TP52s

Of course the Laser, Taser, Mini-Transats, Open 60's, water ballast, hard chines, centerboards, AND the Mac are the brainchild of one man. How dare designers build and sail their boats BEFORE Macgregor sold his first discount brainchild.

So why are you so obsessed over a TP52 and their proven ability to do ocean racing? They were designed initially to do sled runs to HI. 2 did it already this year. Now some of the owners want to be able to do buoy courses against each other. It doesn't affect their ocean going ability if they smidge off a bit of downwind performance to get better upwind performance. Just because your boat is neither an ocean crosser or a buoy racer doesn't mean others can't be either.

 

Good Morning Boat Designers

Old Business from Lucus

1. Your boat doesn't have moveable ballast

The movement is on and off the vessel. Boats that have side to side ballast probably were built that way owing to design rules that limit the total amount of water ballast that can be carried.

2. You can't be bloody serious about what you write.

Very serious. I do not post what I do not believe

3. TransPac 52's are not Santa Cruz 52's.

The history of the TP52 could be extended all the way back to Gimcrack. They are joke boats owned by fools if owners really think TP means TransPacific. That is my opinion, but it is confirmed by the math. SNAME calculations back me on that. They are not TransPacific worthy (at least not the early versions). They could be good TransPortable buoy racers.

Perry has given us a lot of to analize. Lets do so. If the SC52s are not TP52s then why is Lee always mentioned? Sadly Lee designed neither boat. Farr is responsible for both. A designer from Farr teamed with Lee to build the first SC52. That monkey business continued with the TP52s until just recently. Perhaps it continues today. I like to think Lee not involved any more.

4. I don't know what you have against people who desire a class of boats with owner/driver rules, box design rules, and have the money to afford 2M USD. You don't have that kind of money and you don't know what it is like to run in those circles.

Oh, you didn't run a credit report on me. Others have. As of today, in the US, the folks asking for credit reports must be reported. Just don't go there. It is rude.

FYI, I think a TP52 is significantly less expensive than 2 million. Of course after the GP RWP rejected Teeter Principles, the boats lost half of their resale value over night.

This is what I have against design rules. They often produce foolish designs.

The TP52s are PHRF boats, as far as I am concerned. PHRF attempts to hide the mechanism for rating from designers so that the mechanism can not be gamed. That mechanism is currently in the form of software code. Unfortunately the red hand of Teeters is all over it. Rather than using a neural network, which can not tell you how a result is obtained, and hence is the perfect mechanism for a PHRF rating tool, Teeters apparently had a tool coded up based on his own personal huristics. This means movable ballasted boats are disadvantaged under the tool because Teeters rules of thumb exclude them from ever being racable. That is the theory those of us investigating the rating tool are operating under. Good question BTW, as is the owner driver one. Read up on neural nets. These are used in aircraft to keep them flying smooth. The same is being applied to sailboats, I suspect. Oracle isn't into this sport for nothing.

BTW, it would be a relatively streight forward undergraduate project to take the PHRF data, boat specs, and race outcomes and apply it to rating future designs using the same technology. Why this hasn't been done yet is the question. Typically the objection is that the results are not auditable. You can not say how the rating was determined. But that is what is wanted for a rating mechanism that can not be used by designers to create foolish boats.

My problem with owner driver rules is that it keeps boats like Braveheart (a TP52) from competing. In PHRF, if the owner is not available for a race, the boat is still raced. That means the boats experience while racing can be used to show if the vessel is fast or slow. The owner of Braveheart did not want a TP52. His designer did and thought that value would be preserved if the PHRF buoy racer was designed to the TP52 rules (which keep changing BTW).

There is another problem that bothers me and it involves course design. To make a fixed fin vessel appear fast, in comparison to faster designs, courses are prepared for them. We call those courses Windward Leeward courses.

The slowest point of sail for any boat is directly down wind. Up wind is also slow going. Hence slow designs - like TP52s possibly - appear to do well on WinLee buoy race courses. But they may not really be fast.

5. Not sure why you can't comprehend plain facts unless you are learning disabled.

These are plain facts that have been in dispute since the 1920s and Blue Bird, the first twin keel boat. But they are not considered appropriate for discussion among the trophy kids who are expected to sail like their daddies. Which is foolishly.

