TP52s

92 pages. It's been a good run.

 

it'll still keep going because he'll ignore the relevant information and start arguing about something that has nothing to do with this.

 

If we want to be technically accurate, he'll "quote" the relevant information. THEN he'll ignore it.

 

Its ThanksGiving in the States

Come on guys. Happy Thanksgiving. Check out what is happening in DC. Some of our troops are coming home. Ah shucks expect the church of FOYD to open Friday or Saturday. TP52 bashing is the new rage. Lets Rawk.

http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=26335

 

"TP52 bashing is the new rage"

- Wrong again, racing them is. The bashing seems to be focused on your poor toy (some justifiable some not).

Again I will politely ask you to leave your political rhetoric on more appropriate pages (if you’re this wrong about sailing I sure don't want to see how "wrong" you are on something serious. Try SA’s Political Anarchy – woops I forgot, your still banned ….).

Have fun with Yassou in your area – she is a fine boat (one of the first to try to find the balance between bouys and distance). Want to bet you never beat her?

Happy thanksgiving to all

 

Andrers M

There is also an important pendlum effect as the CG and CB changes with heel. I wish that you make every effort to take that into account when comparing the TP 52 and Mac26x. The Mac26x has a near zero pendlum effect as it has hard chines while the TP52 has an pendlum effect in the order of the fifth magnitude due to its smooth hull.

Roger Macgregor presents a notion of the pendulem effect by using one of those punching toys. You know the clowns that you punch and they right themselves. That is how we are to think of stability on the Mac26x.

Since the 1978 Fastnet, US designers are suppose to have stopped thinking of capsize but rather capsize recovory in their designs because fastnet reminded all that all boats in suficient sea can capsize and that boats with foils that can not be retracted are more vulnerable, not less, to capsize because the fixed foil is used by the sea to flip them over.

Capsize recovery has to do with the shape of the cabin top as well as freeboard.

When the top isn't flat enough to provide inverted stability, the boat recovers quickly as long as the boat has the weight of the ballast low in the structure and even in the motor. A boat with a round cabin top will often right her self even without a lot of ballast. The Mac26x reportedly did so with out being water ballasted in an EU test pool.

So how does the notion of cabin top shape and capsize recovery instead of unreasonable efforts of capsize avoidance compare to the confused consensus of the east coast naval architects and designers who brought us the TP52s.

Here we are to recognize that torque called the righting moment (RM) is related to the boat's displacement. This is definitional. The displacement multiplied by the horizontal distance between the Center of Gravity (CG) and the center of buoyancy (CB) is the definition of righting moment. That horizontal distance is called the righting arm (CZ).

With that recognition, we are to see that the more displacement the greater the righting moment. Then we must accept the notion that a boat's heeling angle can be pulled past 90 degrees.

Eventually as the boat is pushed past 90 degrees, the CG and CB will come into vertical alignment as they are when the boat is at rest right side up. This is the point where the righting moment is zero and it is called the Limit of Positive Stability (LPS).

Now comes the assumption:

The research undertaken at the Wolfson Unit indicates ... "that the most important characteristic for survival of a breaking wave capsize is a large range of stability, since vessels with low ranges are prone to remaining inverted following such an incident.

All those nice curves showing the angle in degrees against the righting arm suddenly lose their survivability importance when the vessel is designed with a deck and flotation similar to the Mac26x. Naval Architects can not predict by math when a sailboat designed this way will invert or if it can stay that way. Instead of math you have to do actual tests.

Tests like they do with VO70s where you turn them upside down. A TP52 upside down might have a damaged hull after the fact. They simply are not designed to handle the testing let alone actually survive such an event in the open ocean.

Frank L. Mighetto

 

swift boat

Last year about this time Lucus Carter attempted to swift boat me on this forum. Swift boating is the process of turning a warrior worthy of respect into a joke. It is usually done to those running for office, which at the time was not me. I was already the Secretary of South Sound Sailing Society, a position equal to Commodore and greater than Vice Commodore at this proper society representing over 500 sailors. I responded by calling attention to Stan Honey's special report on page 48 of Sailing World December 2004.

I identified Stan Honey as a potential member of my team (Team Kiss Me Arse) owing to that special report. Stan was one of the two US Sailing delegates to the Grand Prix Rule Working Party (GP RWP) that, at Teeters urging, walked out to support the designer-developed TP52 box rules. Since then Honey has demonstrated that he saw the error of following Jim Teeters by busting his arse working with Janet Baxter, president of US Sailing, to eliminate the top-down approach which brought us these failed TP52s.

http://www.abnamro.com/pressroom/releases/2005/2005-01-17-en.jsp VO70

The URL above will demonstrate that Stan is The Man. For those who are not following the VO70s, these vessels reject the notion that a committee of yacht designers can come up with design rules making any sense in modern ocean racing. Instead the design rules are built from the bottom up by experienced offshore sailors. The Volvo race started this month and finishes in Goteberg Sweeden in June of 2006. Most points are earned on ocean legs but 20 percent are earned on Olympic style courses “in harbor”.

