minor incident in a lake in the USA. For a start, the Teeters testimony only came a few months ago or so; I bet the Machman and other boats were in planning long before that.

I think the world wide popularity of the Mac26x and movable ballast comes as a surprise to US designers on the east coast, but not anywhere else. Criss 249, it was you or someone like you that pointed out that Roger MacGreggor has degrees in economics and business and not architecture.

He keeps competition out by price and volume production.

When I visited the factory to check on construction prior to my own off shore adventures, I saw hull number 5 of the Mac26m coming off the line and was told that MacGregor Yachts would be building both the X and the M.

I was also told the M was not to be a planing boat so it made business sence. The X for those untrained by US Sailing who would appreciate a planing ocean sailboat and the M for those who wanted a contemporary pocket cruiser and likely were already trained by US Sailing not to plane, and didn't want to have to unlearn.

I was aware at that time that there were Mac26 Classics owners, including Roger's daughter, who for a long time had wanted a Classic with standing head room and aware of the 2002 July 4th drunken boater episode but not Jim Teeters. I passed the information on to a neighbor who immediately speculated that the X design would be an issue at the trial. He explained that this coming out quickly with a new model when many years more of production of the old is expected, is standard operating procedure with transportation builders when it is possible that the old design is to be questioned in a court of law. EU and down under manufacturers would see that as well. It represented the window of opportunity needed for them to take market share from MacGregor Yachts.

249 - We are products of what we are fed, only if you just graze on the information others supply. If you get real knowledge and experience you can understand things better.

I respond: we are products of what we are fed because folks think their family wealth at risk when they speak out. This is why in many states it is now illegal to threaten the vocal with potential law suits. Please do not do that again 249, unless you have a law degree and can explain things better. Can you state that you are not working for or on behalf of Jim Teeters? Why is this minutia so important to you? Granted, it is interesting. 1,000 views. KEWL. But I am off sailing. Have a nice weekend.

Murrelet
Mac26x out of Olympia WA
sail number 79020
casting off.

 

Mighetto - "Cris 249, You live in a dream world. Teeters professional ethics and competency were called into question in the court case as every expert witnesses ethics and competency are called into question in every court case.

That is how the system works. The judge and jury are assumed incapable of understanding complex technical maters, so instead they are required to pass judgment on the credibility of the witnesses. Because Jim Teeters was so badly discredited, his status as a designer worthy of praise has been tarnished greatly"

249 - Frank, I'm a lawyer, a graduate of my country's top law school. I have been en expert witness in a boating case and worked onthe legal side in others.

I know the way the system works much better than you do. You are full of crud.

Your supposed "impeaching" of Teeter's testimoney is a matter of the simple way the English language works. we have covered before the difference between someone "thinking something happened" and whether they admit another set of facts is "possible". It's something that happens all the time in court and no-one is "impeached" or discredited if they admit there is a difference between what they believe PROBABLE and what is POSSIBLE.

Mighetto "It is displacement, and not ballast that is vital in ocean crossing. Ballast is just weight, like everthing else on the boat and the hull itself. "

Oh for god's sake, ballast is not just weight in this situation, it's what stops you capsizing. My Bethwaite reference is totally legitimate.

Re experience - you are still ignorant and inexperienced. Would you tell a world champ golfer like Tiger Woods that you know more about golf than he does? Would you tell Schumacher you know more about F1 racing than he does? Well, how can you tell Farr etc you know more about ocean racing when they do WHEN YOU HAVE NEVER DONE IT AND HAVE NO TRUE KNOWLEDGE OF IT.

I have nothing to do with teeters. For Chrissake I'm in Sydney Australia.

Ahh, I should never have got sucked into talking to you again. You're still spouting the same rubbish, still the same brick wall of arrogance, bias and ignorance.

 

GadZooks! 249 is a ringer.