A blue bird tells us that twin keels become more effective with increased angle of heel, while a single keel becomes less effective. Twin keels also reshape the wave pattern to produce a flatter wake and can reduce the effort needed to break out from hull speed. Windward performance in rough water is superior because of the roll and pitch dampening abilities of the keels. Any dual rudder design should be at least analized like a twin keel boat. From this it appears that water ballast should not be pumped side to side but rather remain in both sides to improve windward performance in rough water and the ballast should be low in the boat, like twin keels rather than close to where rail meat would sit. MacGregor Yachts claims to have invented water ballasted sailing sloops. Thier system is like twin keels, as opposed to the rail meat water ballast systems common on designs hampered by rules.

6. Not sure why you are convinced that there is some plot against MacGregors just because everyone but you knows they sail for s**t and are cheaply made.

You have been talking to your daddy. If you had been chatting with your grandfather, you would know that it is very common for new fiberglass designs to be sold for less than full value when they first come out. MacGregor Yachts told its Mac26x customers that they were purchasing a 40,000 vessel for 18,000 and this statement is consistant with what your grandfather might have told you.

Sail boat yacht producers, to get market share and enough boats to race, may initially price low figuring that as racing the model is promoted, demand will allow price increases. They also do not know what it really costs to produce because those costs are dependent on the number of boats created and warrentee related costs.

So your father may have purchased a new model fiberglass sailboat as an investment, thinking that petrochemical cost is always going up and hence the cost of fiberglass would go up and hence the manufacturer would have to up the price on later vessels of the same model type because of increased raw material costs. Furthermore the producer probably already intends to up the price as racing the model becomes more popular.

But here is the real kick in the arse. To get the manufacturer to up his price on future vessels of the same type even more, your daddy might nit pick while the boat is under warrentee. He might even encourage others to do the same by calling the boat a Piece of S**t. Those warrentee costs then go into the pricing structure and a 2002 boat in 2004 costs much more.

Your daddy then sells his used boat for a profit. How is that for a conspiracy? Damn Fine one I say. Your daddy would call it economics. The at first not similar fields (sail boat engineering and economics) become related when the boat is looked at that way.

BTW, Guzzwell told me the Smeetens had Tzu Hang? built as one way of getting wealth out of England. Roger Macgregor has likely pondered this notion. His undergraduated degree was in economics.

Those who do not recognize that conspiracy is the most popular explanation today for how things are in the US are doomed to TP52s Thats a joke.

Anyway hope to continue the dialog. Can you tell my your generation? Are you Trophy, X, boomer? I promiss not to use the information to embarass you. I am 50 years old and just looking for a way to relate. Thanks.

 

You really just don't get it. No matter how many people point out you are wrong, you persist.

Your math is in error if you think TP52's are not ocean worthy. I was part of the tiger team that made one of these boats possible. They are strong, light, fast, and very safe. Your armchair analysis is just an observation from the cheap seats. It is apparent that you do not comprehend the level of effort and design put into these boats. I don't know of anyone, other than you, who would hesitate to step on a TP52 and take it to HI or beyond. They are astounding machines that balance a bit of creativity in design with a simple box rule. I look forward to seeing something like this in the 30 foot range.

If you add up the receipts for a fully outfitted NEW TP52 it sits squarely in the 1.5 to 2.25M range. I watched the owner's accountant cut the checks.

TP52's are not PHRF boats, they are box rule boats. The reason Bill is involved in many aspects of racing is because he's a racer at heart. The TP52 and the SC52 are in no way shape or form even close to the same boat. I own a SC52, my skipper owns a TP52. You can look at all aspects of the boats and see they are nothing the same other than they come in white, have masts, rudders, and keels. Quit spreading mis-truths.

 

Lucus,

No I get it. Try reading from the start of the thread. I am as tortured as you are to discover that by US Sailing as well as SNAME mathematical ratios, developed after the 1979 Fastnet, TP52 box rules allow designs that are not ocean worthy.

