pinched sterns

is it really the pinched sterns of the IOR boats which make them squirrley downwind or something else? The ultimate pinched sterm is a double ender or canoe stern. Yet many of tose boats are easily handled downwind. Reggie

I think it is a combination of the canoe hull and the pinched stern. The later boats with wide sterns were much more stable down wind. I'm no naval architect but have steered a few of them. I had a Peterson 1 Ton that was also given to rolling pretty well when it was running in a breeze. Its stern was narrow but didn't have the distorted shape of early IOR. The double enders I've seen had more of a V section running aft. Maybe that helped the rolling. Legend, which devastated the fleet so badly in the 1957 race that it was banned as "too light" was a double ender. The picture of Sumatra on the model site shows a V section running aft. I knew a guy who took a Choate 41 in Transpac, I think in 1979. He later told me they rolled so badly that they took in the chute at night. The squalls would come through about every hour or two and they couldn't control the boat, rolling rail to rail. They'd douse the chute when the squall hit and reset it when it passed. They got exhausted and gave up. That boat has a narrow stern. My 40 had a wider stern and flatter entry than the other Choate 40s. We kept the 1.5 up in the squalls and had no control problems. I've sailed it in Newport Beach in heavy air (rare there) and finished in class A (started in C). We didn't point well with the flatter entry so were not that competitive most of the time. The other problem I ran into with the Yankee 38 was the tumblehome. That was a way of lowering rating. I forget the details but it reduced measurable beam at the waterline and deck. The Yankee had bad weather helm when it heeled too much and I think the shape had a lot to do with it. It was actually more competitive in light air. You had to sail it flat. Of course, I may not be such a great expert as the guy who now owns my Peterson 1 Ton won his class in the single-handed Transpac in 2004. I thought of it as a very light air boat but he made it go fast. Mike Kennedy Conquest Cal 40 ## 96 On Dec 26, 2005, at 1:08 PM, r good wrote: > is it really the pinched sterns of the IOR boats which make them > squirrley > downwind or something else? The ultimate pinched sterm is a double > ender or > canoe stern. Yet many of tose boats are easily handled downwind. > Reggie > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > Visit your group "Cal_Boats" on the web. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > >

I think it is having the beam aft and a small rudder. The boat does not track as well and heeling on that large aft beam allows it to roll the rudder up out of the water. Michael Kennedy <mt… [at] cox.net> wrote: I think it is a combination of the canoe hull and the pinched stern. The later boats with wide sterns were much more stable down wind. I'm no naval architect but have steered a few of them. I had a Peterson 1 Ton that was also given to rolling pretty well when it was running in a breeze. Its stern was narrow but didn't have the distorted shape of early IOR. The double enders I've seen had more of a V section running aft. Maybe that helped the rolling. Legend, which devastated the fleet so badly in the 1957 race that it was banned as "too light" was a double ender. The picture of Sumatra on the model site shows a V section running aft. I knew a guy who took a Choate 41 in Transpac, I think in 1979. He later told me they rolled so badly that they took in the chute at night. The squalls would come through about every hour or two and they couldn't control the boat, rolling rail to rail. They'd douse the chute when the squall hit and reset it when it passed. They got exhausted and gave up. That boat has a narrow stern. My 40 had a wider stern and flatter entry than the other Choate 40s. We kept the 1.5 up in the squalls and had no control problems. I've sailed it in Newport Beach in heavy air (rare there) and finished in class A (started in C). We didn't point well with the flatter entry so were not that competitive most of the time. The other problem I ran into with the Yankee 38 was the tumblehome. That was a way of lowering rating. I forget the details but it reduced measurable beam at the waterline and deck. The Yankee had bad weather helm when it heeled too much and I think the shape had a lot to do with it. It was actually more competitive in light air. You had to sail it flat. Of course, I may not be such a great expert as the guy who now owns my Peterson 1 Ton won his class in the single-handed Transpac in 2004. I thought of it as a very light air boat but he made it go fast. Mike Kennedy Conquest Cal 40 ## 96 On Dec 26, 2005, at 1:08 PM, r good wrote: is it really the pinched sterns of the IOR boats which make them squirrley downwind or something else? The ultimate pinched sterm is a double ender or canoe stern. Yet many of tose boats are easily handled downwind. Reggie --------------------------------- YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "Cal_Boats" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "Cal_Boats" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.