Of course you know Bethwaite is a god. For example, we learn today that equipment will be as follows for the 2008 Olympics

1. Multihull Open: Tornado
2. Keelboat Women: Yngling (floats when swamped)
3. Keelboat Men: Star (Kerr must be happy)
4. Double-handed Dinghy Open: 49er
5. Double-handed Dinghy Women: 470
6. Double-handed Dinghy Men: 470
7. Single-handed Dinghy Open: Finn
8. Single-handed Dinghy Men: Laser
9. Neil Pryde RS:X (replaces Mistral sailboard)
10. Laser Radial (replaces Europe)

Conclusion: Bethwaite Design rocks!

The 49er and Laser and the Laser Radial are Bethwaite. Bethwaite Trapeze Harness are used on the Tornado. Nicola Bethwaite popularized the 470 in 1988 when it was used in the first Women's medal Olympic Sailing discipline. She prevented a near disaster involving Team USA's Yngling in the 2004 games http://www.boatingoz.com.au/news04/0815.htm. And of course a Bethwaite designed the Tasar whose dribbly hull I believe the Mac26x resembles.

http://www.bethwaite.com/4398,01,1-0-history.html

In the US the course of action most appropriate for US Sailing is to junk all the keel boat training poluted by its former Director of Research (Jim Teeters) and use Frank Bethwaite's High Performance Under Sail book. Bethwaite Design has the track record of relevance.

You should continue talking with me. Then Bethwaite Design. Then fill me in. I appear to be able to address your concerns/points. I have absolutely no connection to MacGregor Yachts or any boating related business but I do chose to own a vessel Teeters went out of his way to attempt to discredit.

The business dealings of Jim Teeters are simply suspect and it bothers me. His indepence and objectivity look compromised by vested interests in TP52s and relationships with Farr Designs and the founding of ORCA. Because the dealings look bad it makes US Sailing look bad and its support of ORCA look bad. Bad enough to require a reorganizaton and limitation on what a US Sailing Board Member can do in regards to serving on committees; this necessary to try to salvage tax exempt status. Bad enough for US Power and Sail to develop sailing courses and Kahn his own school. Bad enough for proposing that US Sailing be stripped of its role in the US Olympics because it is unable to generate atheletes who can compete outside of the US.

US Sailing was very close to being viewed as a Farr subsidiary by the IRS IMO. That is likely an opinion shared by others. I do not need to prove wrong doing in order to make correct decisions regarding Jim Teeters - like run do not walk away from his notions of sailing - and check with the better buisness bureau and his former clients carefully. Farr and US Sailing are running from him. Do you disagree? He messed up big time. Time for him to retire.

Thank you for identifying yourself as a lawyer, but in the US you must first pass the bar to practice here. So you are no more a lawyer on this mater than I. Of course everyman is his own lawyer. Can you really shut a person up just by threatening legal action down under? Note smiley. Lighten up. You are doing good. Real good.

Here is a question you may be able to answer. RC was fired while in the US. His boss's company is registered on the NY stock exchange. Will contract disputes be handled by US law if a jurisdiction isn't specified in the contract?

 

......dear miniGhetto....the oregon mushrooms you are eating must surely be BAD!!!--stop eating them NOWWwwwwwwwwww!!!!Julian WAS a GREAT AUS 18 sailor before his Dyslexia took over,,,but even HE would concur that he had NOTHING to do with the classes you give him credit for other than designer's 'rights' to the 49er,29er,,,,,,,but NOTHING to do with Laser,and radial!!>>>IF I AM WRONG,,,,,YOU CAN STAB ME THROUGH THE HEART!!!............and as for your INFERENCE that frank 's design somehow mirrors a Mac26's,,it is only because the M26 has a big motor to keep up with the tasar ,,,,,,,you FOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So now you have covered some 20000000 boat types and convinced us how mr twiddly got ripped off by so many wanna-be designers,,,and how so many of us just simply lose our temper by the time we've read just a couple of your postings,that we're willing to spend the rest of our collective lives hunting you down so that we might pin your body to the dock..........(*LOL).....why not actually say something inteesting that MATTERS???????????????????????????

ps forsomegodforsakenreason,this thread popped up in my email--after an initial post!!--please DO NOT get the idea that I subscribe to you,or your ideas!!,but overall I must admit that the idea that you possibly take yourself seriously is the funniest thing in a very sad week,,,,,,,,,,,,,,or the saddest idea of a very funny week!----same thing really!

