Confused about overhangs... - Page 2 - SailNet Community
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #11 of 16 Old 09-16-2003
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 445
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Rep Power: 17
Confused about overhangs...

I guess I don''t get the implication that the word "traditional" doesn''t apply, but really the overhangs result only from CCA rule-beating attempts in the ''60''s. Paul Luke, John Alden, the old Hinckleys, Albergs, etc., and NOT the CCA age plastic boats, but boats built going back to the early 1900''s (J-Class America''s Cup boats, Ranger) etc., all had long overhangs with fine entries. Look at the International Class wooden boats. Narrow, pointy. They make up their waterline on heel, and drag ass running before the wind for obvious reasons - you maximize by reaching. Some of the oldest wooden boats in Maine - I remember a couple of big fancy ones - looked like they had as little as 50% waterline with long, long, LONG overhangs. When did the CCA rule beating concept come into play? Were the old builders focused on that, or did they have some other design concept when laying out such a craft? Interesting.
VIEXILE is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
Sponsored Links
post #12 of 16 Old 09-16-2003
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 309
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Rep Power: 17
Confused about overhangs...

I wanted to add a comment about my experiences to this very interesting discussion.

I have a 1985 Wauquiez Hood 38 and was actually out in the same conditions as Jeff H in the same waters on the same day we got 30knot winds. My 38 footer is not light at 22,000 lbs and does not have plumb bow or flat aft section of the hull. But at 31ft LWL and a PHRF of 129 she is also not a traditional design. Quite moderate in all respects.

First, regarding the flat hull sections aft and slapping at anchor. I have also found that true, especially for boats that have rather thin inner liners. I have slept aboard boats like that and just could not get to sleep, even in a quiet anchorage. The Hood 38 has moderate overhangs and a nice curve aft, she is very quiet at anchor.

She also has a wonderful motion in a seaway. The bow has a good balance of reserve bouyancy, in my simple estimation. She has none of the bad qualities that Jeff mentions and she also does not submarine at all. IMHO that is an important feature, as it keeps her dry.

As I mentioned, I was also out in a 30knot blow the day Jeff was, last season. Big swells. It was a terrific ride. I was experimenting with different sail configurations and at one point was reaching under reefed jib alone (which I would not normally do), 8.5 knots by GPS, no water over the bow, only 15 degrees of heel, very comfy fact had two fairweather boats napping aboard, one in the cockpit, the other below.

The Hood 38 design sacrifices some beam and adds a good deal of ballast to get its stability and speed. But with an 11''9" beam, it is not much and unnoticable below. She can roll more than wider beam boats but only under power, not under sail.

In looking at the hull forms of boats I was considering (and emailing Jeff for his much appreciated advice), I decided that two things were important to me, among the myriad to consider in the price range I had: NOT slapping at anchor and having a good amount of reserve bouyancy. I am pleased on both accounts.

The message is that there are a number of more moderate design''s from the 80''s that are a good compromise between the new flat/plumb boats being built now and the older CCA and IOR boats from a while ago. These moderate designs can be visually beautiful, somewhat fast and quite secure in a seaway.

My best to all

s/v Invictus
Hood 38
JohnDrake is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #13 of 16 Old 09-18-2003 Thread Starter
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 184
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 16
Confused about overhangs...

An article about the Tartan T34C, written by Briton Chance mentioned an "estimated CCA rating" for this boat. What confuses me is how little this design seems to resemble what we have been discussing here... no long overhangs etc. etc.
Am I correct in assuming that the T34 (and others similar to it) is a MORC design described by the builder as having a CCA rating to meet changes in what the "market" wanted to buy at the time of the article''s publication (1969)?
Mark L.

msl is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #14 of 16 Old 09-18-2003
ASA and PSIA Instructor
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,849
Thanks: 13
Thanked 38 Times in 38 Posts
Rep Power: 18
Confused about overhangs...

Check for the T34C CCa history. Note the T34C waterline is almost 10 feet less than the length overall, giving you a lot of "overhang", although perhaps not extreme..
To understand the performance of such designs, the T34C rates PHRF 168, the same as ''70s C&C and Tartan 30s, but I didn''t see the T34C deliver to that rating...
FWIW the "M" in MORC is for "midget", meaning 30'' or less, so a 34'' wouldn''t be a MORC design...
sailingfool is online now  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #15 of 16 Old 09-19-2003 Thread Starter
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 184
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 16
Confused about overhangs...

You are correct about the M in MORC. Sorry. What the author (Britton Chance) actually wrote was that the T34C was a "larger version" of the Tartan 27 which is a MORC design.
The Tartan 27 has such a great reputation. Apparently, so does the T34C. Anyway, I probably should pay less attention to old promotional literature. It is fun to read though.
Mark L.
msl is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #16 of 16 Old 09-23-2003
Jeff_H's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Posts: 7,506
Thanks: 12
Thanked 248 Times in 198 Posts
Rep Power: 10
Confused about overhangs...

I wanted to reply to VIEXILE post above. From the perspective of sailing vessel history, the term ''traditional'' usually refers to vessels that developed through an often vernacular evolutionary process in response to local sea conditions and uses. In most cases these are working watercraft or yachts that evolved from working watercraft.

I would not consider racing yacht designs which are contrived to take advantage of loop holes to be ''traditional'' no matter how old that loop hole happened to be. Long overhangs/short waterlines were strictly a response to a series of rating rules that over penalized the importance of waterline length. While it is true that such measurement rules encouraging short waterline lengths go back to the late 19th century and the CCA rule was preceeded by such rules as the Universal Rule and International Rule (not to be mistaken for the IOR) which produced racing vessels with extremely short waterlines,I would not consider any of the designs produced to beat these types of racing rules to be ''traditional'' watercraft, only older designs produced to obsolete racing rules. That said, I still consider boats produced on the International and Universal Rules to be some of the most beautiful boats of all time and get a kick out of sailing them as long as I don''t need to be anywhere quickly and have a sheltered harbor to duck into when things get dicey.

VIEXILE is right in say that some of the rule beaters that preceded the CCA rule had waterline lengths that were barely over 50% of their length overall, but these boats rarely had fine entries. In fact they often had extremely blunt entry as the wave making impact of a blunt entry would help them increase their waterline length more dramatically when heeled. Even with this increase in heeled waterline length they were no where near as fast as equal length, longer waterline designs of similar weight.

Jeff_H is online now  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook

Quick Reply

By choosing to post the reply above you agree to the rules you agreed to when joining Sailnet.
Click Here to view those rules.

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the SailNet Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
Please note: After entering 3 characters a list of Usernames already in use will appear and the list will disappear once a valid Username is entered.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Please Help! Gelcoat very confused efiedler Gear & Maintenance 1 04-07-2004 10:16 PM
confused and a bit frustrated ovidius Boat Review and Purchase Forum 2 04-19-2003 06:16 AM
Confused with Credit ptapaul Boat Review and Purchase Forum 3 07-13-2002 06:37 AM
Red, sure, right? (I,m confused) nauticalrich General Discussion (sailing related) 11 04-28-2002 01:02 AM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome