Long versus short overhangs

[Hartley18]

Originally Posted by Jeff_H

A few that come quickly to mind might be the post 2000 Dehler 36 and 39, a boat like the J-44, the Rob Humphrey designed Elan 40, boats and boats like the X-40 and X 41. Certainly not a comprehensive list but it these are a few examples that might demonstrate the type of boats that I am referring to.

Thanks, Jeff, ditto BF's request:

...but I'm really curious to know why there are no Farr designs in the above list - since you sail one - or have I missed something altogether??

[artbyjody]

Originally Posted by Hartley18

Thanks, Jeff, ditto BF's request:

...but I'm really curious to know why there are no Farr designs in the above list - since you sail one - or have I missed something altogether??

Because they are "Farr Out" on the list

Note to self - I am the only one that found that funny.

[Jeff_H]

I will certainly try to put together an answer to Best Friend's question. I did not mention Farr for a number of reason's but mostly because I own a Farr which I have talked about at length and so felt that it was important to give examples other than Farr. In many ways, Farr was one of the first designers who grasped the implication of the MHS/IMS rule and his non-IOR designs of the 1980's really anticipated and ultimately became the IMS typeform with boats like Goucho and Rush really firing the first shots across the bows of the rest of the sailing world that a big change was coming.

The odd part of this, is that for the past few years Farr's office seems to have focused on leading edge designs and does not seem to have done many performance cruising designs in the size range we are discussing. Of course, Farrs office has done some nice racer cruisers in this size such as the Farr 395, Beneteau First 36.7, 40.7 and 44.7 but build quality are not as robust as some of the other boats that mentioned. I have not seen one but the Farr designed Fingulf 43 looks like it will be a very nice performance cruiser.

I actually think that some of Farrs coastal cruiser designs from the late 1970's and early 1980's were better cruisers, boats like the Farr 1020, Farr 11.6, and Farr 44.

I need to run, more later,
Jeff

[Hartley18]

Originally Posted by Jeff_H

.....
The odd part of this, is that for the past few years Farr's office seems to have focused on leading edge designs and does not seem to have done many performance cruising designs in the size range we are discussing. Of course, Farrs office has done some nice racer cruisers in this size such as the Farr 395, Beneteau First 36.7, 40.7 and 44.7 but build quality are not as robust as some of the other boats that mentioned. I have not seen one but the Farr designed Fingulf 43 looks like it will be a very nice performance cruiser.
.....

There's a simple answer to that question. There is no money in it.

A less simple answer could be that there's no challenge either. Over here, the focus has been, and still is, to be the one who designed the first over the line in the Sydney-Hobart - now, that's challenging!

Or perhaps he thinks there's too many others designing performance cruisers? or maybe the constraints are too much trouble?? Perhaps you could ask him ... expert to expert!

Originally Posted by Jeff_H

I need to run, more later,
Jeff

We look forward to it.

With thanks,

[Jeff_H]

I did not get a chance to research precise dates but in a general sense here is an approximate time line: (some of this was cut and pasted from other posts or articles that I had written)

1928 Bermuda Rule (Early small boat offshore racing rule, produced reasonably seaworthy designs compared to inshore ratingg rules of the era.)

1937 RORC (English offshore rating rule. Like the Bermuda rule produced more wholesome designs than inshore rules of the era.)

1948 CCA (this was loosely based on the Bermuda Rule but increased penalty for waterline length and mainsail area.)

Early 1950's to this day Portsmouth Rule
(This is a rating rule for small dinghies and I think may include multihulls. There may have been a pre WW II version as well)

1952 MORC (Midget Offshore Racing Conference- Started out as a rule aimed at boats less than 30 feet and was intended to encourage seaworthy offshore designs. The big difference was that it handicapped waterline length more fairly and so encouraged proportionately longer water waterline lengths. MORC also included accommodation requirements which made early MORC boats pretty comfortable for their size. Eventually evolved into a grand prix development rule by the late 1980's. Early MORC boats looked like the Tartan 27, middle period MORC boats look like the J-24, Kirby 25, J-30 and S2 9.1, Late period boats were very expensive one offs or limited production boats)

1970 IOR Rule
(This rule started out looking at the shortcomings of the RORC and CCA rule and attempted to produce better offshore boats than produced under both prior rules. IOR came in three main flavors IOR-1, IOR-II and IOR-III. That said the rule changed fairly significantly nearly every year and so there is a spectrum of designs that fall in the category of IOR boats.

In its original form IOR-1 (starting around 1970) produced pretty good boats. The poster children for IOR-1 would be boats like the Tartan 41, Catalina 38, Ranger 37, and Morgan 1 ton. The defining features of these early IOR boats were their pinched ends, and topsides often characterized by a lot of tumblehome. (This tumblehome was there to increase the mid-ship girth since part of the formula was the different in girth between the point of maximum beam and the transom girth.) They typically had shark fin like fin keels and skeg hung rudders.

Their rigs were characterized by huge Genoa jibs and spinackers combined with small high aspect ratio mainsails that carried over from late CCA boats. Because of that they often carried huge foresail inventories with 12 to 15 jibs and spinackers not being all that unusual for a 40 or so footer. (My 25 foot IOR-1 quarter tonner carried 8 or so headsails) They were pretty good boats upwind but were really wild off the wind rolling wildly under their huge chutes and bloopers. These were big boats to sail that took a really big and strong crew to race these boats and big heavy gear would routinely blow up with major consequences.

IOR-1 boats often had comparably high freeboard and low deck structures. Halyards were often organized around a control ‘island’ that would consist of a ring of winches around the base of the mast since stoppers and low friction blocks had not really showed up on the scene.

Later IOR-1 boats would include the Holland designed Imp,
Then came IOR-II. The IOR hull form evolved to have a deeper canoe body, more of a raked stem and reversed transom, a wider entry angle, more flare, and narrower run. They also developed a very distinct section that resulted from the measurement points used in IOR. This ‘three plane’ section had a relative flat area on the bottom that radiused into relatively flat sections on either side that sloped up toward a point just above the waterline. These are then radiused into a hard turn of the bilge at or above the waterline that proceed to fair into fairly straight flared topside. This profile tends to have mediocre initial form stability but quickly develops more stability as the turns in the bilge at the water line become immersed.

This shape was solely IOR-2 rule driven because of the IOR location for measurement points and the big penalty for initial stability. It was not fast and as a type did a lot to foster the common impression that that all light boats automatically have unbearably quick motions. Poster children IOR-2 boats would include the Peterson 34, Contessa 35, Holland designed Ericsons and the Fastnet Disaster boats.

IOR III had a very wide range of variations, changing frequently during its lifespan. In reaction to the Fastnet Disaster, IOR III's ballast ratios increased and with it so did sail area. Fractional riugs began to appear as designers began to see the advantage in of more rapid gear shifting that was also encouraged by low stretch sail cloth and bendier spars. Good examples are boats like the Garratt 40, Dickerson 37, Soverel 39. As the IOR began to drop in popularity, and were raced in fewer offshore venues, these boats became specialized grand prix only, fragile, and short lived.)

Early 1970's PHRF
Strictly speaking this is not a measurement rule like the rest on this list. It was a handicapping rule that looked at the performance of actual boats in the average conditions in that venue and made a somewhat subjective call as to the best rating for that boat. Ratings are cheap and there really are no ideal PHRF typeforms like there are under measurement rules. It does reward well rounded designs and in long distance racing, oddly enough boats that are rarely raced because they are percieved as slow and so are likely to have artificially low ratings and their slow speeds have less of a tactical disadvantage).