 

Monkey of the Sea

Certainly hope to keep on topic. The topic is TP52s, a design class born from the 1980s that extended the period of time when long thin weighted fins were being experimented with. Those days of experimentation are now over, with some (I like to think most) designers now recognizing that the experiment failed to produce faster sailboats and failed again in that it created less seaworthy sailboats.

Let me try this argument first and then (since your post generated 200 views - good going guy) I will go back to my crutch - history. Those who ignore the past are doomed to ships for fools. - Lighten up man - you are making a mess. Take a breath or two when you say foo...l. Like as follows

......dear miniGhetto....the oregon mushrooms you are eating must surely be BAD!!!--stop eating them NOWWwwwwwwwwww!!!!Julian WAS a GREAT AUS 18 sailor before his Dyslexia took over,,,but even HE would concur that he had NOTHING to do with the classes you give him credit for other than designer's 'rights' to the 49er,29er,,,,,,,but NOTHING to do with Laser,and radial!!>>>IF I AM WRONG,,,,,YOU CAN STAB ME THROUGH THE HEART!!!............and as for your INFERENCE that frank 's design somehow mirrors a Mac26's,,it is only because the M26 has a big motor to keep up with the tasar ,,,,,,,you FOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So now you have covered some 20000000 boat types and convinced us how mr twiddly got ripped off by so many wanna-be designers,,,and how so many of us just simply lose our temper by the time we've read just a couple of your postings,that we're willing to spend the rest of our collective lives hunting you down so that we might pin your body to the dock..........(*LOL).....why not actually say something inteesting that MATTERS???????????????????????????

ps forsomegodforsakenreason,this thread popped up in my email--after an initial post!!--please DO NOT get the idea that I subscribe to you,or your ideas!!,but overall I must admit that the idea that you possibly take yourself seriously is the funniest thing in a very sad week,,,,,,,,,,,,,,or the saddest idea of a very funny week!----same thing really!

OK, here is the argument. If weight on a long thin foil really makes a boat go faster then why don't powerboats have weight on long thin foils? Or if that doesn't clue you in, why don't sailors hang anchor like stablizers on 100 feet of rode dangling from the centerline? I am saying put a torpedo or canon ball on a string and dangle it on the lee. If it makes the boat sail faster Walla - the onion - she makes me cry. That bulb is drag and more.

Sorry, if an ice skater wants to twerl faster she brings the weight of her arms in, she does not extend them. This internal ballast rule applies to everything that moves: cars, motorcycles, planes, power boats and yes - even sailboats. Internal ballast is just faster. If you own a sailboat boat with a bulb contraption on a fixed fin, you own a boat with a correction to a design flaw. The flaw being, not floating on her lines properly in the absence of a box rule and having a hull form that is less stable than it could be. Plenty here on this forum are saying about the same thing. The time to question bulbs on fins is now. The TP52 one designs, being the most hyped model today and being hyped incorrectly as a design class, deserve the most attention today because of that.

We watch them to see them demonstrate the foolishness of 128 stability and the men still following Teeter Principles. We go to see Jim Teeters at conferences in the same way we go to see Bill Gates at computer conventions. These fellows are freeks of the past. Historical figures who by as close to fraud (and in Bill's case actual illegal practices) have made names for themselves. They are not men to be followed and yet many do. They are men to take humorous photos of and laugh at their notions of what makes a good design.

In the US we suffer, both in computer operating system and race boat design. I wish the designs had been put out to pasture, long ago. The thing is - so do their designers. The best design is the one that once it has out lived its time falls apart so it can not slow progress. It is only those who own these failed experiments that keep them going. They just do not upgrade fast enough. With sailboats the expectation is to trade up but there is no value in the old design unless there is racability. You preserve racability by creating one-design races and by designing courses that make TP52s look good when they are sailed with other vessels by making faster vessels look slow.

This is why TP52s are best considered one-designs and not a design class. I am serious in calling TP52s ships for fools. Their time was the 80s and even then by the end of the 90s the light would have been off of them. Hyping TP52s in 2005 is as close to fraud as you can get.

Now the history. The planing dinghy was developed in 1935 by Uffa Fox. He was probably like Roger MacGregor in that he really just took credit (I am from now on going to use the word responsibility instead of credit) for the planing dinghy. Fox was the first to write articles and put out books showing that planing was for real and killing off the notion that a bigger boat could always out sail a smaller boat. This was troubling to many.

At least down wind a planing dingy could be faster. In 1958 in Auckland, New Zealand, the eighteen footer worlds proved that tacking downwind on broad reaches could be faster than sailing directly to a directly down wind mark. The eighteens also demonstrated the value of light hulls. Then in the 1960s Essen came up with the Flying Dutchman. This company was the first to take responsibility for the planing upwind dinghy. But it also changed the physics of sailing because ice yacht physics now applied to designing sailboat. An ice yacht theoretically has no limit to its speed owing to the wind she creates just by moving forward. That wind changes the apparent wind so that a sail down true wind becomes an upwind sail as far as the sailboat is concerned and as the sailboat increases speed. In the 1970 authors began pointing this out and bemoning the fact that yacht design was not progressing with the knowledge.



Bulbs like those put on TP52s were first being experimented with during this time. When it was apparent that this was failing to produce faster yachts, in comparision to racing dinghies, and vessels with movable ballast such as the mini-transates, race designers changed the courses from Olympic style to windward leeward to protect vested interests. Those hoping for real advancements in sailing have been saying Argh ever since. I am just a recent addition to their masses. Here is the most interesting observation.

In a good part of the world, Bethwaite Design has prevailed. This is demonstrated by the number of vessels used as equipment in the Olympics. (I am acurate. You may not realize that the inventor of the Laser is part of Bethwaite design.) But in the United States, where sailing isn't followed in numbers greater that even ice skating, we still can have folks like Jim Teeters creating organizations like ORCA and race courses like all windward leeward perpetuating the myth of the long thin fixed bulb and wing bulb keel. Then we have designers and builders recognizing that product dumping in the USA of obsoleted ocean designs is feasable owing to this myth perpetuation and its acceptance. These designs are obsoleted, not by notions I present, but by the GP RWP, which sees movable ballast as key to the sport and fixed fin weighted keels as a failed experiment.

What galls me is that the dumping of used TP52s is organized to be targeted for the west coast of the US. Hence the name TransPacific for TP52 instead of Teeter Principle or the correct meaning - TransPortable 52 footers. If they were so great, then why don't they want them marketed for the east coast of the USA? Think about this. The Med boats will be sailed or transported across the Atlantic and then trucked to the West Coast where Saint Francis Yacht club is expected to have one-design races for them by 2005.

 

SeaDrive posted:

In a spirit of good will, let me say that you are slowly bringing me around to the point of view that you are paranoid, and have only a loose grip on reality. If that is not the impression that you wish to convey, I suggest that you alter you style along the following lines:

SeaDrive, you must be paraniod yourself owing to coming from Connecticut. I mean they really did a number on the mindset of the entire state in the film Stepford Wives. Something like "I wanted to find a place where a robot wouldn't be noticed in normal society and Connecticut came right to mind". I love the fact that you try to defend your notions of yacht design here but seriously, the film is not incorrect is it? If you think inovatively in Connecticut you are on the B list for parties. It is all about following the accepted styles of the time in Connecticut. That doesn't win any sailboat races outside of the US.

1) Don't ascribe motive to others. Yeah, I know Limbaugh does it, but it's an unjustified cheap trick.

I am no Limbaugh. But I gave it a try last Friday, you appeared to encourage me to do that. Three hours and not a response. Seamonkey is a Limbaugh. I give up. He posts and bang 200 views.

2) Don't accuse anyone of a felony without a shred of evidence.

