Maxprop wrote:
wrote in message


I never said it was ugly. In fact, I think it has nice lines.


It's a Bill Luders design, from the hand of the man who designed winning
America's Cup racers in the mid-20th Century. His designs were all
rule-beaters, and this boat is no exception.

Luders was a great designer, but America's Cup was not hs best genre.
Weatherly was a rework of a Rhodes design (built by Luders), and
might have lost to the faster Gretel were it not for the aggressive
handling of Bud Mosbacher.


I agree completely with the rest of your comments. IIRC, Mate gushed
over the Luders 34.

It's a Bill Luders design, from the hand of the man who designed
winning America's Cup racers in the mid-20th Century. His designs
were all rule-beaters, and this boat is no exception.


Jeff Morris wrote:
Luders was a great designer, but America's Cup was not hs best genre.
Weatherly was a rework of a Rhodes design (built by Luders), and might
have lost to the faster Gretel were it not for the aggressive handling
of Bud Mosbacher.


I agree completely with the rest of your comments. IIRC, Mate gushed
over the Luders 34.

The Luders Navy Yawls were the best of the best
http://www.navypaxsail.com/Yawls.htm

and I think that most sailors my age or a bit older (or at least, the
ones that have their eyes open) will have drooled over the Luders 16
http://www.l16.org/

I've seen some bigger Luders racer/cruisers with much the same look, the
Sea Sprites are a lot less extreme. 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.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

"DSK" wrote in message

The Luders Navy Yawls were the best of the best
http://www.navypaxsail.com/Yawls.htm

and I think that most sailors my age or a bit older (or at least, the ones
that have their eyes open) will have drooled over the Luders 16
http://www.l16.org/

I've seen some bigger Luders racer/cruisers with much the same look, the
Sea Sprites are a lot less extreme. 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.

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. 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.
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.

Max

.... 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)
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.

... 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.

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.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

"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 in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
wrote in message


I never said it was ugly. In fact, I think it has nice lines.


It's a Bill Luders design, from the hand of the man who designed winning
America's Cup racers in the mid-20th Century. His designs were all
rule-beaters, and this boat is no exception.

Luders was a great designer, but America's Cup was not hs best genre.
Weatherly was a rework of a Rhodes design (built by Luders), and might
have lost to the faster Gretel were it not for the aggressive handling of
Bud Mosbacher.


I agree completely with the rest of your comments. IIRC, Mate gushed over
the Luders 34.

We were a bit like BB, I'm sorry to admit, when a SS 34 became available.
We looked at the numbers and concluded it must be a slug. But then we saw
Mate's writeup and decided to give the boat a look and a sea trial. Blew us
away, it did. What BB and others fail to realize is that those CCA boats
had long overhangs, and when heeled the effective waterline increased
dramatically, effectively allowing a faster hull speed. Downwind the short
waterline length is an advantage w/r/t wetted surface area minimized.

Rating rules are calculations based upon measurements, and such rules can be
beaten. For example, my boat has a 7/8 fractional rig, which gives her an
even greater rating advantage. Luders relished beating the rules, and even
when he showed the ratings gurus where they had loopholes, they ignored him.
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.

Max

Maxprop wrote:
Rating rules are calculations based upon measurements, and such rules can be
beaten. For example, my boat has a 7/8 fractional rig, which gives her an
even greater rating advantage. Luders relished beating the rules, and even
when he showed the ratings gurus where they had loopholes, they ignored him.
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.



So how do you figure that? PHRF is supposed to based on a design's
performance, not its measurements. If a boat consistently outperforms
its rating, the rating is changed. What you say would only hold true
if very few are raced, or if the average SS34 skipper was a turkey.

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.

DSK

"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

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