TP52s

Well looks like Frankie boy is now annoying another site with his rants.Easiest way to stop this is to just not reply,this takes a fair bit of will power owing to some of the things he says,but in the end he will just start arguing with himself.
Actually once this happens the reading is quite entertaining!
By the way,anyone that visits Sailing Anarchy site having problems connecting?
Last two days i have been unable to access this site.

 

K4,

Sailing Anarchy is having troubles with complaints about the way it does business. Complaints that are impacting their advertizers. I have nothing to do with that. If you want me to post on SA, just ask. But lets not bring their ape like ways here. Instead lets go sailing. Its summer in NZ. Be happy. This is the better forum. SA has some growing up to do.

I am just about to head to Powell Books which is famous as the alternative to Amazon here in the Pacific NorthWest. I have reviewed the Boatdesign.net lists on design books which is connected to Amazon.com. I do not see Boldger or Bethwaite listed. What is up with that? Out of print perhaps. What textbooks are the on-line schools using? If you tell me Teeters has a book, I am going to puke, but then it will be a must buy.

BTW, I am a strong supporter of education by the Internet. The days of brick and morter schools dominating education are fast falling apart. It is forums like this one where one gets educated. Even ones like me.

 

Frankie,
Thanks for that,carry on the rant,Summer down this way is shaping up to be a goody,El Nino weather predicted,ie wind wind and more wind combined with sun sun sun,gotta be good.Hope SA gets it together though,lots of good stuff over there in amongst the assorted crap that all sites attract.
Dont ask my permission to post,I have no authority,just heed the expressions of fellow posters and youll be ok.
K4s

 

Welcome new readers.

Old Chris 249 Business

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.

I maintain that the start of the TP52s was with the Santa Cruise 52. That was launched in 1991 or about 15 years ago. If you look at ORCA you will see that they are trying to reproduce what Lee did 20 years earlier with the SC40 and SC50. It is like a bunch of old farts stuck in the past.

"In years past it is clear to me that the Olympic committee selecting sailing equipment has been lobbied 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 "lobbyist" as the Tasar - the boat you want in!

OK replace the word skiff with equipment. Now I get why the Olympic Committee refuses to call the boats it uses anything but equipment. The foolishness here is the same that we see in court. Like redefining operating system to mean something different than it did in the 1970s for Microsoft legal strategies in the 1990s. But thanks for supporting the notion that Bethwaite rocks. His designs have had to fight off those from former AC racers for several decades. They should prevail, and US Sailing should be using his printed work for training rather than that poluted from the top by Teeter's Principles.

"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.

And yet I now have the support of US Sailing. Chris 249, what say you to this from their web site, updated in October:

The VCG can be lowered by a longer keel or by having more ballast (weight of the keel) at the end of the keel. However, according to Adlard Coles' "Heavy Weather Sailing" thirtieth anniversary edition, "The effects of large movements of the VCG on the propensity to capsize was surprising small". Nevertheless, a low VCG will greatly help the boat in righting itself once it has capsized. Thus, boats with a long lead keel or a lead bulb at the end of the keel may have a higher angle of vanishing stability than that predicted by the formula.

I say the jury came in at US Sailing, once Teeters was discredited by the GP RWP and in court, and decided that VCG meant diddly squat in regards to stability as it relates to knockdown and capsize. The entire notion of a large bulb on a thin strut starts looking like what it really is - which is a failed experiment born from AC box design rules in the 80s. Rationalizing that the bulb would help in righting itself once capsized is absolutely humorous. I do not disagree, it is just that this assumes the bulb and strut haven't been ripped from the hull during the capsize event which we both know is likely what would happen on a racing design.

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

We have covered this with SailDesign (see the post on 11-17-2004 at 7:56 PM)

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 single handed 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 single handed 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".

Who, fed you that? I really want a reference. Have I been fed faulty intelligence?

I suppose I am a ***** like the President of the US is a *****. So be it. It is the hand we both were dealt. I have yet to see any evidence discrediting my statement that the boats were dealing with the same storm at about the same place and that the water ballasted designs were proven. If you provide me a reference I will follow up. But please, do not pretend that documents have been submitted. They never were. Not to me. And you have played debate in the past. In a debate you can make things up and if the opponent doesn't correct you, you score. On this forum, we are not to post that which we know to be false.

