RE: [Cal_Boats] Digest Number 60

My bloodlines notwithstanding, I really have no qualifications for commenting on this topic. My answer is based as much on aesthetics as nautical engineering. I remember when the first IOR boats came out. I don't mean to offend anyone, but I thought they were ugly then, and still think so today. It was not enough that they pinched in the sterns; as I understand it, the rules also favored having as wide a beam as possible for as little distance as possible. The result - to my eye - was a cockleshell hull that looked directionally unstable just sitting at anchor. My dad stopped racing seriously when the IOR came along, as the arms race then escalated to needing a new boat every year or two in order to be competitive, rather than ever five years or so. I remember in those early days, some owners had fat "hips" added to the midships of their boats in an effort to make them rate better under the new rules. If a monohull is as wide as it is long, I don't see how it can be directionally stable. Look at the classic boats with their nice thin lines and long overhangs fore and aft. Fast and stable. (Or you can go the modern route, and build a 70-foot long dinghy designed to rocket across the water rather than through it, which in my view is the nautical equivalent of doing a loop-the-loop while riding a dirt bike. Fun to watch, but I'll leave it to those much younger and fit than I am.) Alfred Poor 1969 Cal 29 #132, "Pentaquod" Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 14:08:00 -0700 From: "r good" <my… [at] hotmail.com> Subject: 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

Hi, All. There is an ultimate IOR boat parked in the corner of the boat yard I've been working in. (Been sitting there a long time.) Will snap a photo of the callipygian stern and the bulbous waterline. Will then learn to speak English. Cheers Charlie From: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com [mailto:Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alfred Poor Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 8:11 AM To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Cc: my… [at] hotmail.com Subject: RE: [Cal_Boats] Digest Number 60 My bloodlines notwithstanding, I really have no qualifications for commenting on this topic. My answer is based as much on aesthetics as nautical engineering. I remember when the first IOR boats came out. I don't mean to offend anyone, but I thought they were ugly then, and still think so today. It was not enough that they pinched in the sterns; as I understand it, the rules also favored having as wide a beam as possible for as little distance as possible. The result - to my eye - was a cockleshell hull that looked directionally unstable just sitting at anchor. My dad stopped racing seriously when the IOR came along, as the arms race then escalated to needing a new boat every year or two in order to be competitive, rather than ever five years or so. I remember in those early days, some owners had fat "hips" added to the midships of their boats in an effort to make them rate better under the new rules. If a monohull is as wide as it is long, I don't see how it can be directionally stable. Look at the classic boats with their nice thin lines and long overhangs fore and aft. Fast and stable. (Or you can go the modern route, and build a 70-foot long dinghy designed to rocket across the water rather than through it, which in my view is the nautical equivalent of doing a loop-the-loop while riding a dirt bike. Fun to watch, but I'll leave it to those much younger and fit than I am.) Alfred Poor 1969 Cal 29 #132, "Pentaquod" Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 14:08:00 -0700 From: "r good" <my… [at] hotmail.com> Subject: 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 ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/A1TolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links

