|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|10-09-2010 10:33 PM|
Overhangs and cliff-hangers...
D'sestini....glad you posted on that old thread...I had missed it somehow. This was one of the best threads I've seen in here...I for one would welcome anybody who has new angles or anecdotes concerning the albeit wide compass points of this thread to weigh in...
|10-07-2010 04:01 PM|
It looks like an interesting discussion to
wade back through. I enjoy it when some
of these 'classic' threads are dredged back up.
|10-06-2010 08:40 PM|
|puddinlegs||You realize that you're responding to a thread that's about 2 1/2 years old?|
|10-06-2010 08:02 PM|
long over hangs on older boats
Just a comment about long over hangs on older boats. One thing Iíve leant about sailing is that itís all a trade off whether racing or cursing. If you have the money to buy new ďqualityĒ construction modern design youíre going to get the best boat. For those of us that cant buy quality and modern, many of the newer boats mention especially the production boats I would not be caught dead on off shore on, sure the ride might be nice until the fin keel breaks loose, plastic through hulls crack, or core damaged accurse do to continuous slamming do to flat bow sections. It depends on what youíre doing with the boat. Our Block Island 40 isnít the fastest boat and she will pitch at times. However we donít conceder reefing in anything under 20 knots, we think about it at 25 and do it at 30. Above 30 we sail under jib and mizzen and general smile. The v shape of the bow on our boat, the Cape Dory , Hinckley Pilot insures no pounding, maybe pitching but no pounding. And in general if maintained are better construction than many new production boats at a fraction of the price. Seriously a Hinckley Pilot at less than half the price of the same size new Catalina, I think itís a no brainer. If your going to sail the coast of Maine get the Cape Dory or the Pilot, if your racing go modern light with long water lines. If youíre going off shore get the safest boat for your budget. If youíre a trailer sailor well then you constrained by draft.
Just a fact; 20% of sailors will notice the Catalina 380 coming into port, 80% of sailors will notice the Pilot 35 and the other classics beauties come into port.
|05-20-2008 11:18 AM|
|CharlieCobra||We got caught out in some of the nastiest wave action I've seen this past Saturday. We had waves coming from two directions on our beam and 30+ knots of wind. We also saw three rogues running perpendicular to the rest of the waves, that just rode over the normal wave train. This was a clear day, unforcasted event. While we never got pooped, I did have a couple break over the high side onto me (we were heeled at 30-40) for a nice saltwater bath. These waves were straight up the San Juan de Fuca from the Pacific against a strong ebb and with the wind. They were short period, vicious things. I've been out in 60+ and these bastards were the worst I've seen. It didn't help that they were on the beam either. We did a lot of surfing along the faces of these things and the boat was a handful at times. It was a very strange passage.|
|05-19-2008 12:19 PM|
I like German Frers latest designs such as the Swan 45 and the two Hylas's that he did recently. I think that Frers has always been a designer who can produce performance oriented designs that are also more wholesome than most. I have been a fan of his since right after his S&S days. I am not familiar with Nestor Volker.
|05-16-2008 07:20 AM|
|copacabana||JeffH, what do you think of the Argentine designers German Frers and Nestor Volker? They are very popular here.|
|05-16-2008 02:17 AM|
|bestfriend||Thanks JeffH. More than enough to get me started. Don't start arguing on my account fellas. I just wanted something very general. I'll fill in the blanks later myself.|
|05-16-2008 01:16 AM|
I guess this is a situation where what was once considered to mean one thing, now means something else. The CCA's were often described as rather beamy in reviews of the day, but aren't considered to be beamy these days. I look at the Bristol 34 and do not consider the sailplan to be a high aspect ratio when looking at what is considered high aspect today. BTW, the Bristol 34 ('71-'78) is a revision of the Bristol 33, first produced in 1968, and is not a true CCA design. While it has overhangs, they are not the typical CCA 30%. This directly contradicts the short waterline rule CCA is so well known for. The 33/34 is marginally wider than comparable length true CCA designs. It may have been raced under CCA rules, but it was in no way an optimal, as you say, "rule beater." It actually favored Herreshoff's SORC 41 design. As for the Tartan, what's this A and B business? I'm aware of the 34C, referring to design #1904, which had 3 boom designs. The 12 footer, of which an actual production model is in question, the 14 footer would've been for CCA, the 10.5 footer for IOR. The boom was shortened to gain a better rating under the IOR. CCA rating guidelines favored low aspect rigs. The Tartan 34C may have been a CCA era hull, but it didn't fit the CCA ratings rule, at least with regard to the short boom rig. It was a CCA design fitted with a high aspect ratio rig. So was it a true CCA boat under the rules? No. Your statement that CCA boats had high aspect rigs is misleading because it reads like the CCA made a radical rule change when it was actually replaced with the IOR, and the higher aspect rigs came about to gain better IOR ratings. CCA ended around 1970, but the 34C was produced til 1978. How can that be CCA-era production if the CCA era had ended 8 years earlier? Also, with regards to "with the shortest foot of all at the end of the very CCA era," the short boom was introduced in 1973, well after the CCA was officially superseded by the IOR,
On a side note, it's interesting that the Tartan 34C had a dramatically shortened boom to fit the IOR racing rule. Racing. Speed is everything. When I asked the Sailnet board and other individuals not on Sailnet about doing this very same thing to reduce weather helm, all I got was, "Don't do that, you'll lose power." I barely had a clue at the time and it seemed like a good idea to me, and here Tartan was, doing the very same thing.....for racing.
"However, this progressive foreshortening of the boom was done primarily to provide for a better IOR rating. An added or side benefit was a significant reduction of the rather heavy weather helm experienced while on a reach in heavy going."
I guess the lost sail area, along the leach, not along the chord where the power is, isn't such a bad deal after all.
The C&C 39? Gimme a break. That's one of the first boats ('72-'74) actually designed to meet the IOR rule, early IOR at that.
The Hinckley 38 doesn't appear to have much in the way of high aspect either. It was, however, S&S's first cored hull. Now there's a claim to fame.
|05-15-2008 05:11 PM|
Your Bristol 32 was designed in 1964 and so reflects a mid-point in the transition from early CCA boats like the fractionally rigged Triton or very low aspect rig found on something like Pearson Vanguard to the really late CCA boats. To see what I am referring to look at really late CCA boats like the Bristol 34, C&C 39, or Hinckley 38 or perhaps more graphically look at what happened to the Tartan 34's across the span of their CCA era production where the foot of the mainsail got progressively shorter from the 34 A, through the 34 B and ultimately to the 34 C with the shortest foot of all at the end of the very CCA era.
These higher ratio mainsails and larger genoas carried over into the early IOR boats and where the trend became even more extreme.
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|