Braveheart was not intended to ever ocean cross. She was meant to be a buoy racer. Hence her designer likely added waterline length and beam at the cost of failing to pass the SNAME capsize risk ratio and US Sailing capsize screening ratio. We have yet to analize that boat. This was true for the boat analized, and I expect it true for most of the TP52s up until the most recent Farr vintage which corrects exactly to the SNAME capsize risk ratio. Values of 2 or less are considered worthy of ocean crossing.

Stick with me. You are capable of moderating my wild arse statements. But the math is not mine. It is SNAME and US Sailing you will want to complain to. There are links. I am always careful to avoid half truths and will correct my statements when wrong.

Nonetheless, I do want to restate that ocean crossing is less dangerous than freeway driving. There is no argument that the boats are safe by that comparison. However, if you ignore SNAME and US Sailing math, you can not also ignore multihulls. Because most of these will float when capsized, they make more sence for ocean crossing than vessels that have capsize risk and can sink, like TP52s. They are also strong, light, and fast and because they do not sink very safe. But hardly anyone considers them safe for ocean crossing anymore because of the SNAME and US Sailing math.

There is something else to discuss since you own an SC52 and crew a TP52. Many do not know that if you work in the industry, perhaps in a loft, or at a supplier, that you are automatically considered a paid sailing professional. This is because the value add of your crew service is assumed to be in the fees charged at the day job. Many also do not think about the fact that when a boat leaves shore for a fun race, like the West Marine Transpac, she may or may not be crewed with enough truely professional crew to be considered seaworthy by a competent Captain.

Braveheart is a TP52 that was meant from the start to race buoys in SF under PHRF. The TP52 reviewed by Perry just recently is also meant for buoy racing and not ocean crossing according to the Designer's web page. Could you race these TP52s in a TransPac? Off course. But the boats are meant to use the weight of 11 crew. 11 crew on a 52 footer is likely not fun. I think those crew would rather cross on one of the new Swans or any boat that is designed so that fewer crew share duties.

The truth is that these TP52s are being marketed as TransPacific because no one wants them on the Atlantic. All those races are going IRC, including Block Island. So there is need to use Bill Lee's name and his popularity on the west coast for his ULDBs and the barn, of finding them a home on the Pacific side of the US. Calling them a TransPacific 52 plays into that. I do not think it correct to dump the design on the west coast. If the boat is worthy, keep them on the east coast and med. I do not think any are being produced on the west coast are they? Santa Cruise Yachts is making TP53s now right? You would know more than I. What is going on? Also

Can you fill us in on what happened at SFYC during the big boat series. From my perspective the TP52s were hardly a success because after the event the NYYC and most clubs doing ocean racing went IRC. I think Stan Honey even recommends now that TP52s consider racing PHRF and I think Carol has left ORCA, if it still even exists to help NYYC with IRC.

Remember, we are only chatting about 10 boats. There are only 10 TP52s. 19 at most by the end of 2005 and with the King of Spain dropping out and moving to VO70s (I suspect) no reason to expect even those additional 9 to be produced except by hard ball contract enforcement.

 

You have never read the box rules for the TP52 have you?

The type is to be such that it can be sailed with minimum risk by both professional and amateur sailors. The Transpacific Yacht Club has developed this rule to encourage yachts suitable for it’s eve nts, however the yachts are also to be suitable for inshore racing.

Development is allowed in such factors as hull shape, foil shape, construction, interior, deck layout and rigging. However speed producing factors such as length, minimum displacement, maximum draft, and maximum sail area are strictly controlled. Yachts entering these classes shall race without time allowance. Any developments which are contrary to this purpose may give rise to Rule changes.

That means the box rule was designed to produce a generation of boats that are for Trans Pacific events but are also agile enough to do round the cans.It's a complete bald-faced lie that the boats aren't capable of Atlantic crossings. What a naive statement. The rule was written by the TransPacific Yacht Club for a boat that would go like hell on wheels on TransPacific Yacht Club Events. Those events are, surprise, ocean crossing events.

LOA Maximum 52.00 ft
Beam Maximum 14.50 ft
Beam Minimum 13.00 ft
Displacement Minimum 16,500 lbs
Displacement Maximum 17,000 lbs

Those are the short hand measurement terms.

