TP52s

And yet you still refuse to listen to those who are educated in design, and have bee earning their living at it for years. 25 years in my case, and counting - I'm the same age as you are.

Steve "last post in this thread - for now. It's rotting my brain"

 

Steve

And yet you still refuse to listen to those who are educated in design, and have been earning their living at it for years. 25 years in my case, and counting - I'm the same age as you are.

In software engineering, no one has more than 5 years of experience. If someone says they do, they are hopelessly lost. The field just changes to fast. It is now possibly like that in sailboat design. Wouldn't it be great if that were true? This is because computers are or should be used in all phases of the design and build process.

The significant changes in your field that are "rotting your brain" have nothing to do with me. I am pointing out that what happened to Jim Teeters and the TP52s in May - the whole GP RWP rejection of mathematical stability ratios, the obsoleting of all the TP52 and planned ORCA classes, represents a technology shift to movable ballasted sailboats.

Those are characterized by certain things that we have seen on multihulls, like retractable foils and multiple foils, rotating masts, roller furling, relatively small crew sizes and boats that float when swamped. But there are also things like CE marking that sailboat designers in America are negligant in not incorporating into their designs and recent court cases like the Buccaneer 180, and advancements in powerboat design that can be applied to sailboats. And the world has changed.

Here is a small example. Many sailboats have automatic bilge pumps. Environmental concerns will require that those be turned off while in harbor, if the boat has an inboard motor, because of oil and fuel that is pumped out into the harbor. Yet designers still are floating boats where you must keep the automatic pump on at all times. I know the arguments. bla bla bla - hey ever consider an outboard Outboards are not allowed by the TP52 rules.

I happen to live in an area that is exploding with new designs. You live in an area that honors the past by preserving an important part of American sailing. You will always have work. Cobol and Visual Basic programmers have work. Obviously you are computer literate or you would not be posting here. You could be a better designer. Do try to get beyond what others like to portray me as. I am not a monster trying to make anyone feel bad. Just a newbe with questions and observations that should be discussed. Sorry you think I refuse to listen. E-gad, I have purchased 5 or 6 new-to-me books on design since starting this thread because of listening. I know there is much to the field. The changes just can not be made fast enough for me however. Thanks for participating in the re-education of mighetto thread.

 

Get a copy of the RCD and read it! Trying to explain anything to you is a complete waste of time.

 

No, migho, it is you yourself that are rotting my brain, trying to figure out if you are as cluelessa bout boats as you seem to be. Advances in design are nothing new to me.
You say you are living in an area that is "exploding" with new designs, while you know nothing about design. Strange, that....

 

Søren Flening

The Recreational Craft Directive is an area of design that I would tend to hire a consultant like possibly yourself for. It isn't that it is impossible to read; it is that the directive can be interpreted differently by different countries. I am hoping someone who makes a living with such consulting will chime in. But best I can tell from the Recreational Craft Directive (RCD) is:

Any used boat that is brought in for racing is exempt from the (most often presented as absolute) restriction on importing a used boat not put into service in Europe prior to 1998.

US documentation might free the TP52 owner from the threat (real or not) of confiscation by EU custom authorities if the boat is no longer raced. But US documentation will not help sell the boat to a prospect in the EU because documentation is lost unless the new owner is a US citizen.

The economics of the CE Marking requirement mean that from a business mans perspective (mine) none of the current TP52s will be attractive for purchase by EU prospects.

The only place they can be expected to be sold to an end user is in a country like the US and there currently is no market for them on the east coast of the US because EU waters probably include places like the BVI. The west coast of the US really is being set up as the dumping ground for TP52s that have lost their competitive value.

See http://www.conformance.co.uk/CE_MARKING/ce_boats_sea.html.

My suspicion is that it probably is inappropriate to call these TP52 boats TransPacific when they are designed SPECIFICALLY for winds between 7 and 20 knots and the CE Marking Directive requires that Ocean going vessels be designed for force 8 (Beaufort scale) 41-47 knots. Significant redesign of the rigging and keel probably and potentially hull reinforcement is necessary to make them force 8 boats. But again, that is something for someone like yourself to decide. From a business man's perspective, nonetheless, the marketing of the TP52s is as close to fraud as you can get. They really appear to have been designed to be TransPorted across oceans for races and not raced across them. I certainly recommend that folks considering a TP52 purchase for ocean crossing work consider hiring a professional like possibly yourself before they buy because...

the TP52 CE classification is likely C, designed for voyages in coastal waters, large bays, estuaries, lakes and rivers with conditions up to, and including, wind force 6. This kind of classification flag is something that the TP52 promoters have chosen not to wave. As I have pointed out, the designations A, B, C and D really are bad marketing because crew are part of the definition for a seaworthy boat but from a usability and resale statepoint even a D classification is better than nothing.

Why do I feel like a tool for the professionals? Led like a horse to water. There is a lot of work for professionals involving this isn't there:?:

 

Thanks for the email. http://www.sailnet.com/sailing/04/perry2_1204.pdf is now available. This appears to be Trader, the TP52 now bringing the total number of boats on the water to a grand total of 11. Seriously, the boats could be great buoy racers. But how would anyone know unless they race PHRF? Anyway the new owner likely is aware that Donovan is part of the Farr family of designers and that the Brasil built boat is more of a buoy racer than an ocean crossing boat. Lets run the numbers from the .pdf file on what appears to be Trader today. Right off the bat she has more waterline than the Farr molds in spain. LWL = 52' so she should be faster. I have no idea what happened to Donovan's web site. Likely owner driver means you can't say certain things that were said on the site. Or it could be just a server being down deal. We need not rot our brains over that. Come on you fellows from RI. Lets work the grey matter. Nothing wrong with that is there?

 

Wow, someone is fast. Here is the skinny on Trader assuming she is the boat reviewed by Perry

LWL 52
SA 1661
Displacement 16500
Ballast 8820
Beam 14
LOA 52

Hull Speed 9.66 Planing requires exceeding this speed. When above this speed the wave form created by the hull flattens. Of course a boat must be designed to plane. It is likely that a TP52 can not be expected to plane for long - the bulb would break loose would it not? To protect the investment the race courses for these boats will be Windward/Leeward only. Olympic style courses create the possibility of planing on reaches that will stress the design.

Velocity 1.43 Potential maximum speed divided by hull speed. Underpowered or heavy vessels will be less than 1. Lots of sail and light displacement boats > 1.

SA/Disp 41.15 Traditional monohull requires range between 16 and 18 for racing. Add SA, reduce Disp, to increase the value. Usually calculated with 100% jib and not 150 genoa.THis boat looks very odd by this ratio and I think Perry is upset by that in his review. Only Perry would know but he should be consulted with before purchasing this boat to find out. I think his fee is less than $400 for that kind of thing.

Disp/Length 52 Many racing designs are below 100. Racing cruisers are around 100. True planing performance below 150. Cruising racers have values to the high 300's. Perry assumed 50 for LWL and came up with a different value.

Ballast/Disp 0.53 With other ratios can give an indicator of stability. Values range from a low of .25 to a high of around .50. The stability of this boat is in question. The beam of 14 feet is maximum for the TP52 class. When on heel the freeboard presented to the wind may be high, contributing to capsize risk.

Comfort 14.4 Measure of motion comfort that while tongue-in-cheek identifies jerkey motion at < 20 and sluggish vessels at > 50. Added weight increases value. Not a comfortable boat for ocean crossing especially with 11 crew!

LOA/Beam 3.71 About 3.0 and higher promotes easy motion, high speed (low drag), and good balance when heeled. Fineness of the hull is measured by this ratio.

Capsize Risk 2.12 This formula penalizes boats with a large beam for their high inverted stability, and light boats for their response to large waves. Values of 2 or under are ocean passagemakers. This boat is not designed for that. The new Farr designs for the meds have been corrected to this ratio and come in exactly at 2

This is interesting. Perry states that hull shape hollows are allowed in the first 30 percent of the TP52 vessels. These are not allowed on the AC boats. Let the notion that crew are practicing for AC class boats when on a TP52 be forever disputed. The onlyt hing similar to an AC class boat is the keel bulb and that IMO is a foolish and failed experiment. Why others are reluctant to say so remains a mystery.

Please check the math. The Angle of vanishing stability is assumed to be 128. Can someone calculate that one?

 

Mighetto - re "It is likely that a TP52 can not be expected to plane for long - the bulb would break loose would it not?"

Of course not. It's secured in a way that holds 8,500 lb securely, when the entire boat is blasting off wavetops upwind. The drag of the bulb is minute. Don't you think other bulbed boats (Melges to Elliotts to Open 60s) plane? Of course they do, and they don't lose too many bulbs while doing it.

You deride others for their tone in answering your stupid ideas, but then you accuse designers of being so careless that they'll play with people's lives by designing bulbs that fall off due to the stress of planing. You accuse the TP 52s owners, sailors, and designers of not being able to work this sort of stuff out....you are the one with no manners.


Re "To protect the investment the race courses for these boats will be Windward/Leeward only. Olympic style courses create the possibility of planing on reaches that will stress the design."


They have raced Transpac AND Bermuda. That's a FACT. I've raced the similar Farr 52s. They have raced Bermuda, Hobart and Fastnet. That's a FACT.


Re "Ballast/Disp 0.53 With other ratios can give an indicator of stability. Values range from a low of .25 to a high of around .50. The stability of this boat is in question."

What? It's over 50% ballast ratio and you question it? My god, 50% is exceptionally high, particularly when most of it is in a deep bulb. Name an offshore racing boat that has more than 50% ; there are very few. The TP52s are exceptionally stable boats.


Re "Capsize Risk 2.12 This formula penalizes boats with a large beam for their high inverted stability, and light boats for their response to large waves. Values of 2 or under are ocean passagemakers. This boat is not designed for that. The new Farr designs for the meds have been corrected to this ratio and come in exactly at 2"

Oh yeah, Farr Yacht Design is really worried about some value that is so vague that even the organisations (like US Sailing) that feature it on their website say is not reliable. Rubbish.

So what you are saying is that dropping the centreline down to extend the waterline by a couple of inches (so that it qualifies for this crude rule of thumb) suddenly makes a boat much safer? Rubbish. You could get the same effect on LWL by putting weight aft and higher up, and that would not make the boat safer.

You ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance and your dishonesty.


Re "This is interesting. Perry states that hull shape hollows are allowed in the first 30 percent of the TP52 vessels. These are not allowed on the AC boats. Let the notion that crew are practicing for AC class boats when on a TP52 be forever disputed. The onlyt hing similar to an AC class boat is the keel bulb and that IMO is a foolish and failed experiment. Why others are reluctant to say so remains a mystery."

What, one line allowing minor hollows is more important than all the other facets of teh AC and TP52 designs? Yeah, right. We're talking like 2" hollows here, probably. The effect is negligible.


Anything you call "a foolish and failed experiment" must be good.

We are reluctant to call keel bulbs "foolish and failed experiments" because they make boats stable, safer, faster and better, and because they have been doing so since the 1890s. "Experiment"???? Rubbish.


Re "The significant changes in your field that are "rotting your brain" have nothing to do with me.... Those are characterized by certain things that we have seen on multihulls, like retractable foils and multiple foils, rotating masts, roller furling, relatively small crew sizes and boats that float when swamped."

Retractable foils on racing boats? Hmm, they arrived in the 1850s or so...not exactly a "significant change". Shouldnb't you learn these things before you defame people?

Multiple foils? The first centreboarders (like Lady Nelson of 1790 or so) often had triple foils. In racing yachts, they have been seen since the scows (turn of the last century) and offshore in boats like Terrorist ('74) and Hawkeye and Aggressive IIRC (mid '70s). That's not exactly new. LEarn your history before you spout off.

Rotating masts - Well known at least since Manfred Curry's book in the 1920s. Well, in this case, Frankie, you're only 80 years behind the times. Not bad going by your terms.