On Dec 27, 2005, at 5:11 AM, Alfred Poor wrote: > My bloodlines notwithstanding, I really have no qualifications for > commenting on this topic. My answer is based as much on aesthetics as > nautical engineering. > > I remember when the first IOR boats came out. I don't mean to > offend anyone, > but I thought they were ugly then, and still think so today. It was > not > enough that they pinched in the sterns; If you look at pictures of RORC boats from that era, they had the same shape. They sailed reaching courses and had lots of tidal flow issues and local knowledge. They didn't have downwind courses like we do in California. I have a copy of Olin Stephens biography and he says that he made a major mistake when they adopted the RORC rule for hulls. The scantling rules were well known for wood boats. The didn't anticipate the new materials. The other issue was the displacement factor in the rule. It was too expensive to weigh the boats so they used a factor of beam and depth to calculate it. That opened the door for all sorts of wiggle room in beating the rule. Rule beaters have been around as long as sailboat race. The "skimming dishes" of the 1880s are one example. The issue became safety. > as I understand it, the rules also > favored having as wide a beam as possible for as little distance as > possible. And (I'm working from memory here and others may be able to explain it better) the waterline beam and deck beam were measured and the bumps could have a big effect if they were in the right place. > The result - to my eye - was a cockleshell hull that looked > directionally unstable just sitting at anchor. Large beam, by itself, is not a stability problem. My Choate 40 had a 13 foot beam on 39 foot length. If you put one out of the water next to a Cal 40 it is much, much larger. I had Skysail in the yard next to Conquest for a couple of weeks last spring and I had no idea how much bigger boat the Choate is. The Cal 39 was also a much bigger boat, which is good for cruising. The Choate and later IOR boats had wide sterns and that seems to be the stability factor. The CF 41, also built by Dennis about 4 years earlier, was very tough to steer downwind in a breeze. The CF 37, an even earlier Choate IOR boat was less beamy and very fast. I think they were better downwind. > > My dad stopped racing seriously when the IOR came along, as the > arms race > then escalated to needing a new boat every year or two in order to be > competitive, rather than ever five years or so. I think this was the IOR learning curve. The problem is that they also lost the cruising interior and became worthless if they couldn't race. It drove a lot of people away. > I remember in those early > days, some owners had fat "hips" added to the midships of their > boats in an > effort to make them rate better under the new rules. I saw this in the east when I was there about 1975. I remember seeing Pearson 36s with ugly bumps glued on. That's a nice racer-cruiser that was driven to PHRF by the rule change. > > If a monohull is as wide as it is long, I don't see how it can be > directionally stable. Look at the classic boats with their nice > thin lines > and long overhangs fore and aft. Fast and stable. And wet. There is something to be said for beam and sheer. I remember guys racing the PCC in Mexican races. I didn't sail on one but Fin and some others may have. They were beautiful and fast until you got pooped by a big wave that the boat couldn't get out of the way of. They were 46 feet long, as I recall, and the size of a Cal 29 inside. > (Or you can go the modern > route, and build a 70-foot long dinghy designed to rocket across > the water > rather than through it, which in my view is the nautical equivalent > of doing > a loop-the-loop while riding a dirt bike. Fun to watch, but I'll > leave it to > those much younger and fit than I am.) They break up in strong conditions like last year's Sydney-Hobart. Those boats are built as day racers and then go offshore. It's interesting that the long races that we did in the 70s and 80s have gone out of style. My son sails on a J 105 and has sailed in Key West Race Week and the new version of the SORC. They are all day races. The helmsman on his boat is an Olympic sailor and has never sailed at night. I couldn't sleep on a boat with one of those hydraulic keels. Roy Disney can afford to have three keels for Pyewacket but I can't. He also dumped the maxi when he decided he was going to just cruise with Patty. He had a beautiful S&S yawl that he may still own. That's probably going to be the cruiser. Or you could be like Larry Ellison and watch your maxi race from your 430 foot powerboat. No thanks. Mike Kennedy Conquest Cal 40 # 96 > > Alfred Poor > 1969 Cal 29 #132, "Pentaquod" > > > -----Original Message----- > > Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 14:08:00 -0700 > From: "r good" <my… [at] hotmail.com> > Subject: 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 > > > > SPONSORED LINKS > Boating sailing Sailing boat Sailing > Boating > > 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. > >

Alfred Poor wrote: > >I remember when the first IOR boats came out. I don't mean to offend anyone, >but I thought they were ugly then, and still think so today. > > Bravo, and right on. One of the great virtues of sailing is that most things that look good are effective at what they're designed to do. Form and function are intimately related in this field. Boats that are designed to beat rules instead of sailing well will have a distorted appearance. Same goes for "character boats." This is usually a euphemism for oddball designs that look like somebody's idea of a pirate ship or square-riggers that have been shrunken. If that's your thing, fine, but it ain't a cool sailboat. I laughed when the America's Cup competitors started breaking in half and dismasting when the crew sneezed too hard, but that's a matter of engineering, not of basic form. Those boats have elegant forms, even if they're not necessarily "pretty." Same goes for the various other modern go-fast $$$ boats. They're actually fairly attractive in their minimal way. Boats can be functional in various ways. Some are strong on comfort at sea, others on pure speed. The Hunters seem to be strong at providing creature comforts at dockside, or impressing people who read science-fiction books, so I class them with the IOR rule-beaters with their bumped-out sides and pointy ends. There's just something about a real boat, a proper boat, that makes it handsome and attractive and lets you know that it was designed to be effective at sailing. Chris Campbell

Husar Charlie wrote: >Hi, All. There is an ultimate IOR boat parked in the corner of the boat >yard I've been working in. (Been sitting there a long time.) Will snap >a photo of the callipygian stern and the bulbous waterline. Will then >learn to speak English. > > Well, at first I figured that callipygian must be the antonym of steatopygian. But (pun intended) I figured that I should look it up, and find that it isn't. It doesn't mean skinny or pinchy. It doesn't pertain to IOR at all, as far as I can see, unless you think pinchy-pointy is lovely, or you favor ladies with advanced anorexia. It's obvious that winter has been going too long already if we have time to discuss after quarters. Chris Campbell > >

