Re: Sharpies and Windward Performance
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "dnjost" <davidjost@v...> wrote:
dividends as well as shifting the moveable ballast (i.e. crew) to
the downwind side in order get some added heeling effect may also
benefit. Peter Lenihan is the expert with the cat yawl sprit rig and
I am still learning. Having a small efficient motor on the
centerline - like Micro has - with it's rudder ahead of the motor is
a great advantage I feel as well. Less chance of the motor
cavitating.
Lestat had a 20 hp Merc on the stern for river use at one point.
Confirming that there is a tremondous amount of bouyancy in that
stern section:-)
PCB&F feel that a Yamaha T9.9 could be used on a Long Micro
Navigator.
that "Micro" is a bit of a misnomer. Until one actually sees one in
the flesh it is deceiving as to how much room it really has! My idea
about a centerboard was to install it in the keel and have lead
ballast in an enclosed box right on the hull bottom like in the AS29
and others. Therefor no centerboard case encroaching on the cabin
area.
Actually my suggestion was aimed towards a Long Micro and that is
really a misnomer. Long Micro is a very large boat, especially if
one adds a pilothouse. That extra 4 feet of W/L length amidships is
a pretty significant factor both in hull speed and ability to carry
more sail.
Birdwatcher seems to be Bolgers favorite and based on his own
experience, both sailing one and trailering one bears out why. It
can still be towed with a compact vehicle and is much easier to
launch and retrieve than the Micro series. If I did not already own
a big tow vehicle and a good trailer/cradle combination it would be
my other choice.
Nels,
>go
> The Micro - does really well off the wind. Climbing to windward
> could be an excerise in futility when the water was choppy. This
> could also be due in part to my unfamiliarity with sailing a
> sprit/yawl. This is still a very comfortable boat that does not
> scare young kids too much. If you really, really, really need to
> to windward in hurry start the motor.I think this is really where bearing off a bit in a chop pays
dividends as well as shifting the moveable ballast (i.e. crew) to
the downwind side in order get some added heeling effect may also
benefit. Peter Lenihan is the expert with the cat yawl sprit rig and
I am still learning. Having a small efficient motor on the
centerline - like Micro has - with it's rudder ahead of the motor is
a great advantage I feel as well. Less chance of the motor
cavitating.
Lestat had a 20 hp Merc on the stern for river use at one point.
Confirming that there is a tremondous amount of bouyancy in that
stern section:-)
PCB&F feel that a Yamaha T9.9 could be used on a Long Micro
Navigator.
>would
> I always wondered if Micro would have done better with a
> keel/centerboard arrangement as in a Catalina 22. However, it
> spoil the cabin. You can put an awful lot of stuff in a Micro asI agree and have written to PCB&F expressing the opinion
> is.
that "Micro" is a bit of a misnomer. Until one actually sees one in
the flesh it is deceiving as to how much room it really has! My idea
about a centerboard was to install it in the keel and have lead
ballast in an enclosed box right on the hull bottom like in the AS29
and others. Therefor no centerboard case encroaching on the cabin
area.
Actually my suggestion was aimed towards a Long Micro and that is
really a misnomer. Long Micro is a very large boat, especially if
one adds a pilothouse. That extra 4 feet of W/L length amidships is
a pretty significant factor both in hull speed and ability to carry
more sail.
>on a whim is very important right now.
> Hmmm...Birdwatcher or an AS 19 might be next. The need to go out
Birdwatcher seems to be Bolgers favorite and based on his own
experience, both sailing one and trailering one bears out why. It
can still be towed with a compact vehicle and is much easier to
launch and retrieve than the Micro series. If I did not already own
a big tow vehicle and a good trailer/cradle combination it would be
my other choice.
Nels,
Thanks for the good chuckle this morning, Doug, I
needed it. I too find I do much better racing when
the other boat doesn't know I'm racing.
What say to a nice logo for our sails? I like the
idea of a sandbag -- we can tell people it refers to
the 19thC racing boats with moveable ballast. But
we'll both know it means that we sneak up and hit 'em
when they're not looking.