Marten was a convicted felon prior to the 2002 drunken boater's episode with the Mac26x. No accusation - just fact. It is a fact that Jim Teeters was so compelled to testify in court against water ballasted designs (indead likely any movable ballast design) that he prefered to help get a convicted fellon off after that fellon killed two children because of BUI (boating under the influence). We do not need Director's of Research at US Sailing that would prefer such a thing. How can folks defend this? In Canada BUI is a felony itself is it not? The fact that Taylor, a naval architect from Michigan, would go up against the mighty Jim Teeters and get himself put on the B list immediately speaks to just how bad the entrenched mindset is in the area around RI when it comes to sailboat design at least. Defend a convicted fellon who has killed two children at all costs including controdicting yourself in testimony from what you stated in deposition. For the good of what? Well for the good of TP52s of course. It just looks like Jim Teeters had reasons for doing the case that were improper. Reasons related to TP52 roll out. Sorry to repeat myself. In the spirit of good will I note that we are a forgiving nation. If Teeters wants to shine himself up, he might be able to do so. But so far, with his new "variable stability" ratios, I am thinking same-old same-old. He isn't even aware he did wrong. Robots in connecticut haven't clewed him in.

3) Don't repeat yourself without end.

OK. But folks keep asking the same questions and spinning what I say. What can I do? I try to present things slightly differently and keep it light. I am encouraged by others to continue.

4) Keep a proper sense of proportion. Reading your rants, one might get the idea that the TP52 presented some sort of threat to MacGreagor. Well, it doesn't. Different boats, different markets, different people, different purposes.

The threat is the threat of innovation and change plus exclusion from races like the West Marine TransPac which currently and specifically allows water ballasted vessels as small as 24 feet. I have a notion that such a race is what Roger MacGregor had in mind for the Mac26x. It is what TP52 supporters have in mind for TP52s. Different boats, same race, different people (smarter ones on the Macs) with the same purpose West Marine TransPac. MacGregor presents a threat to the established mindset on the east-is-least-for-sailors coast of the USA. Just like Netscape presented a threat to the core products of Microsoft.


I was made aware off forum of a mistake on one of my web pages. My research on water ballast appeared to refute MacGregor Yachts claim to have invented water ballasted sail boats. According to Sailing Today, September 2000 page 83, Van de Stadt's Dehler 25 sloop may have bested MacGregor Yachts by a year or so in the use of water ballast. The German Dehler 25s were produced from 1984 to 1991 and water ballast was reported or implied to be used for trailering reasons and cost savings rather than performance reasons. Macgregor Yachts took responsibility for water ballasted sailboats. Van De Stadt was the innovator

With the Van De Stadt Swing Rig Patent I have little doubt of that. See http://www.stadtdesign.com/products/SwingRigInfo.html They continue to innovate.

This canting rig supports the notion that water ballast is being removed from the lime light, not owing to better technology but rather to technology that can be patented. Canting keels and Canting rigs are patentable. Water ballast, likely not. But water ballast can be moved off and on the boat. This makes it superior in light air and heavy seas to canting keels. Canting rigs, well that is a different mater. Worthy of its own thread. Check out the URL. Start one. What is this going to do to ocean monohull race boat design? Nothing good for TP52s. Thats for certain.

But lets keep on topic. The topic is TP52s and owing to that fixed weighted foils. I have already pointed out Farr's correction to the capsize risk ratio in its 2004 vintage TP52, so Let me point out wisdom from pre 1950s

When a boat was launched pre 1950 and floated above her lines, correction was made by adding bilge ballast. Later, certainly before the boat is resold or perhaps during haul out, the bilge ballast was tacked onto the vessels keel where the design flaw wasn't so visible. Prior to the 1960s weight on keels was considered a design flaw correction. You have to get a grip on that in order to explain how designs out of Connecticut, Road Island and New York with weighed fins make sence. I mean really, who is being paranoid. In the computer age it is possible and even correct to design boats that float on their lines at first launch. Adjustments in the amount of ballast to correct for the hull design really are representative of flaws in the hull design. Do you really disagree?

 

Frank, don't talk about the physics or history of sailing, you know nothing about them.

Your point about ballasted keels is, of course, wrong - as has been pointed out to you many times. Frank, I see you use analogies to planes, skaters and F1 cars. I'll give you a hint, here....none of them use sails. None of them develop power from a wind force that is trying to tip them sideways. Therefore, they cannot logically be analogous.

Secondly Frank, you spout about Bethwaite - but Bethwaite makes it clear that MOVING WEIGHT (WHETHER KEEL OR CREW) AWAY FROM THE CENTRE OF BUOYANCY IS WHAT ALLOWS MONOS TO SAIL. See p 174 1996 edition; "what set these two boats [505 and FD] apart from almost all previous craft was their use of a trapeze to move the forward hand's weight further to windward, and so increase their righting moment and sail-carrying power/total weight ratios".

And a few more points;

"the planing dinghy was developed in 1935 by Uffa Fox....Fox was the first to write articles and put out books showing that planing was for real and killing off the notion that a bigger boat could always out sail a smaller boat. This was troubling to many."

Rubbish, Avenger came out in 1927 NOT 1935. This is made patently obvious to anyone who has read the Int. 14 history, Uffa's bio, Uffa's books....any accurate book about history. Secondly, Uffa was NOT the first to write about planing dinghies; Morgan Giles had mentioned planing quite matter-of-factly in articles in Yachting Monthly years earlier.

Mighetto "In 1958 in Auckland, New Zealand, the eighteen footer worlds proved that tacking downwind on broad reaches could be faster than sailing directly to a directly down wind mark."

This had been known for years - read Sherman Hoyt's autobiography, including say the late '30s Transatlantic race won by Roland Von Bremen. It has been written about before 1958, because the 505s were quite aware of it.

"The eighteens also demonstrated the value of light hulls. Then in the 1960s Essen came up with the Flying Dutchman. This company was the first to take responsibility for the planing upwind dinghy."

WRONG. The FD (which was not a "company" design by the way) came in out 1953. It actually influenced 18s, as is made completely explicit when one reads what the designers of the first three-man 18s, Taipan and Venom, wrote about the development. There had been one lightweight-hulled 18 (1952's Intrigue) but she still had 6 crew in a breeze and was

Mighetto "But it also changed the physics of sailing because ice yacht physics now applied to designing sailboat. An ice yacht theoretically has no limit to its speed owing to the wind she creates just by moving forward. That wind changes the apparent wind so that a sail down true wind becomes an upwind sail as far as the sailboat is concerned and as the sailboat increases speed. In the 1970 authors began pointing this out and bemoning the fact that yacht design was not progressing with the knowledge."

No, it had been pointed out in the '60s and earlier, for example by Jack Knights writing about the Gugeon brother's tri. Boatspeed and its effect on apparent wind had been noted for decades, for example by Uffa Fox who noted its effect on J boats and 12 metres.

Mighetto "Bulbs like those put on TP52s were first being experimented with during this time."

Bulldust. Bulb keels were used in the 1890s by Herreshoff (Wee Win, Dilemma, olove), Sibbick, Linton Hope, WP Stephens and many others. Learn something about Raters, Frank, they are a vital part of sailing history.


Mighetto - "In a good part of the world, Bethwaite Design has prevailed. This is demonstrated by the number of vessels used as equipment in the Olympics. (I am acurate. You may not realize that the inventor of the Laser is part of Bethwaite design.) "

You are not accurate and don't be so arrogant as to contradict Seamonkey when it is utterly correct. The Laser hull and foil designer is Bruce Kirby. The Laser spar and industrial designer and class instigator is Ian Bruce. The sail designer is Hans Fogh. This is historical FACT and I have gone through many of the original articles when the boat came out.

I have corresponded at length with Bruce Kirby on the Laser design. He is NOT part of Bethwaite design.

