"DSK" wrote in message

Maxprop wrote:
So he beat them at their own game regularly. The SS 34 is easily as
quick as a Catalina 34, which is probably why they do so well in handicap
racing. Her PHRF rating is a gift, compliments of Bill Luders.


Umm, Jeff is right. PHRF is not a measurement rule, it's a performance
rating. If you beat your handicap by a lot, the rating committee is
supposed to adjust it downward (faster) a little.

I believe you are right. However, considering that there were only 46 Sea
Sprite 34s built, and most of them never saw a handicap race course, it
stands to reason that the few of them that have raced *may* have been
handled poorly by their owner/skippers, yielding a high numerical rating.
Most SS 34s are class-raced, not PHRF raced, so the rating wouldn't change.
What I do know is that I can sail my boat well beyond her rating,
considering that the Catalina 34 rates at 144 with a fin keel, and I can
consistently leave them behind on all points of sail, save hard to windward,
where we roughly equal each other. Same with a Tartan 34 (older) with a
keel/CB. The C34s and the Tartans have been sailed by competent sailors,
since you were bound to question this. They've been as surprised by my boat
as have I. When on the hard, they shake their heads when they see her
modified full keel.

Boats,such as the J35, which were sailed by professional teams en masse when
it first was released, have ratings to which the average sailor cannot sail.
This supports your contention that the PHRF ratings do change with racing
results.

My boat placed second in its class in the Chicago Mac with her former owner.
I don't know if PHRF is the handicap rating used in that race or not.

Max

"DSK" wrote in message

.... While the long stretched-out overhangs
look really elegant, they throw spray and they're a great way to get
small-boat accomodation in a big boat LOA.

Maxprop wrote:
True on both counts. Spray is a given with our boat in the right
conditions, but we have a dodger and bimini, so it's not a problem. And
yes, the accommodations are roughly equal to a 31' boat of broader beam
and more modern design.

This is a sistership of one of my family's boats when I was a teenager
(and dinosaurs roamed the Earth)

Stop! You're little more than a child. g

http://www.woodship.com/fleet/tarna/default.aspx

Later I owned a share in a converted 6-meter, which unfortunately I don't
have any pictures of. That type of hull is lovely, seakindly, and the
better ones can really sail.

A friend has an Etchells 22 at our lake. Similar to a 6M, it is poetry to
sail and even more beautiful to watch ghost by in nearly no wind with no
wake.


... The narrow beam of the CCA boats does, however, allow them to be
very slippery through the water. A friend's new Catalina 350 drags her
transom something awful, leaving a turbulent wake behind the boat.


Yes, but that's a question of volume distribution. At certain speed length
ratios, it's actually more efficient. Look at the prismatic coefficient.
It's not elegant though.

This is correct. But it certainly seems counterproductive--as you say,
inelegant. Our friend's 33' Beneteau Oceanis does not drag its transom in
that way, but does leave a noticeable stern wake.

Our boat leaves virtually nothing behind. It's often deceptive, it's so
quiet. One has to go forward to see and hear the bow wave to convince
the senses that we really are moving along with a good turn of speed.

I used to lay on my back on the fantail, steering with my feet and looking
up at the mainsail leach. It is very good view of the rig and almost
totally dissociates one from everything else... a Zen state. Why worry
about the wake? It will take care of itself ;)

Anyway, this hull form was originated with the Universal & International
Rules, which were measurement rules that taxed waterline. So long
overhangs became "rule beaters" and fashionable. The common explanation
that these overhangs immerse and lengthen the waterline when heeled is at
least partly true.

There's a Luders 40-something sloop that is IMHO one of the most drop-dead
gorgeous boats ever built.

From a designer who penned boats hulls for speed and rules-beating, Luders
certainly made some lovely designs. We came across a one-off, mid-50s 46'
Luders daysailer (!) in Maine two years ago. You'd have loved that boat,
with her flush decks and towering fractional rig. And she moved like
Luciano Pavarotti sings.

Max

Jeff Morris wrote:

DSK wrote:

hard as as it is for the Crab Crusher Mafia to swallow, fin keel
boats have sailed round Cape Horn... in fact I bet by now that more
fin keelers have...




Maxprop wrote:

Doubtful, unless you're discounting the centuries when multi-masted
cargo ships rounded the Horn in lieu of the Panama Canal, which was
not yet constructed.


Discounting them, there's no doubt at all that fin keelers would be in
the majority. Including the old commercial sailing vessels, it might
be a closer call than you think... how many rounded the Horn in a
given year on average? Anyway, it's for sure that no more are going
to, so it's only a matter of time.


You've raised an interesting question he Is it proper to call the
old windjammers "crab crushers," or more specifically, do they have a
full length keel? Since they didn't carry any significant external
ballast, and the keels don't' provide much lateral resistance, they
aren't really a related design.

As for numbers, there were thousands of roundings over the centuries.

Jeff Morris wrote:
You've raised an interesting question he Is it proper to call the
old windjammers "crab crushers,"

I wouldn't think so. I don't think of Maxprop's boat as a crab crusher
either, well maybe an honorary one, or a distant in-law.

... or more specifically, do they have a
full length keel?

Yes, definitely.

... Since they didn't carry any significant external
ballast, and the keels don't' provide much lateral resistance, they
aren't really a related design.


I'd tend to agree, somewhat. The evolution of clipper hulls & then
windjammers tended toward making effective use of keel flat & garboards
as lateral plane. But then, because of their size & speed, the lateral
plane could be much smaller in proportion to the rig & the rest of the hull.

By contrast, smaller boats need a larger lateral plane and gain more
benefit from dropping the ballast lower. You see this in workboat types
as they developed into more specialized & capable vessels... in all
types that had to do any significant windward sailing, the lateral plane
got bigger & better defined... Friendship sloops are a good exmple of a
later type, or the catboats with huge centerboards.

So: a crab-crusher is really just a fin keeler that evolution has left
behind! ;)

As for numbers, there were thousands of roundings over the centuries.

Sure. But then, how many fin keelers have rounded the Horn in the last
50 year? I'd think it would easily be in the thousands.

Going on several maritime history articles, AFAIK the average number of
commercial sailing vessel roundings peaked at about 200 per year in the
mid 1800s, and would have been less than 100 per year prior to 1820.

Hey Bart here's a points question for you... what was the first U.S.
Navy vessel to sail around Cape Horn?

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Maxprop wrote:
I believe you are right. However, considering that there were only 46 Sea
Sprite 34s built, and most of them never saw a handicap race course, it
stands to reason that the few of them that have raced *may* have been
handled poorly by their owner/skippers, yielding a high numerical rating.

Maybe so. It wouldn't even have to be poor handling, just unfavorable
conditions, mediocre sails or working sails (PHRF assumes you have a
155), etc etc. A preliminary rating might have been issued, and never
revised or revised only slightly (in the absense of protests).

Flying Tadpole wrote about the screeching & howling arising from racers
beaten by a traditional boat. Maybe in the case of your boat, it wasn't
so loud.


Most SS 34s are class-raced, not PHRF raced, so the rating wouldn't change.
What I do know is that I can sail my boat well beyond her rating,
considering that the Catalina 34 rates at 144 with a fin keel, and I can
consistently leave them behind on all points of sail, save hard to windward,
where we roughly equal each other. Same with a Tartan 34 (older) with a
keel/CB. The C34s and the Tartans have been sailed by competent sailors,
since you were bound to question this. They've been as surprised by my boat
as have I. When on the hard, they shake their heads when they see her
modified full keel.


You also have a frac rig, and I assume it's properly tuned & has good
sails. Little things add up, although clearly the boat has to be capable
in the first place.

In your boat's case, the numbers are quite deceiving. That short
waterline makes the boat look like heavy & slow... but if you plug in
say 27' instead of 24' for LWL, a realistic guesstimate of what the
*sailing* waterline might be, the D/L goes from 400 (serious
crab-crusher) to 290... putting her in a range competitive with the
Catalina & Tartan.


Boats,such as the J35, which were sailed by professional teams en masse when
it first was released, have ratings to which the average sailor cannot sail.
This supports your contention that the PHRF ratings do change with racing
results.


They absolutely do. A lot of people get off on bragging about their
boat's PHRF rating, such as Boobsprit, it's true that some boats have
earned ratings that are almost impossible to sail to in club racing.
It's also true that there are a lot of boats out there racing with
clapped-out sails, untuned rigs, or some other serious defect, with
owners bitching their "impossible" rating.

All that said, PHRF is not a bad system for allowing a bunch of people
with boats they chose for whatever reason to go out and have fun bashing
around the bouys.

My boat placed second in its class in the Chicago Mac with her former owner.
I don't know if PHRF is the handicap rating used in that race or not.


Probably yes. There are IMS and Americap classes in the Mac but AFAIK
most of the fleet is racing under PHRF.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

"Maxprop" wrote:

Let's take a vote:

Who would rather have Mooron

Who would rather have Neal

Hmmm, decisions, decisions...oh wait, you were talking about sailboats,
weren't you? ;-)

LP

BBob did indeed post a pic of his boat. For some reason I saved it.
Here it is;

http://www.enter.net/photoalbum/data...non/807193.JPG

Scotty


"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote in message

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 09:33:44 -0500, Capt. Neal®
wrote:

I can't help but notice how our part-time Canadian sailor is too
chicken to answer the COLREGs questions.

CN


He's very busy trying to find Cambridge, Massachucetts on a free
gas
station map. He's a complete, and very lost, lubber, you
realize...

While tossing charges of lubberdom about, why is it we've never seen
any
evidence of your purported boat? Do you own one, or are you
strictly a
ner-do-well malcontent with too much time on his hands and nothing
to sail?

Max