I agree about the small rudder and my rudder on the 40 was very deep. I will probably change the Cal 40 rudder if we go to Honolulu in 2007. Mike Kennedy Conquest Cal 40 # 96 On Dec 27, 2005, at 8:50 AM, steve honour wrote: > I think it is having the beam aft and a small rudder. The boat > does not track as well and heeling on that large aft beam allows it > to roll the rudder up out of the water. > > > Michael Kennedy <mt… [at] cox.net> wrote: > I think it is a combination of the canoe hull and the pinched > stern. The later boats with wide sterns were much more stable down > wind. I'm no naval architect but have steered a few of them. I had > a Peterson 1 Ton that was also given to rolling pretty well when it > was running in a breeze. Its stern was narrow but didn't have the > distorted shape of early IOR.

r good wrote: >is it really the pinched sterns of the IOR boats which make them squirrley >downwind or something else? The ultimate pinched sterm is a double ender or >canoe stern. Yet many of tose boats are easily handled downwind. > > > I looked at the other replies and will add this. One of the problems with the IOR, as I recall, was that it encouraged all sorts of rule-beating design quirks, many of which gave ratings benefits without improving sailing characteristics (or making them worse). Many of those boats were very beamy but the beam did not carry far aft, so you've got broad beam and the pinchy ends and a bunch of underwater bumps for ratings effects. They looked like pregnant guppies. Which brings to mind my fall sail on the schooner /Brilliant/. Walter Barnum was afraid that young Olin Stephens would draw up a go-fast boat that would not be sea-kindly, so his charge to the designer was to make a boat that would never be raced and would treat her crew kindly in a North Atlantic storm. Of course, he began racing her immediately upon delivery, and she performed very respectably in that endeavor. Now, more than 70 years later, she still treats her crew kindly, gratifies the eyes of onlookers, and sails with good manners and great power. Olin Stephens made the perfect compromise of looks, safety, and speed. This is the challenge that confronts all naval architects who sit down to draw a sailboat. It seems to me that the IOR encouraged many of them to sacrifice all three characteristics to rule-beating. Not all--there are some old IOR vessels that can turn your head and also sail well. But that rule was not revered for what it produced. Chris Campbell

I don't think I would do that. The Cal 40 and the Cal 34 (and the Cal 25) are the same boat proportionally. I've sailed 34's and 25's quite a bit. And I've sailed IOR boats. If the 34 and 25 are any indication, the Cal 40 is the last boat to lose it's steerage in a swell. The rudder is tucked more forward than most boats and that, coupled with the beam being forward (keeping the bow up and the stern down) and the amount of hull aft of the rudder, and the trapezoidal keel, produce an extremely well tracking fin keel boat. As a matter of fact, I would not be surprized if the Cal 40 is the most kindly tracker of all fin keel boats! The rudder is the last thing I'd mess with. The only improvement I could think of might be to go eliptical but I ruled it out on my 34 because the boat already has such a gift rating that I would not want to open myself up to any kind of custom rating. It just flat amazes me how far these boats will go before they broach. Long after normal fin keel boats have spun out, Cals hang in there. It is truely incredible. ~smile~ SMon, Cal 34, St. Pete Michael Kennedy <mt… [at] cox.net> wrote: I agree about the small rudder and my rudder on the 40 was very deep. I will probably change the Cal 40 rudder if we go to Honolulu in 2007. Mike Kennedy Conquest Cal 40 # 96 On Dec 27, 2005, at 8:50 AM, steve honour wrote: I think it is having the beam aft and a small rudder. The boat does not track as well and heeling on that large aft beam allows it to roll the rudder up out of the water. Michael Kennedy <mt… [at] cox.net> wrote: I think it is a combination of the canoe hull and the pinched stern. The later boats with wide sterns were much more stable down wind. I'm no naval architect but have steered a few of them. I had a Peterson 1 Ton that was also given to rolling pretty well when it was running in a breeze. Its stern was narrow but didn't have the distorted shape of early IOR. --------------------------------- YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "Cal_Boats" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

On Dec 28, 2005, at 6:51 AM, steve honour wrote: > I don't think I would do that. The Cal 40 and the Cal 34 (and the > Cal 25) are the same boat proportionally. I've sailed 34's and > 25's quite a bit. And I've sailed IOR boats. If the 34 and 25 are > any indication, the Cal 40 is the last boat to lose it's steerage > in a swell. The rudder is tucked more forward than most boats and > that, coupled with the beam being forward (keeping the bow up and > the stern down) and the amount of hull aft of the rudder, and the > trapezoidal keel, produce an extremely well tracking fin keel > boat. As a matter of fact, I would not be surprized if the Cal 40 > is the most kindly tracker of all fin keel boats! The rudder is > the last thing I'd mess with. There is a modified rudder that is higher aspect that many of the 40s have adopted. Fin has one. Transpac is tough on rudders but I don't think a Cal 40 has ever lost one. I checked my rudder for water in the core and it was dry. I'll drop it and look at the tube and post but the Schumacher rudder has been put on many Cal 40s. > The only improvement I could think of might be to go eliptical but > I ruled it out on my 34 because the boat already has such a gift > rating that I would not want to open myself up to any kind of > custom rating. > > It just flat amazes me how far these boats will go before they > broach. Long after normal fin keel boats have spun out, Cals hang > in there. It is truely incredible. I agree but there is a speed factor. The rudder gets a lot of work going downwind and the higher aspect may help speed. Mike Kennedy Conquest Cal 40 # 96 > > ~smile~ > > SMon, Cal 34, St. Pete > > Michael Kennedy <mt… [at] cox.net> wrote: > I agree about the small rudder and my rudder on the 40 was very > deep. I will probably change the Cal 40 rudder if we go to Honolulu > in 2007. > > Mike Kennedy > Conquest Cal 40 # 96 >