Charlie, I know the boat you're thinking of. I beleive she's nameed "Bubble Gum" or some such idiotic name. The boat appears nearly as beamy as she is long. Quite ugly if you ask me.... Cheers, Scot >From: Chris Campbell <cl… [at] traverse.com> >Reply-To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com >To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] Digest Number 60 >Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 16:46:23 -0500 > > > >Husar Charlie wrote: > > >Hi, All. There is an ultimate IOR boat parked in the corner of the boat > >yard I've been working in. (Been sitting there a long time.) Will snap > >a photo of the callipygian stern and the bulbous waterline. Will then > >learn to speak English. > > > > >Well, at first I figured that callipygian must be the antonym of >steatopygian. But (pun intended) I figured that I should look it up, and >find that it isn't. It doesn't mean skinny or pinchy. It doesn't >pertain to IOR at all, as far as I can see, unless you think >pinchy-pointy is lovely, or you favor ladies with advanced anorexia. > >It's obvious that winter has been going too long already if we have time >to discuss after quarters. > >Chris Campbell > > > > >

The boats that come to my mind as early IOR boats (1969 - 1970) would include the Erickson 35 and the Redline 41 (like the Newport 41). To my eye, these were (and are) attractive boats. A bit later, as the designers got a better feel about how to get around the rule, such "beauties" as the Erickson 39 and Doug Peterson's "Ganbare" developed. As many have commented, these were fine light-air boats, but a real hand-full DDW in a breeze. In spite of their questionable looks, they clearly out-performed anything our beloved Bill dreamed up, when sailing in moderate conditions. And as the averages would have it, most sailing is done in moderate conditions. As the designers approach matured further, such truly fine looking boats as "Imp", the Choat 40's, and the Serindipity 43's came along. They did well, behaved well, looked "cool" (to my eye), and won. I have no idea what to conclude from this. Fin Beven Cal-40 #24 Radiant San Pedro, CA ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Campbell<mailto:cl… [at] traverse.com> To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com<mailto:Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 1:39 PM Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] Digest Number 60 Alfred Poor wrote: > >I remember when the first IOR boats came out. I don't mean to offend anyone, >but I thought they were ugly then, and still think so today. > > Bravo, and right on. One of the great virtues of sailing is that most things that look good are effective at what they're designed to do. Form and function are intimately related in this field. Boats that are designed to beat rules instead of sailing well will have a distorted appearance. Same goes for "character boats." This is usually a euphemism for oddball designs that look like somebody's idea of a pirate ship or square-riggers that have been shrunken. If that's your thing, fine, but it ain't a cool sailboat. I laughed when the America's Cup competitors started breaking in half and dismasting when the crew sneezed too hard, but that's a matter of engineering, not of basic form. Those boats have elegant forms, even if they're not necessarily "pretty." Same goes for the various other modern go-fast $$$ boats. They're actually fairly attractive in their minimal way. Boats can be functional in various ways. Some are strong on comfort at sea, others on pure speed. The Hunters seem to be strong at providing creature comforts at dockside, or impressing people who read science-fiction books, so I class them with the IOR rule-beaters with their bumped-out sides and pointy ends. There's just something about a real boat, a proper boat, that makes it handsome and attractive and lets you know that it was designed to be effective at sailing. Chris Campbell SPONSORED LINKS Boating sailing<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Boating+sailing&w1=Boating+sailing&w2=Sailing+boat&w3=Sailing&w4=Boating&c=4&s=65&.sig=KgsPLsahA8AB__qRyAt_XQ> Sailing boat<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Sailing+boat&w1=Boating+sailing&w2=Sailing+boat&w3=Sailing&w4=Boating&c=4&s=65&.sig=oZUJLnrR0FEbvZ5o13Ffaw> Sailing<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Sailing&w1=Boating+sailing&w2=Sailing+boat&w3=Sailing&w4=Boating&c=4&s=65&.sig=eGOXnwatS3x0LYN3XxVdNA> Boating<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Boating&w1=Boating+sailing&w2=Sailing+boat&w3=Sailing&w4=Boating&c=4&s=65&.sig=yMCAyUrqzhoqLD5Ydiy-Rg> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS a.. Visit your group "Cal_Boats<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cal_Boats>" on the web. b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com<mailto:Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Dec 27, 2005, at 5:00 PM, Fin Beven wrote: > The boats that come to my mind as early IOR boats (1969 - 1970) > would include the Erickson 35 and the Redline 41 (like the Newport > 41). To my eye, these were (and are) attractive boats. I always thought of the Ericson 35 as a CCA design but I guess you're right. Those two had wide sterns and are pretty boats. The Ericson was a great light air boat. > > A bit later, as the designers got a better feel about how to get > around the rule, such "beauties" as the Erickson 39 The 39 was very tender and fairly narrow. It didn't have the pinched stern that the Yankee 38 had. It also had some design problems that caused a friend's Ericson 39 to burn to the waterline the morning after the San Nicolas Island race. Fortunately they had gotten back to LAYC and the fire