I stand by my statement that any debate on this is academic owing to the storm during the 1998 Hobart race. Close to 60 had to be saved during that race and 6 died. But a different race was taking place at the same time. 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. The center boarders were on a beam reach and the Hobarters were beating. Which is harder in rough seas is the only thing that can be debated. The facts solidly support water ballasted vessels as superior in rough sea. Recently the commodore of Seahourse international agreed.

"The Cascails fleet exhibited a good representation of current offshore design, and it was interesting to see how they fared. Sitting on the weather rail of a Corel 45 was a pretty uncomfortable mix of the offshore washing machine spin-and-wash cycles that many of us are familiar with. It was pretty galling to watch the water-ballasted boats taking the conditions very much in their stride - and with significantly more comfort for their crews. It is probably fair to say that this was one of the tougher offshore races that I have completed - and that includes the Sidney to Hobart."

Chris Little, Commodore
Seahorse International
November 2004 pg 4

" 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 nut case who has never been on an ocean passage and never races (well, he did race once, in a twilight beer can 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).


I didn't get a chance to chat with the King of Spain yesterday. He was downtown about two blocks from an office of mine. But here is the notion. A new race crew is expected to come in last on their first race. I have a great story on this and it is the result of my research in Portland last Saturday.

New Business:

Ted Brewer, a designer who did much of his work in my own state, recently retired and moved back to British Columbia. His training material for amateur builders and beginning yacht designers, now in its 4th edition, portrays the typical hull form used on sailing craft from the 1800s known as the Cod's Head & Mackerel Tail, as inappropriate for contemporary designs. It is even stated that such a hull form "would sail better backwards!". This opinion is based on work Brewer did with America's Cub boats in the 1960s.

Shortly before Brewer began modifying AC boats, the New York Yacht Club, having suspended AC racing during the World Wars, successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of the State of New York to modify the Deed of Gift governing future AC races. The modifications approved by the court allowed boats to cross the ocean on transports rather than their own bottoms. They also limited the size of the racing vessel to 65 feet under a 12 meter rule.

The British appeared to have an edge in sailing 12-meter sailboats, which were not raced in the U.S. at that time, and sent the 12 meter yacht Sceptre to compete in 1958. Sceptre lost every match. Brewer, and others, including English designers, concluded that the shape of Sceptre's hull, the Cod's Head and Mackerel Tail, explained what Brewer describes as the fiasco of four straight losses and no wins.

The folly of 1958 probably was the removal of the requirement that challengers travel to AC races on their own bottom, because it allowed designers to skip over seaworthiness considerations, considerations Sceptres designers were unwilling to ignore. But this foolishness was compounded by those wishing to attribute the designer of the boat that beat Sceptre with most of the glory. Olin Stephens had designed what was arguably the fastest 12-meter in the world, Vim, prior to designing Columbia, the boat that beat Sceptre. He was well recognized owing to that and the AC win.

But more important than design is the fact that this was Sceptre's first race. Columbia's crew had been well seasoned during an exhausting set of matches with crew on Weatherly the vessel that Brewer eventually modified, and in 1962 won the cup 4 out of 5 matches. Because many AC races were determined in contests where the challenger didn't win a single match, prior to 1958 and after then, rejection of a hull form respected for hundreds of years truly was foolish. This was especially true with the introduction of fiberglass which allowed the construction of much more ridged hulls necessary for larger boats that could plane, like the Santa Cruise 40s and 50s.

 

MacGregor 26 one the biggest POS's ever made.

The MacGregor 26 with a 50 HP outboard is the most asanine boat ( can't call it a sailboat) I have ever seen. I am amazed anyone would waste their money on that monstrosity. Is there a more shoddily built boat manufacturer out there? I don't think so. Good riddance if it is truelly out of production.

 

Perhaps you could fill in the details. Brewer was part of the design team at Luders that produced American Eagle. Other than that, I was unaware that Brewer ever had any involvement with the Cup. Citation please.

 

Ted Brewer impressed me years ago when I was researching the comfort ratio. He apparently developed the ratio in a whimsical way and never intended brokers to use that in sales materials - which they did a lot - a few years ago. It was a ratio meant to get students of yacht design interested in discussing what made a yacht comfortable. Lets get real, after the head clogs or a crew member pukes below decks, there is no comfort below decks on any yacht. Speedy passage to shore based facilities is how you provide comfort enough for your lady to cruise with you. This is why almost all yachts are transported across oceans rather than cruised across them. After wear and tear and the cost of the crew, transporting turns out to both protect the investment and save money. This is why the only folks crossing oceans these days are doing so as part of races. Part of the TP = TransPortable or TransPacific thing. In a race, comfort is not much of a concern. Expecially if there is a trade off involving speed to get comfort. This reality, that boats are either raced or transported across oceans, but not cruised accross them, changes a lot in yacht design, I think. But no one has cared to inform consumers about this fact.

http://www.tedbrewer.com/ted.html is Brewers bio and it does show that he was part of AC from at least 1960 and it mentions American Eagle. Thanks.

I think in his writings he refers to the fiasco of 1960 but really means 1958.

I have watched the boat shows for a long time wanting to catch the man at a presentation. He is one of these guys that I believed was saved by moving to the west coast of the USA. He is now living in BC. When he lived in Washington State he lived way out of the city in "Gods Country" like from the film made in Concrete with Dinero. (This Boys Life?) That indicates to me that he is a private man now. But he use to teach.

The Pacific Northwest really has become a haven for modern boat designers and builders as well as suppliers of all kind. I have no idea if the King of Spain was visiting with Robert Perry yesterday after the King and Queen presented artwork at the Seattle Art Museum but he should have been, not that Perry is his only choice. If I were at Farr design, I would be worried.

The king could have just been interested in suppliers of cookers or something but Farr could well be losing a customer. Only they would know if customer relations are still good. I happen to know that Perry is suddenly very busy, which was not the case this summer. His firms boat Icon gives his company some notariety.

The Center For Wooden boats on Lake Union has bettered Mystic Seaport for some time now. That and the Wooden boat shows. A lot of new concepts first are worked up in wood.

In your area of the world there is to much looking at AC boats including the 12 meters. I think you can still charter 3 or 4 of them, including one that was recently moved from Seattle to the east coast. Columbia and Weatherly are still in service I think. Historical and Histerical, I think.

 

I feel bad doing this

"This reality, that boats are either raced or transported across oceans, but not cruised accross them, changes a lot in yacht design, I think. But no one has cared to inform consumers about this fact. "

So you don't think people who buy TP 52's know they are buying a race boat with little creature comforts? What is wrong with the idea of designing a purpose, race specific boat for a wealthly client? I don't think your giving the clients a whole lot of credit here, the designs and consumer driven.

I would also like to apologize for taking part in this thread and continueing this discussion.

 

Seattle lite

Do not apologize. I apologize. I haven't given enough credit to TP52 owners. Have you seen the new web site. WOW. Here is what they have done correctly. The 4 new boats for the Med are going to be raced as windward leeward buoy race boats 75 percent of the time.

Only 25 percent of the time will they be allowed to ocean race.

This makes so much sence given the recent discovery here that TP52s, the early vintage ones at least, do not pass the capsize risk ratio. That makes them not worthy for ocean duty by SNAME standards. The next positive is that the owners have started calling the boats one-design instead of ocean design and they appear to be running from Teeters and ORCA, at least from the web site there is little emphasis on ORCA and no mention of Teeters. All of that is good.

The next step is to remarket the boats as TransPortable rather than TransPacific. My concern over calling the boats TransPacific is that this orients them for the West Marine Transpac. That is a joke so grand that it should not be allowed.

I forsee an orchestrated attempt to keep movable ballasted boats out of the West Marine Transpac just to make TP52s look good if they are regulars in that race. It really appears that Teeters made himself part of the 2002 July 4th drunken boat case for the purpose of discrediting all movable ballasted machines so that vested interests in the TP52s, from as long as 1991, could be protected from the eventual GP RWP changes. Changes that really from a technology standpoint have obsoleted TP52s.

The conversion of TP52s to canters, currently being undertaken by at least one PNW TP52 owner, probably will not be successful. You can not change hull form. But it is worth the try. Reality bites for TP52 investors. These boats over night lost half of their value owing to the GP RWP rejection of mathematically derived stability ratios. That is like 250,000 depreciation. Overnight! I am certain they blame Teeters for failing to be persuasive.

Let me explain something interresting about fiberglass boats from 20 or 30 years ago. Because of the rising cost of oil, and because fiberglass is a petrochemical, fiberglass boats were viewed for a while as a kind of investment. In fact you could purchase a model from a reputable dealer and because of the rising cost of oil, sell it for more than you could purchase new six months later.