There is what appears to be a great opportunity to own a Cal 29 in decent shape for a very low price. The boat is on EBay at http://tinyurl.com/83hrc I hope someone on the list knows somebody who wants a Cal 29, but couldn't otherwise afford one. \Rog Cal 29+ #1 Swiss Navy Cal 2-30 #77 St. Lori's Comet

Looks pretty good, they are indeed pretty cheap in this area. (I would compare it to Dan's boat for cautions sake. He can vouch for his beam, the engine and many other areas). The largest marina at Deale - Herrington Harbor North - got pounded really bad in Hurricane Isabel last year, so any boat in the water at that particular yard that year should be inspected with care. They have huge land storage which was not affected. John Dawson Kefi, Balto. Rog Jones <ro… [at] nvsailing.org> wrote: There is what appears to be a great opportunity to own a Cal 29 in decent shape for a very low price. The boat is on EBay at http://tinyurl.com/83hrc I hope someone on the list knows somebody who wants a Cal 29, but couldn’t otherwise afford one. \Rog Cal 29+ #1 Swiss Navy Cal 2-30 #77 St. Lori's Comet --------------------------------- YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "Cal_Boats" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

And I finally got around to joining THIS group, so now I can answer if anybody has questions about ol' Hitch. Thanks for the mention, John! Dan Blaner Half Hitch 1978 Cal 2-29 Pasadena, MD --- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com, John Dawson <jdawson229@y...> wrote: > > Looks pretty good, they are indeed pretty cheap in this area. (I would compare it to Dan's boat for cautions sake. He can vouch for his beam, the engine and many other areas). The largest marina at Deale - Herrington Harbor North - got pounded really bad in Hurricane Isabel last year, so any boat in the water at that particular yard that year should be inspected with care. They have huge land storage which was not affected. > > John Dawson > Kefi, Balto.

Thre is no doubt that going to an eliptical shaped rudder will enhance the speed. But the question I can't answer is: Will the enhancement be more than the hit on the rating? (I suspect not) Michael Kennedy <mt… [at] cox.net> wrote: On Dec 28, 2005, at 6:51 AM, steve honour wrote: I don't think I would do that. The Cal 40 and the Cal 34 (and the Cal 25) are the same boat proportionally. I've sailed 34's and 25's quite a bit. And I've sailed IOR boats. If the 34 and 25 are any indication, the Cal 40 is the last boat to lose it's steerage in a swell. The rudder is tucked more forward than most boats and that, coupled with the beam being forward (keeping the bow up and the stern down) and the amount of hull aft of the rudder, and the trapezoidal keel, produce an extremely well tracking fin keel boat. As a matter of fact, I would not be surprized if the Cal 40 is the most kindly tracker of all fin keel boats! The rudder is the last thing I'd mess with. There is a modified rudder that is higher aspect that many of the 40s have adopted. Fin has one. Transpac is tough on rudders but I don't think a Cal 40 has ever lost one. I checked my rudder for water in the core and it was dry. I'll drop it and look at the tube and post but the Schumacher rudder has been put on many Cal 40s. The only improvement I could think of might be to go eliptical but I ruled it out on my 34 because the boat already has such a gift rating that I would not want to open myself up to any kind of custom rating. It just flat amazes me how far these boats will go before they broach. Long after normal fin keel boats have spun out, Cals hang in there. It is truely incredible. I agree but there is a speed factor. The rudder gets a lot of work going downwind and the higher aspect may help speed. Mike Kennedy Conquest Cal 40 # 96 ~smile~ SMon, Cal 34, St. Pete Michael Kennedy <mt… [at] cox.net> wrote: I agree about the small rudder and my rudder on the 40 was very deep. I will probably change the Cal 40 rudder if we go to Honolulu in 2007. Mike Kennedy Conquest Cal 40 # 96 --------------------------------- YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "Cal_Boats" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less