I have met Ian Bruce and interviewed him about the genesis of the Laser. He did not mention the Bethwaite involvement in the Laser design BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST. While he deals with Bethwaite Design (we met at the Harboard factory), he is NOT part of Bethwaite design; look up their website, which says for example "Bethwaite Design is owned by Frank and Nel Bethwaite and their son, Julian." I know them all and many of their former staff (I've known their long-term production manager since we were in school) the Bethwaites work with Ian on some projects but they did NOT design the Laser.

I have commissioned articles from Frank which mentioned the Laser. He did NOT claim to have designed it; quite the opposite. He gave others the credit.

Frank DID design the Laser II - but that is NOT the Olympic Laser.

Your physics are rubbish. Your history is rubbish. Go away.



The corresponded with Bruce Kir

But in the United States, where sailing isn't followed in numbers greater that even ice skating, we still can have folks like Jim Teeters creating organizations like ORCA and race courses like all windward leeward perpetuating the myth of the long thin fixed bulb and wing bulb keel. Then we have designers and builders recognizing that product dumping in the USA of obsoleted ocean designs is feasable owing to this myth perpetuation and its acceptance. These designs are obsoleted, not by notions I present, but by the GP RWP, which sees movable ballast as key to the sport and fixed fin weighted keels as a failed experiment.

 

Whoops, sorry Seamonkey, I didn't mean to call you an "it"...

 

Criss 249,

Wow that will keep me busy. Spoken like a legal beagle. But I stand on what I have posted. You can read the introduction to Frank Bethwaite in High Performance Sailing 1993 edition and see that Frank Mighetto simply paraphrased from that in giving you the history. I tricked you in a way. Didn't mean to. Just wanted to keep on topic and not make this thread about me. Of course it is all about me. Then please look at

http://www.yachte.com.au/classes/tasar.asp

Tasar Class History: Designed by Frank Bethwaite and Ian Bruce.



Then weep Chris 249. You have been Walla'd. Ian Bruce, was a part of what became Bethwaite design. The legal mind is so cluttered. Of course 249 might be technically correct but outside of the mind of a autorney, Frank and Ian are colaborators. There is no corporate veil to pierce or letters to be written. These guys have joint ventured to the point that they are the same, for purposes of discussing sailboat design. And then there is the Lasar 28, a failed attempt by the two to do what Roger MacGregor did with the Mac26x. Weap Chris 249 when you read up on that. The idea was for Frank and Ian to get aging Taser crews into larger cruising boats. It had limited sucess BECAUSE OF THE KEEL. Back to Tasar.

TASAR is an acronym for `Totally And Simply All-round Racing'. The Tasar carries two crew, though it is possible to sail her single-handed in light to moderate breezes. By design, the Tasar does not carry a trapeze or spinnaker. Nonetheless the Tasar offers creditable performance when compared to other two-person dinghies.

The Tasar is a strictly controlled one-design class that is sailed all round the world, but particularly in Australia, North America, Japan and the UK.

In the US we sail these Mac26x cruisers instead.

Your posts are so Kewl. But are they relevant? I have already conceded that it is the firm taking responsibility for an innovation that maters in sailing. The notion that anything about such a long studied endeavor might be innovative borders on silly. An yet the canting rigs and keels get patents. That is reality. The topic is TP52s. But lets vary a bit.



The above graphic is the TASER hull form presented to the water over laying the hull form of the Mac26x. The notion in both hull forms is that a canoe shape is presented to the water when on optimum heel. Fall off optimum and you go slower because of hull drag. It is because of that that one actually sails a Mac26x faster with less sail in some conditions. I suspect the Tasar is the same and lets get real Laser and Taser are way to close in naming to think Ian Bruce and Frank Bethwaite not close colaborators at one time. That colaboration explains the equipment at the Olympics.

Now back to TP52s. TP52s look to be designed so that one rarely reduces sail. The extra weight in the bulb is rationalized to allow carrying sail longer in higher winds with the notion that that extra power in the sails will make the boat go faster if the vessel can be kept on optimum heel. Only to do so the hull form must present the same shape at different heeling angles. That means it has to give up form stability in the side chines, I think. What say anyone?