This was back when proven boats of wooden design were being copied in glass. There was very little design related risk and this is the mentality of many who purchase 500,000 plus yachts even today. To have a boat lose half of its value over night, when the cost of petrol is rizing, is something very hard to tollerate for them. It is a nightmare, because a loss in their world is like twice the hit of a similar gain. The value will further decline unless a strong racing program can be established because racability is the primary determinant of resale value. In the mean time I am sure that every TP52 owner is selling. There is still financial risk.

Here is the problem. Should the med program work out, should TP52s be transported to take part in that, unless the TP52 is CE marked, it can not be sold for use in EU waters.

Should creature comforts be added to the vessel to convert her from racing to cruising she has to leave EU waters. EU CE marking requirements exempt them only if they are being actively raced. Hence there has to be a different market created in which to sell used TP52s. That market would normally be the east coast of the US but for reasons I have not yet figgered out, except perhaps folks are getting smarter about sailing there, they do not want them. Hence the attempt to create a market for used TP52s on the west coast and the as-close-to-fraud-as-you-can-get term of TransPacific. The king of spain was told that financial risk was low because of such a dumping ground for used TP52s.

So to reduce financial risk of purchasing a new TP52, and new ones are needed to promote racing, all should be first be CE marked. I do not think any have been. Really the program should just be shut down. There is no need for more of these kinds of boats except to preserve what little value is left in the existing ones by getting a one-design race program going. Crew that work these boats are harming themselves becuase they are getting trained to reject notions about sailing that will make them competitive off of the American-style Windward Leeward buoy circuit that is not going to be supported much longer.

Economics, it is more about Economics than anything else in this class of boat. Do you disagree? It is more about Thanksgiving for me right now. I will check in, in about a week. Please try to keep on topic. The topic is TP52s and the profession of yacht design not me.

 

Like, Dood, who give a fsck? You are comparing apples to oranges. Sorry, I forgot that that is your hobby.

If - and as I have stated in another current thread, that is a big word - you would show some semblance of "let's agree to disagree", I would forgive you, and forget you. As it is, I am trying very hard to just do the forgetting, for you are truly a forgettable personality.

Steve

 

Steve,

Are there any profesional boat designers in the US? A profession is self regulating. I see very little self regulating going on. I can call myself a yacht designer (I think) and hang out a shingle to operate tomorrow. Isn't that correct? I think more is needed to be a naval architect but even here are there more than 100 folks making more than hobby money doing boat design work in the US today? Give a fsck, be professonal, and continue to post. I am at the start of my sailing career. I will be around for many many years and intend to make a difference. Forget me if you must but do not forget that the US just turned in its worst performance in the Olympic sailing events in 60 years and that Seattle still is suffering from the disgrace of One World. It can not get worse than this. The bleeding has stopped. I hope. US Sailing has come around at least on paper. There is BMW Oracle. They are producing my ride down under. There is something to work with at least. Here is an idea. Get your butt to the correct-about-sailing coast, purchase some Mac26x molds and go. The production will sustain you for designing something even better. My ride is far from what can be produced but it has the advantage of 5000 hulls. No modern model sailboat will have that advantage for at least 7 years.

Happy Thanksgiving.

 

By whose definition? Any recreation-based industry, that relies on other peoples' disposable income, is regulated by the customer. What doesn't work is not ordered. Just because some folks are ordering something you personally don't like is no reason to accuse the designers of being unprofessional. There are a number of TP52s being built worldwide, and more are in the works. Someone likes them out there, and pepole who have sailed them are very happy with the performance.
As far as calling yourself a yacht designer, you can put whatever you lke on your shingle, but the truth will out when you have to perform. There is nothing illegal per se in my putting "Dr. Steve Baker" on a shingle by my door. What IS illegal is treating patients. Naval Architects do theoretically need more schooling, but that is only because they are slower to learn I earned my living as a commercial Naval Architect before I returned to yachts, so I do have good experience of both sides of the coin. Ships and tugs and crane-barges might pay the rent, but they didn't float my boat for too long.
I would definitley reckon on there being more than 100 designers earning their daily crust from yacht design in the US, even more when you count the draftsmen and "ratings guys" working with and for the major designers.
The Olympics... Well, if you judge the state of sailing in a country by how well it does in the Olympics, then you are missing the point, and a great deal of pleasure to boot. Sailing is not about the Olympics. For that matter, RACING is not about the Olympics.
I have taken a Mac out on the water, and have tried to sail it. No luck. If that is your perfect boat, then I wish you luck with it, but it ain't my cup of tea.
Steve

 

Frank, why are you doing this to another site!!