If our sailing community is to be burdoned by a second TP52, it is my sincere hope that she be modified to be a proper Olympic course bouy racer. Proper means not a threat to others on the triangle course because of the need for 15 crew members just to handle her. Roller furling and proper reef points and crew that knows how to take down sail as well as put them up will do a lot to improve this sad excuse for a modern design.

Oh - consider the possibility of parting out the TP52, disgarding the hull, and using the spars, sails, moter etc on a modern water ballasted racer. The new owner is more likely to do so than not. eh? This is especially true given the fire sale price the TP52 was acquired for.

Frank L. Mighetto

 

do you understand what a racing boat is?

 

USA2

40-50 degrees of heel is taken in stride aboard most keel boats. The boat may not be at its fastest when heeled over so much, but at least its stability is still there.

A sailboat that is sailed at an angle of heel greater than 25 degrees has to much sail up or needs more ballast. Or is designed poorly like a TP52.

A Mac 26 does not have so much righting moment at 50 degrees heel and can easily be rolled over by a high gust of wind.

This is a hypotheses. It would be supported by finding say one Mac26x that has been rolled over. You will find none. The X is stable on her side, she probably can not be rolled over owing to the solid flotation in her sides and with sails up it is extremely unlikely that you could ever pull her past 90 degrees. This is why the mast of the X is left both uncapped and unfilled with flotation. Other vessels like multihulls will have floats on the top of the masts to prevent rollovers and the masts are capped and filled with foam to prevent roll over.

Your notion about Tp52s supposedly needing to have second lifes as cruisers is bull. The CCA rule promoted design types that would satisfy this concept, and even rules such as IOR produced boats that were typically not so specialized as to not be adaptable to cruising. That all changed with IMS/ILC, as spartan racing boats were designed and built to do just that, not cruise-at any point of their life.

My concern is over the name TransPacific. MacGregor Yachts ensured that Mac26x owners were educated on modern yacht design and boat building techniques. But it was not just MacGregor Yachts doing this in the USA. So were Hunter and Catalina owners educated. The educated have become dangerous to the Status Quo designers on the east coast of the USA who pretend that custom builds produce superior vessels and that high cost is a proxy for quality instead of an indicator of incompetence.

That incompetence was shown when I calculated the capsize risk ratio for a TP52 and demonstrated that it did not even qualify as an ocean going vessel by SNAME standards FOR RACE BOATS not just cruisers. This is the kind of revelation that turns Kings literally to power boating even when they have Olympic sailing champions for wives.

Owing possibly to my expose, Farr has corrected the latest TP52s to satisfy the capsize risk ratio but not before Farr International filed for bankruptcy, this possibly preventing the filing of law suits against it involving TP52s. At least the first two generations were fraudulently portrayed as ocean worthy. No one now portrays those generations as so. Do they? If so they should not. Even the first year boat design student can see this. So can any lubber. It is only those trained not to see that can pretend these vessels command respect beyond that of my Mac26x, as far as ocean use goes. Now tell me this isn’t fun!

IRC boats today are either flat out racers-no cruising considerations at all for anytime of the boats existence, or they are racer-cruisers-such as the Swan 45.

We all need to educate ourselves on IRC boats. In early 2005 it became obvious that IRC would be the new standard for ocean racing in the US. IRC is capable of applying a rating to any mono-hull yacht. In doing so, it respects such features as asymmetric spinnakers, carbon masts, canting keels, and water ballast. The story of IRC racing involves the Mac26x. It appears that objections raised during a July 2002 drunken boater's case by Jim Teeters were similar to those the US Sailing technical advisor to the grand prix RWP (Rule Working Party) (also Jim Teeters) hoped would forstall or prevent adoption of the movable ballast and retractable fin tolerant IRC. IRC is only seven years old but its adoption on a world wide basis for rating ocean racing sailboats has been nothing less then phenominal. During the next 10 years the greatest advancement in monohull sailing machine technology of all time is expected and hence there is great interest in rating mechanisms that can handle modern designs. As of March 2005 there had been only one IRC event in the USA but almost all ocean racing bodies had adopted this standard. US Sailing reluctantly began to support IRC and already J24s J80s and Melges24 as well as over 100 other classes of boats have been rated. The Corinthian Yacht Club of Seattle was the first in Puget Sound to support the new ratings and is planning to do so in 2006. To get a history of the rating systems see http://www.sailtexas.com/handicaparticlepart2.html


Why arent you complaining about Open Classes, or G-Cats, or Supermaxis, or ACC boats? They are built to go fast, not cruise in comfort. You need to stop trying to combine pure cruising sailboats with pure racing sailboats.