broke out inside the breakwater near the Long Beach entrance. It had a dry exhaust pipe that was wrapped with asbestos and was inside a glass compartment next to the engine box. The boat went up so fast they had to jump in the water and were pulled out by a Fish & Game patrol. It was early morning and nobody around. He had wanted me to go halves on the boat but I had an Ericson 29 at the time. > and Doug Peterson's "Ganbare" developed. As many have commented, > these were fine light-air boats, but a real hand-full DDW in a > breeze. In spite of their questionable looks, they clearly out- > performed anything our beloved Bill dreamed up, when sailing in > moderate conditions. And as the averages would have it, most > sailing is done in moderate conditions. Ganbare was the breakthrough boat and ruled closed course racing for a long time. My 1-tonner was an aluminum version. When the Peterson 34 came along, it had a wider stern and we could not beat it. It rated lower and was just as fast or faster. The only time we beat them was in VERY light air. > > As the designers approach matured further, such truly fine looking > boats as "Imp", the Choat 40's, and the Serindipity 43's came > along. They did well, behaved well, looked "cool" (to my eye), and > won. I loved the Choate 40 but with the exception of Hurrah, they had minimal cruising amenities. Jubilation was another Choate 40 with a deckhouse and I don't know what it was like inside. It stayed with us and with Red Shift in Transpac for 5 days. We were blast reaching and sailed side by side for 5 days. Pretty even performance. Every morning they were there. Jubilation was as close as 100 yards for days. I saw the owner at Catalina about 15 years later. They still owned the boat. Imp, of course, looked like the inside of a 747 tail section inside. Nothing but tubular frames everywhere. Dave Allan told me they went cruising in it. Different strokes, I guess. > > I have no idea what to conclude from this. I think the learning curve showed that the RORC rule was wrong. The pinched stern hurt performance. It was a costly lesson for a lot of sailors. Stephens laments that they didn't do a better job of dealing with the scantling section of the rule. That let all the modern throw- away boats come along. It's amazing to me to see the cruising sailboats in the Mediterranean. A lot of classic boats like Dorade are there and have been restored. There is an Italian yard that specializes in restoring wood boats. I'm spending enough money on the Cal 40 and can't even imagine what it must be like to be restoring a wood boat. The guy who owns Santana owns a boatyard. It is spectacular my son tells me. He has sailed on it a couple of times in the Bay Area. Mike Kennedy Conquest Cal 40 # 96 > > Fin Beven > Cal-40 #24 > Radiant > San Pedro, CA > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Chris Campbell > To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 1:39 PM > Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] Digest Number 60 > > > > Alfred Poor wrote: > > > > >I remember when the first IOR boats came out. I don't mean to > offend anyone, > >but I thought they were ugly then, and still think so today. > > > > > Bravo, and right on. One of the great virtues of sailing is that most > things that look good are effective at what they're designed to do. > Form and function are intimately related in this field. Boats that > are > designed to beat rules instead of sailing well will have a distorted > appearance. > > Same goes for "character boats." This is usually a euphemism for > oddball designs that look like somebody's idea of a pirate ship or > square-riggers that have been shrunken. If that's your thing, > fine, but > it ain't a cool sailboat. > > I laughed when the America's Cup competitors started breaking in half > and dismasting when the crew sneezed too hard, but that's a matter of > engineering, not of basic form. Those boats have elegant forms, > even if > they're not necessarily "pretty." Same goes for the various other > modern go-fast $$$ boats. They're actually fairly attractive in their > minimal way. > > Boats can be functional in various ways. Some are strong on > comfort at > sea, others on pure speed. The Hunters seem to be strong at providing > creature comforts at dockside, or impressing people who read > science-fiction books, so I class them with the IOR rule-beaters with > their bumped-out sides and pointy ends. There's just something > about a > real boat, a proper boat, that makes it handsome and attractive and > lets > you know that it was designed to be effective at sailing. > > Chris Campbell > > > SPONSORED LINKS > Boating sailing Sailing boat Sailing > Boating > > 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. > >

--- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com, "John Raxter ~~~~~_/\)~~~~" <jraxter@t...> wrote: > > From a previous rant about non-lapworth designed Cal boats, I assumed the > Hunt Associates were the first IOR design getting away from the Standard > Bill Lapworth Classic designs. Of course I am fairly ignorant of sailboat > designs and variances from one rule to another. But the IOR design does > explain some of the handling characteristics that I have experienced in our > '87 Cal 33. There was an earlier Cal 33 that I think was a Lapworth later design. The Jesbergs in the Bay Area had one and may have won their class in Transpac one year. Don Jesberg was on Ralphie this year and was said to be the one who recommended the turn south that won the class for them. No 75 degree sailing here this weekend. The forecast is 2 inches of rain Saturday. I'm off to Tucson for New Years. The dehumidifier will be running 24/7 now for a while. Mike Kennedy Conquest Cal 40 # 96