Roller furling - As Wykeham-Martin gear, well known since about the 1920s. Very well used in winning shorthanded races since at least Phil Weld's "Moxie", 1980 OSTAR winner, which had furling main.

Boats that float when swamped - Not exactly a new idea, Frank.

Small crews - Hell, modern cruising began with men like Knight, Tambs, Slocum and Macgregor, who all had small crews. Crews on racing boats were restricted as early as the 1880s on the Clyde. Learn some history before you abuse those who know more than you do, please.



are you talking about the Jollenkreuzers of Germany, designed in the 1930s? They have all those features. The trailable yachts of Australia and NZ? They've had such features since the early '70s at least. I think the UK Fairey Atalanta had them in 1951. These aren't significant new ideas.....only someone with no knowledge would call them new.

PS having sailed many, many races with rotating masts, they are far from being the automatic choice.


Frank;

At one stage, many of us thought you were an alright guy but misguided. But now we know you are perhaps the most stupendously close-minded and arrogant person we have ever had the ill-fortune to have come across.

You know nothing of significance. You have done nothing of significance. You are mind-bogglingly breath-takingly arrogant when you assume that people like those of Farr Yacht Design and the world's best offshore racers have anything to learn from you. Go back and hassle the Mac forum....oh, that's right, even the people from your own class have nothing but contempt for you.

 

No - simply put. Why would it "break free"? Plenty of Open60 boats with bulbs do 20+ knots for extended periods without the bulb "breaking free" in any possible sense of the statement.

Again, plenty of Open class boats have a 50 SA/Disp ratio. Nothing to see here...

For a ballast ratio of 53% I would say you are reading it backwards. Higher ballast amounts, especially with a bulb keel, translate directly to higher stability. Over the whole range.

Yes, the designer can. You need to have a lines plan for that, at least, and a position of CG.

Steve "just trying to enlighten the unenlightened one...."

 

Frank the worthless *********

FRANK!!!!!

you *** **** ****** ******** you. how are you doing? is the frenchman still keeping mrs. frank well serviced? i hear he is.

when are you going to get a clue and shut your worhtless mouth. you have been spouting this drivel for years and you have not converted one person (educated or not) over to your lunacy. bob perry told you personally you were **** stirring ***** and still you persist.

how's that worthless plastic boat of yours? is the radar still working? hope so. if the radar goes out your shitpile boat just decreased in value by, oh , say 75%. have you got up on a plane yet? by all accounts your attempts at racing have been less than stellar. didn't you pull off a DNF a few weeks ago?

a note to boatdesign net posters:

i apologize for the language included in this post. frank and I are old adversaries from sailing anarchy. i was asked to visit by an international consortium to deliver what o0nce were referred to as "verbal junk punches" to our friend frank here. if you get tired of him the best thing to do is delete all your posts in this thread. our plump little franky here thrives on attention and when it is denied him he melts down. it is pretty sad to see a grown man act like this but if you think he is crazy now he goes absolutely ape **** when ignored. talking to himself in his own thread and everything.

its wonderful to watch and even more fun to kick him when he is down.

carry on

 

Oh Cranky, thanks so much for that post. I've been bustin' my gut in half a dozen different places reading it, I haven't laughed this hard in ages. Also seattle lite, that one about the special olympics was "special", I was rolling on the floor over that one.

 

Hey, good to see you all back. Slinging do do like the good old days eh? Lets say the TP52s do plane. The numbers say they can. Lets assume the bulb strut is fine in those conditions. How is the rigging? Dismasting is a posibility.

I mean there is a lot of sail on them Teeter Principle boats. In the early 1800s a sloop like a TP52 would be converted to a split rig, two masts, before crossing oceans. If the TP52s are being clocked at 20 MPH they are definately planing. How did things hold up on the run down the CA coast? I did not know that. What is the weakest link on a TP52 if not the bulb fin?