Buy a punching bag, its better for you, and people won't think your mental!

 

My impression, gained elsewhere, is that the number of individuals earning their living designing small craft is in the range of 1000-2000, worldwide. This would not include small-shop builders who design their own, but of course it does include the in-house designers at the major builders. The small number explain a lot of things, such as why the CAD software is so expensive - not a lot of buyers to defray the cost of development.

There is a trend in the US to require the approval of a licensed professional engineer on design work. Reasonable as this sounds, it is problematic. Most marine engineers do not do small craft work, and small craft designers can learn what they need to know.

There isn't any design magic in your beloved Mac26. Any competent designer could do as well on his first try. Most don't want to, however.

 

Diva,

You too? Another regular fan/ adversary. Soon I will have to come up with a liturgy. I will be preaching to the choir, again. It isn't over until it's over, You may think I've had enough, but in reality I am unprepared to drop out. I will have to keep up my efforts for a little while longer. It's hard to laugh politely when I don't approve of the TransPacific 52 joke or those made about the Mac26x.

(Thats you SeaDrive. The notion of putting a large outboard on any sailboat design without impacting sailing performance is beyond the capabilities of most designers. Such a deed requires more engineering than most competent contemporary sailboat designers are capabable of. So much more that they believe it not possible.)

Because of past experience at SA, I knew what I'd have to deal with to reach my goal on this forum. I have bit the bullet. The projectile has been launched and is on target.

The TP52 box rule is being changed. That is the kind of progress I expected from the discussions we are having on this forum. Discussions that demonstrate the kind of professionalism we should expect more and more of from yacht designers and NAs. Steve is like a breath of fresh air.

You have to remember that it is here that it was first identified that the TP52s are more appropriately called buoy race boats than trans pacific race boats because the box rule allowed boats to be designed that by SNAME standards are not ocean worthy.

That punch to the bag has paid off with www.jpdonovandesign.com, marketing its 2004 vintage TP52 as a buoy race boat, rather than an ocean racer. If this professionalism had been allowed to flourish a year earlier, ORCA would never have been formed, Teeters would never have founded it, US Sailing would never have supported it and yes, Teeters would not have been compelled to attempt to testify in the 2002 drunken boaters case, in a futile and inappropriate attempt to build a case against movable ballast for the GP RWP in order to support TP52s. (thats my story and I am sticking to it.) US Sailing would still have representation at the GP RWP if the kind of professionalism recently exhibited here had prevailed a year ago, well prior to May, not even a year ago.

Owing to the fact that this is Thanksgiving we might as well do our sparring with family members.

Let me first thank the off forum folks who provided me a copy of Sailing's December issue last night. The Perry on Design review of the Donovan Transpac 52 is directly relevant. Do I see any mighetto influence in it? Well he mentions the mini-transats and Open 60s, even I-14s in the review and he sides with Bruce McPherson, the fellow whoes letter is printed on page 30 of the July SeaHorse.



These are platforms that have sustained me (who can forget those I-14 guys) in coming up with my own opinions on TP52s and rational for Teeters wrong doing that involved my ride and I have written a lot about them on a forum that Perry frequented at one time. From page 24 Sailing December issue:

"Other box rules include the Open 60, Volvo 70, Mini Transat, Class A cats and Little Americas Cup cats. (But) unlike many of the box rules the Transpac 52 is a tight box, a box within a box with restrictions...."

That is kind of mighetto and kind of Bruce. Bruce stated in his letter From page 30 of the July Seahorse edition:

"In fact, in 1980, when I worked for the man in charge of the IMS and suggested going to Newport to gather data I had the distinct feeling he had carefully assigned me work so that I wouldn't have a chance to do research. When I have taken the occasional opportunity to sit in on an IMS technical meeting, the last in Annapolis, I have been appalled to hear representatives discussing rule problems with NO SPECIFIC REFERENCES to real-life sailing data to support their statements!"

I have always assumed that the man in charge was Teeters. But who knows or cares. The man in charge appears to have been a puppet. The entire US Sailing organization appears to have been oriented from the top down to first favoring a design and then building a case for it, ignoring any significant fact it needed along the way to support some favorite son, most recently Farr Design, founded in 1980. Students of Yacht design, my next post will involve Perry's review of the Donovan TP52. Pay attention to the changes in the rules involving VCG.