 

I begin my day with a flourish. The Braveheart, a Brett Bakewell-White designed and Lloyd Stevenson Boatbuilders-built TP52, is currently prevented from competing against other TP52s. It is that owner-driven thing. Furthermore the designer in a letter to Sailing Anarchy stated that Braveheart is designed specifically for short course racing and that the owner never intends to take Braveheart to a West Marine Transpac.

I suspect the capsize risk ratio on Braveheart opens up questions regarding her being ocean worthy.

The designer in consultation with the owner thought that building a boat to a "class" specification would be a better investment. But this was prior to the GP RWP rejection of the notions upon which the TP52s are built and prior to Bruce's expose in Seahorse International demonstating that the box rule for TP52s is to narrow for it to be considered anything but a one-design class.

So Braveheart will likely be racing in the PHRF division in SF along with a number of other TP52s. The value of these vessels is so far deprecitated that owners are stuck with them because they can not be raced as one designs under ORCA rules, are not competitive under GP RWP rules and because the PHRF division in SF will be following PHRF NW in allowing movable ballast very soon, so TP52s will not look good in PHRF races either.

ORCA has abandoned Braveheart, the GP RWP has abandoned Braveheart, PHRF-NW has abandoned Braveheart. It is just like the film Braveheart. There will be windward-leeward buoy race courses for TP52s for some time. But not very much longer. The fast Olympic style courses will be re-established soon in the USA. Kahn and Koch are seeing to that.



This is a tippy boat WOW. level the horizon. Note that freeboard is defined as the distance from the water to the rail. 0 freeboard on the lee. Way to much to windward. Am I wrong? Considering the rail meat, one has to say - it takes a sailor to reduce sail. This is not optimum heel. Dramatic photo of poor hull trim.

Braveheart was designed to emphasize upwind and reaching work in 8-20 knots. But given the sea state, it looks like she tipps greatly in 12 knots. The boat is as wide and as heavy as the box rule allows so that righting moment is quicker in 8 to 20 knot conditions. According to the designer, this means that the keel is large and the bulb is designed to reduce the Vertical CofG to maximise the effective draft. High freeboard on windward from a wide design, allows the wind to use that as a lever when on a reach. Of course for upwind downwind work it isn't a big deal. But the photo demonstrates why the owner is smart not to think about offshore sleigh rides.

http://www.sailinganarchy.com/general/2003/braveheartsailing.htm

 

Everyone following the Vendee Globe? They should be.

The mark of a professional is his or her willingness to judge the work of peers. In the absence of such behavior, the individual is at best an aspiring amateur, an amateur boat designer like - well me. At worst thay may be folks that know the art of the deal but nothing about the art of fostering camaraderie and interest in sailing.

And now for the continuing monolog:

The Seahorse International Sailing edition involving Vendee Globe Race Training. (July 2004) contains the harshist material on TP52s that I have ever seen in print. Perhaps it is owing to the Vendee Globe emphasis. Here are these Open 60s with an impressive turn out on November 7th 2004 by any standard being overshadowed by hype on TP52s. The Open 60 Class is controlled by a simple box rule and are "fun and fast" and durable. They are much more worthy of the lime light than the nine or ten TP52s. Especially since each new vintage is faster, rather than slower like the TP52s.

As of today Bonduelle is the front runner in the Vendee Globe. Her captain Jean has adopted the technique of questioning his technical teams, the shipyards and designers. This method can sometimes be hard to put up with, but everyone agrees it is this, which has enabled him to get so far.

Specifications are on

http://www.bonduelle-voile.com/uk/Front/generique/page.php?P=static/bato2

She sports two rudders and centerboards and a canting keel. These boats are horrors to the designers on the east coast of the US who just can not get themselves away from bulb keels or fixed foils. I suppose bulbs on canting foils are a baby step. It would be nice for one of the water ballasted Open 60s to prevail because I really think this the superior movable balast. All it may take to better Jean in Bonduelle with an older vintage Open60 is light air during the race.