Perry notes in his review of Trader that the fin is exotic and there is a tendency to build lighter and lighter hulls and to keep things from geting out of hand - meaning dangerous (in his words) the mast in the revised rules has to weigh at least 650 lbs. Clearly these are boats that are not proven to be able to operate in heavy weather racing conditions and there is concern about dismastings. The box rule modifiers are anticipating failures in either, hull, fin or rig. Do you really disagree Slipstream. In anycase tell us about the TP52 being converted to canting keel technology. And please run some numbers. Does the math lie?

Look the King of Spain came to Seattle for some reason other than an art exhibit. He wasn't chatting to my Spanish speaking friends, one who captains for folks who might have purchased a TP52. If the King wasn't getting Perry's expert opinion, he missed an opportunity. There is huge financial risk involved in a TP52. I suspect a boat that cost 825,000 could not be sold for 400,000 today after what happened with the GP RWP and given that none of the boats are CE marked that is a generous estimate. In any case, TP52s are not about sailing with the King any more. He is out now as a prospect. His accountants if not Perry have given him what he needs to know. Confirming that the West Coast of the US is not as interested in TP52s as they are telling him was just icing on the cake. The question is, will he stick with Farr Designs and get a VO70 or decide the entire Farr family of boat designers is not to be trusted. There is no positive spin on his rejection of the model. It's bad for all TP52 owners and their crews. Now when they race it is viewed as a pitty party. A bunch of wannabe-racing-the-King owner drivers who were fooled into buying into Teeters' Principles. Well not Braveheart's owner. He always intended to race PHRF. Hopefully that can happen.

What is Perry getting to about VCG? The 50-foot Mom & Pop cruising boat will have a VCG right around the DWL - on a good day. Under the new TP52 rules the VCG can be no lower than 32.4 inches below the DWL.

I think he is saying that when the horse is no longer good for the course - when the stress of planing speeds break down the hull, rigging, fin keel what ever the weak link is, that moms and pops should not be interesed in them as cruisers. There is no used cruising market for these boats. Their value should racing stop tomorrow is likely zero, perhaps even negative.

Filter the above with my judgement against Teeters for his role in halting production of the Mac26x. But remember, my bias doesn't necessarily mean I am wrong. There are enough things wrong with the TP52s regarding ocean use to continue analyzing them.

How are they as protected water race boats? Perhaps they are good. Should we compare them to say a Santa Cruise 70? You could certainly get one of those in like new condition for 825,000 and after you tire of racing sell her possibly at little loss. How do they compare to Swan's new one-design in that size. These are ligitimate questions we can discuss if not distracted.

 

jesus are a jabbering buffoon frank. won't mrs. frnak give you any loving? you have so much time to sit around and think up this hair brained ****. what the hell is wrong with your head? you can not possibly believe half of the crap you have said over your career of total **** ******. you are one demented *******.

clear the air fat boy. tell everyone here what an accomplished sailor you are.

tell 'em about that time you actually entered that stupid plastic boat in a race and you towed your facking ZODIAC!!!! that's so fast!! it enhances perfoprmance just like that giant goddmaned 75 HP behemoth hang on off the *** end right frank?

what about that time someone took you out to race on a S2 7.9 and you were scared so ******* that you stayed in the pit hugging your own fat body.

tell em frank.

you guys seen franks website? its a wonderful commentary on the state of this ******** man's brain.

congrats frank your spelling and grammar has improved. you don't still say "huzzah" do you? that made my facking brain bleed when you did that. makes me want to drive down to olympia and "huzzah" you right in the nuts.

crank boy

 

Wow, someone is off his meds. Hope Island race, Saturday crank boy. Huzzah Huzzah - now tell me that wasn't fun!

Can we not all be mates now mates. Sorry for Crank Boy's post. I am not that responsible am I? Well let me give up for a day or two. Do read every thing Stan Honey says about the SFYC event. I think he wants the TP52 owners to consider racing PHRF.

 

franky baby- you are sailing in the hope island race? please post results.


hey frank let's tell everyone how you aren't allowed to post on your own club's website because you are so facking demented.

i am off my meds? oh yeah.

take that 26x offshore. ****