I concentrate on TP52s because Jim Teeters and Sudie Parker have a morbid fascination with my ride – The Mac26x. All of this is explained at the start of this thread. But I note that the TP52s are the last of the failed experiment in fixed bulbed fins. There are very few of them so – in theory – exposing flaws in their design, build, marketing and deployment offends the fewest honest folk possible. BTW, we just returned from Sedro Wolley where Larry is having the AC boats built. My network is now established. Photos should be forth coming eventually. Skagitt Valey IPA - the unofficial beer of the Ellison AC hulls. The burgee now flys on Murrelet.

The few racer-cruisers out there make sacrifices, such as being less comfortable, and being slightly slower than that all carbon specialized racing sloop. That said, the Swan 45 does very well to hold her own against other, pure racing designs. Also, the 97 foot Leopard of London did well with the other maxis, despite having teak decks.


The Swan 45 is one of these vessels meant to recover from capsize with grace and rigging intack. They also have retractable foils – centerboards – which have always been favored by NYYC – inspite of what those MIT boys will tell you.

This pendulum effect thing Anders is referring to is viewed frequently in the Swiftsure on down wind legs against opposing tides, were rocking by sea action is likely. According to SSSS members, on a smaller boat running a flying symmetrical spinnaker sail, once it starts you might as well through the boom over and crash recover from the capsize because it takes less time to recover from the capsize that will result when the pendulum swings past the point of no return if your boom isn’t stuck in the depths. Digressing a bit, vessels with highly raked masts benefit in these conditions because the boom tip stays out of the sea during rocking. And of course asymmetric sails on rollers can be retracted to halt the pendulum. It is one reason I applaud the code zero retractable sails as a correction to the TP52.

Frank L. Mighetto

 

As you might notice "mholguin" after 92 pages. Showing Mighetto wrong has no more impact than explaining evolution to an devoted creationist. Pouring water on a goose...

Anders M

 

"Roger Macgregor presents a notion of the pendulem effect by using one of those punching toys. You know the clowns that you punch and they right themselves. That is how we are to think of stability on the Mac26x."
Yeah those toys have round bottoms. *******.


"Here we are to recognize that torque called the righting moment (RM) is related to the boat's displacement. This is definitional. The displacement multiplied by the horizontal distance between the Center of Gravity (CG) and the center of buoyancy (CB) is the definition of righting moment. That horizontal distance is called the righting arm (CZ)."
Nice copy/paste job. Now cite your ******* source or it's plagerism. Now try to understand what you just copy/pasted.

"The displacement multiplied by the horizontal distance between the Center of Gravity (CG) and the center of buoyancy (CB) is the definition of righting moment."
That's why keels are deep. It increases this Righting moment as the boat heels. That's why carbon masts, carbon hulls, and long keels with big bulbs are used. How many TP52's have capsized?


"With that recognition, we are to see that the more displacement the greater the righting moment. Then we must accept the notion that a boat's heeling angle can be pulled past 90 degrees."
More displacement does not equal greater righing moment. That's why your high freeboard/non-keeled macs are so dangerous.

"Eventually as the boat is pushed past 90 degrees, the CG and CB will come into vertical alignment as they are when the boat is at rest right side up. This is the point where the righting moment is zero and it is called the Limit of Positive Stability (LPS)."
Cite your sources again and stop plagerizing.


Since you're talking about stability, show us the mac stability curve.

 

Mighetto:

A pleasure to see that you take the effort to expand on the important pendlum effect. Whats your view on orange keels to maximize the rankine-hugoniot relation and sine wave propulsion for the Mac26x?

Anders M

 

Andrers - How many times will Migho have to remind you of how to spell your own name?

Please get it right.

 

"The Swan 45 is one of these vessels meant to recover from capsize with grace and rigging intack. They also have retractable foils – centerboards – which have always been favored by NYYC – inspite of what those MIT boys will tell you."


Swan 45's do not have centerboards. They come in a deep draft racing version (9 feet 2inches) or a shallow draft cruising version (7 feet 6 inches). The thinking behind the Swan 45 was put a Swan interior into a racing hull.

 

Mighetto: have you taken into account that using newton's law of universal gravitation, the acceleration due to gravity is greater as you move closer to the earths core. The result: a 10 ton boat with a 9 foot keel will have a greater righting moment than a 10 ton boat with a 3 foot keel.