As to working in the industry vs. professional crew. Again you are only speaking of things you do not understand, please refrain.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TP53. The reason the boats are being built on the east coast is personal preference to the builders building them. Period.

 

Lucus, no one can read read the box rules for the TP52 because they are currently being changed. This according to Perry's recent review of a Brazil TP52. A TP52 that is not raced is a TP53, from my sources. I will see about finding something in print. Definitions change monthly when it comes to these vessels.

Farr is way to connected to the TP52s for comfort. The first 5 TP52s were built specifically for the east coast and there has been a lot of speculation that they were meant to be upgrades for Farr 40 owners. In fact there is an argument to be made that the projected demise of Farr 40 one-design racing is owing to an attemt to move Farr 40 owners into TP52s like Microsoft forced Win95 owners into Windows 2000. Again not a conspiracy, just economics.

Lee no longer has anything to do with Santa Cruise Yacht Design but if you look at ORCA rules you will see that the plan was to duplicate what Lee did with ULDBs in 40 and 50 footers and in the TransPac while running SCYD.

You can make me understand if you try. But the market is speaking as well.

No one is happy that Jim Teeters advised the US Sailing deligation to walk out on the GP RWP. That appears today to have been improper because it supported TP52s when the delegation was to have represented all US Sailing members, and indead all US sailors period and not vested interests in a Farr supported design. NYYC is particularly upset, from what I am seeing in the press.

Look, the TP52s could be great boats. But we have seen only hype, of the kind associated with a piramid scheme up to this point. If they are so great for TransPacific work then time will prove them out. But there are good reasons to slow down the roll out.

Those reasons are owing to the GP RWP support for movable ballast designs. These reduce crew size, which has to make accomodations during a race more pleasant and the desirability of TP52s. There are also the Swan one-designs in 50 and 40 foot sizes that will be raced in 2005, possibly TransAtlantic as well as in the Med. Swans on the east coast of the US have been marketed under the NYYC name. I suspect this has something to do with things troubling to TP52 supporters. On the west cost NYYC would be a negative brand but on the east it is still respected.

Do you know if any of the TP52s are CE marked? If not, and I suspect none are, what is the rating? If not then when their racing days are over they have to be moved out of EU waters by law. Where are you going to put them except in the US? This is why I see the US as a dumping ground for the design. That is fine by me if the dumping is on the east coast, where they were manufactured and can be supported. But seriously, why the west coast unless the east coast sailors are already wize to problems with them?

 

Read carefully Frank.

The Trans Pacific Yacht Club came up with the boat/box rules. They are located on the west coast. Yep that's right, the west coast. The boat was designed to be the TransPac sled of the new generation. Just because they are built on the east coast doesn't mean they were to be only for the east coast. The originators (west coasters) designed the rule for their own enjoyment. It doesn't make a difference which designer you go to to have a TP52 made, as long as they follow the box rules, which are very clear.

Is your source regarding TP52's Elmo? You know Elmo is still learning how to count and spell right? A TP52 that is not raced is still a TP52. If you put a cruising interior into it, it is still a TP52, but may not be eligible to race with the TP52 fleet if it is too heavy. If you put a canting keel on it, it is still a TP52 but is not eligible to race with the TP52's in a level class because it violates the box rule. But it never becomes a TP53. Why? Because there is no such thing.

Why are you so obsessed with CE markings on boats that are all homeported in the US and Japan?

Cripes, I cannot believe I am arguing with you over these things mate.

 

mighetto, what is your training/credentials? Do you have qualifications to back up what you say?

 

What's your beef anyway? You don't like fixed bulb keels and want movable ballast? Big woop. Sounds like a real important crusade to me. Why don't you tell everyone the type of boat in which you, king waterworld, will permit them to sail?

People can spend their money on whatever boat they want, bonehead.

Now flame on for another 6 pages!

 

Water Addict

I have a beef with Jim Teeters who as explained at the start of this thread attempted to testify inappropriately against my ride, a Mac26x. Owing to that testimony and the implied endorsement by US Sailing, my vessel is now produced only in Australia. Prior to that, 4 assembly lines in California were pumping out up to eight Mac26x cruisers per day; this doing more good for the sailing sport in the USA than all the Naval Architects out of MIT.