1980 Open Classes
(This is really a series of rules that do not rate boats at all, but establishes maximum length and sometimes max beam, mast heights, and stability standards and little else. The boats race boat for boat as if one design. It produces the beamy huge rigged race long distance race boats that you think of for round the world single-handed racing. When cruising boats are influenced by the design of Open Class boats I personally don't like what it does to these boats in terms of encouraging extreme beam and full ends, high form stability and poor motion comfort.)

1983 MHS Rule (This was an early attempt to develop a VPP [velocity prdiction program] based rating system. The rule was intended to fairly rate boats off all types one against another and so did not generate specific typeforms. It was expensive to measure a boat for MHS and since there were individual ratings for different windspeeds it was a hard rule for race committees who had to guess at the wind conditions on the course. The true advantage as well as the shortcoming of MHS was that if all boats were fairly rated as to their relative speed, a faster boat and a boat that sailed well in a wide range of conditions had a real advantage over the course of a season. This tended to produce boats that were very well rounded...Good news! but it quickly resulted in obsolescence of earlier CCA and IOR designs. MHS also included minimum interior accomodation standards and so they tended to have more headroom and more useable interiors than the IOR and CCA boats that came before them. This rule was unique in that it offered two versions, time on time and time on distance, as well as a rating for various courses and windspeeds. As a result every boat had a series of ratings and it was impossible for a competitor to know where he stood out on the race course. )

Late 1980's IMS
(The MHS evolved into the IMS which took advantage of improvements in technology to measure boats and also the results of refined VPP's to produce a rule that again tried to rate fairly for speed. With the introduction of IMS a typeform began to develop which looked at various unrated aspects such as the ability to shift gears quickly, carry fewer crew members, and motions impact on performance. Early IMS boats carried over the interior requirements of MHS. Good examples of these might be the Beneteau First 40.7, 36.7, Tripp 36 and Tripp 40. Later the IMS shifted to more agressive designs as the acommodations requirements were eased. Ultimatedly the IMS produced grand prix level no holds barred race boats that lost many of the virtues that IMS was intended to produce.

Like the MHS, performance cruisers based on the IMS were good all around boats, fast across a wide wind range, easy to handle, seaworthy and offering excellent motion comfort as compared to boats out of earlier rules. but also like MHS measurement was expensive, every boat had a lot of ratings and it was a race committee's nightmare.)

2002 IRC
(The IRC is a simplified version of the IMS. It encourages simplier, more cruising oriented rigs and heavier displacements. It is apparently popular in Europe but is just showing up over here. It seems to produce some wonderful boats though.)

Hopefully this answers best friends question,
Jeff

[Hartley18]

Originally Posted by Jeff_H

.....
Hopefully this answers best friends question,
Jeff

I can't speak for BF, but it answers most of mine! I've bookmarked it and would add to your rep also if the system would let me. Thanks, Jeff.

A last rant from me: I've been around boats and boating and understand the rule changes you've noted, but as an Engineer I can't help but be amazed at the number of "one-hit-wonder" designs out there.. Ignoring the Uffa Fox's and Ron Holland's for a moment, it's almost as if many designers come up with something brilliant for a specific application and LOA and then completely lose the plot with other sizes/classes.

It is frustrating for those looking to find a "good boat" because something great at one length doesn't necessarily mean something smaller/larger from the same stable will be any good at all!! ..but it's not always the case: One notable exception I know of was the Adams 20 becoming a highly-successful 10-metre day-racer class (or maybe it was the other way around?. dunno.. either way, it worked!) - and then of course there were the Hartley's.. (g)

Would you agree??

[seabreeze_97]

"Their rigs were characterized by huge Genoa jibs and spinackers combined with small high aspect ratio mainsails that carried over from late CCA boats."

Huh? With main dimensions for a 32 footer being in the neighborhood of 36ft luff and 13.5ft foot? These are modest rigs with long booms. High aspect compared to what?

[Jeff_H]

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.

Jeff

[seabreeze_97]

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.
From tartanowners.org:
"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.

[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.