Knowing my beef, I am doing the best I can to be fair about what I am posting regarding TP52s. My interest in them came originally from trying to explain Jim Teeters' behavior.

The thought process is that Teeters wished to support Farr and TP52s, above everything. He was likely paid to do so. To do this he hoped to have facts regarding his notion of requiring 128 stability in ocean racing designs that could be presented by the US Sailing delegation to the GP RWP. 128 is a standard for TP52s.

If it could be shown in US court that movable water ballast had contributed to the deaths of two children on July 4th 2002, that fact would have been of value to those supporting him with payments and work (likely Farr) in arguing against all forms of movable ballast and possibly persuading the GP RWP to reject or postpone advancement in sailboat designs proven by the Open 60s, minitransats and yes Mac26x.

When the GP RWP rejected all forms of mathematically derived stability to support movable ballast it really was and outrage close to calling Teeters and TP52 supporter's frauds. There is no reason to sugar coat this development.

It was devastating to Teeters and TP52s and probably has put Farr at risk of business failure because they had made significant investments in the TP52. I certainly would be checking Dunn and Brad if I were purchasing any kind of Farr boat today.

The more I discuss and research this, the more concerned I get. Folks actually think Lee designed SC52s and not Farr designers. They are unaware of how Lee was cheated out of SCYD, the customer legal nit picking, the bankruptcy, all of that 'economics'. We on the west coast cried when his barn was leveled last year. It was as important a structure to us as the original NYYC club house is to those on the east coast. The barn door is forever closed now.

Look, Farr took an almost bet the farm gamble on TP52s. They are trying to recover from the GP RWP decision by selling mold sets to fools in Spain and moving quickly to VO70s. In the mean time MacGregor Yachts and its dealerships are trying to recover from the damage Jim Teeters did in his attempt to testify. Half of the MacGregor dealerships closed up when the Mac26x line was shut down. There was significant impact. These wounds can be heeled. They are not irreparable. But they will not heal by being ignored. If I were Roger MacGregor I would be seeking financial reparations from both Teeters and US Sailing. But he doesn't appear interested in that. US Sailing has done a lot of reorganization to get the top down influence represented by Jim Teeters out. Those are very positive developments. Worthy of a membership in US Sailing actually.

Anyway, owing to the above, I now am thrilled to find a genuine interest in sailboat design. There are only 10 TP52 owners to piss of by using them in the exercises we are doing here. A lot can be learned from them. They can not be as bad as they currently appear. Lets continue with discussion about the Perry review and I will do my best to let go of my biases against them, which are only there owing to my judgment of Teeters. Perry appears concerned about a new TP52 design rule that requires more weight aloft than is necessary with today's technology. Lets chat about that. This might be a good thing to keep costs down. Then again it could encourage taller masts and be a bad thing.

 

Lucus,

You are a gentleman. The explanation given regarding TP52s and TP53s is the best I have ever seen. Owing to this explanation I will never again use the term TP53. (seriously, I did not invent the term.)

Here is the importance of CE marking. In the Pacific Northwest there are more than a few boat building plants that have completely retooled owing to the requirement that for models after 1998 you must have a CE mark to enter EU waters.

Cruising powerboat manufacturers in the US are taking CE marks very seriously, to the point of even relocating and retooling complete plants so that European rules are followed.

Of course there are economic interests involved in the marking. Everyone hopes the rules will be changed but there is no current mechanism or plans for implementing such a mechanism involving the CE marking of a used boat and once the boat leaves its manufacturing plant it can not legally be marked.

There are exemptions. If the boat is brought to EU waters for a race, you are exempted. If the boat is a historical sailboat or replica you can get an exemption. So sailboat designers have less issues with the CE marking than power boat designers. However, all boat owners have the same issue when they come to sell an unmarked boat. The boat can not be sold in the EU period.

While the reason for the mark requirements is suppose to be protection of the consumer, the economic reasons more likely explain. As posted previously yachts have long been used to move wealth from one country to another and avoid paying taxes.

In any case, in theory, if you transport or sail your boat into EU waters, the authorities can confiscate it. I am waiting for a US documented vessel to be confiscated because that would be like confiscation of a US Navy war boat. But the law is on the books. It is not a joke even though enforcement issues have not been worked out.

Walker Bay, a dinghy manufacturer in my state, marks all of its boats. I figure that the first enforcement of the rules will be dinghy confiscation at public docs.

Anyway, the CE marks also create a fiction that there are A and B boats that are ocean worthy and C and D boats that are protected only boats. I say it is a fiction because the designation of A B C or D is mostly up to the manufacturer and crew is a big determinant of an ocean worthy boat.

So if there had been any marked TP52s, it would have been interesting to see if they were designated A or B.

You do not appear aware that the next 4 TP 52s are being built in Spain from Farr molds. Perhaps these will be CE marked. In anycase, for boats like mine the value of the mark is estimated to be about 1/3 the cost of the entire vessel. Since the mark costs the manufacturer so little there is no reason at all not to demand that your new boat be marked. Oviously the boat press isn't covering this well enough. Perhaps someone will start a new thread. The implications to boat design are much greater than should be covered on this thread. But the basics are portrayed correctly above, unless things changed in the last 90 days.

Thanks for asking.

 

So your beef is with Jim Teeters and that he doesn't like the Mac26? So what? You have one- how many more do you need? If people want to buy them, there would be supply for them. Are you claiming that Jim Teeters testimony halted production of the Mac26?

By the way you never stated if you have any nav arch credentials to back up your statements.

 

addict,

I try not to make my own statements. Usually they are the statements of others and in most cases the statements are in print. Think of me as a facilitator, if not a professor. I do intend to teach design as well as learn design here. All on boatdesign.net should aspire to do so. No one should knowing post falsehood. To much of boat designing is done in courts of law. We have to discuss that to make progress.

I did run a couple of departments at City University for a few years, is that what you are getting to? You can find much about me through the search engines. But lets not make this thread about me. It is often about me. Contact me at mighetto@eskimo.com if you can not find out what you want from the web search engines. Believe me that there are many threads elsewhere about me. Lets make this one about boat design and TP52s and all learn. Perhaps I will end up with a hobby boat design business one day or commission Mac26x replicas at a plant in Canada. I can not say that it has not crossed my mind. I love all boats. I have started and run more than a few businesses. But you know, I think first I will concentrate on winning a few races.

Nonetheless, does Farr have any naval architect credentials? Does the designer of the Melges? It is very common for race athletes to hang out shingles and call themselves boat designers is the point. This more so in sailboats than power vessels but very common. Roger MacGregor does not have a naval architect degree but he has the one of the most successful design/production businesses in the nation. The Johnstones of J-Boats did not have any NA training. Well a correspondence course, not completed. Perhaps it shouldn't be this way. Is that what you are getting to?

I am an armature boat designer but I am also the captain of my own boats. As captain it is assumed in courts of law that I am capable of judging designs, crewing ships and calling them seaworthy or not. This is the world we live in.

It kind of has to be that way. Do you not think. I mean you can take a boat made of reeds, put competent crew aboard, sail her in season, and cross oceans. You could also put 11 lubbers on a TP52 and head out for Hawaii in a Transpac hoping to become seaworthy as the lubbers become sailors. But you may not be seaworthy for the first few days out. Fortunately we have good weather reporting these days.

Are you a Naval Architect from MIT? What is your beef? You are aware that Naval Architects are expected to know diddly about sailboat design? Stupid I know, but that is the world we live in the US.

Please back up or refute a few of "my statements" . There is nothing so fine as chatting about boats when you can not be messing about in them anyway.

 

Well, you have stated that Mac26's have "moveable water ballast". This is not true. Moveable (or "movable") water ballast is capable of being moved from side to side, in order to increase righting moment by a noticeable amount. Adding a few pints of water on centreline does not have much effect, it merely makes the boat lighter on the trailer.

Steve

 

PS, mighetto - I am not a Naval Architect from MIT, I am a Yacht Designer from Southampton College/Institute (why did they change the name?)