Eric
--- Doug Pollard <dougpol1@...> wrote:
Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
needed it. I too find I do much better racing when
the other boat doesn't know I'm racing.
What say to a nice logo for our sails? I like the
idea of a sandbag -- we can tell people it refers to
the 19thC racing boats with moveable ballast. But
we'll both know it means that we sneak up and hit 'em
when they're not looking.
Eric
--- Doug Pollard <dougpol1@...> wrote:
> On another unscientific note: Here on the__________________________________________
> Chesapeake bay You are
> often sailing up or down a river or the Bay. No
> sailboat that I am
> aware of can beat against the bays wind and tide.
> You wind up going
> straight across at least for a couple of hours
> during the strongest
> tide. I often beat the deeper racer cruisers to
> windward by going into
> shallow water where ether are eddies and slower
> tides. A cut across a
> sand bar or behind a buoy and that adds to the
> advantage. Although I am
> not a racer would not take my boat around the race
> markers with the
> fast windward boats but I race them all the time. Of
> course You have to
> remember I may be the only one racing but I doubt
> it. It would seem
> hard to be out run by a boat with out the fine hull
> shape of these
> modern boats. I do win sometimes.
>
>
> Doug
>
>
>
> dnjost wrote:
>
> > Wow - I have been away from the board for a while
> now, but this issue
> > is one that intrigues me. I have owned a number
> of small boats over
> > the years including Micro. Here are some
> unscientific observations.
> >
> > A Herreshoff full keel i.e. the Bullseye / 12 1/2
> is very efficient
> > upwind even with a gaff / jibheaded rig. Draft
> was close to 3' on
> > the Goldeneye I owned. However, we could still
> climb over the side
> > and push her off a sandbar if we got stuck. PHRF
> racers used to dread
> > it when we showed up, even the J 24 folks. (it's
> the rating, not the
> > keel)
> >
> > The Micro - does really well off the wind.
> Climbing to windward
> > could be an excerise in futility when the water
> was choppy. This
> > could also be due in part to my unfamiliarity with
> sailing a
> > sprit/yawl. This is still a very comfortable boat
> that does not
> > scare young kids too much. If you really, really,
> really need to go
> > to windward in hurry start the motor.
> >
> > I always wondered if Micro would have done better
> with a
> > keel/centerboard arrangement as in a Catalina 22.
> However, it would
> > spoil the cabin. You can put an awful lot of
> stuff in a Micro as
> > is.
> >
> > We did create a fuss in Salem Harbor one day when
> a Pearson 26 had to
> > work like crazy to beat us off the wind on our
> return trip. Downwind
> > is very cool. I also like the ability to put the
> rig way out rather
> > than doing a short jibe. Very civilized.
> >
> > Hmmm...Birdwatcher or an AS 19 might be next. The
> need to go out on
> > a whim is very important right now.
> >
> > Happy Boating.
> > David Jost
> > "Celebrating the 50th anniversary of Jack Holt's
> Enterprise Dinghy"
Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
On another unscientific note: Here on the Chesapeake bay You are
often sailing up or down a river or the Bay. No sailboat that I am
aware of can beat against the bays wind and tide. You wind up going
straight across at least for a couple of hours during the strongest
tide. I often beat the deeper racer cruisers to windward by going into
shallow water where ether are eddies and slower tides. A cut across a
sand bar or behind a buoy and that adds to the advantage. Although I am
not a racer would not take my boat around the race markers with the
fast windward boats but I race them all the time. Of course You have to
remember I may be the only one racing but I doubt it. It would seem
hard to be out run by a boat with out the fine hull shape of these
modern boats. I do win sometimes.
Doug
dnjost wrote:
often sailing up or down a river or the Bay. No sailboat that I am
aware of can beat against the bays wind and tide. You wind up going
straight across at least for a couple of hours during the strongest
tide. I often beat the deeper racer cruisers to windward by going into
shallow water where ether are eddies and slower tides. A cut across a
sand bar or behind a buoy and that adds to the advantage. Although I am
not a racer would not take my boat around the race markers with the
fast windward boats but I race them all the time. Of course You have to
remember I may be the only one racing but I doubt it. It would seem
hard to be out run by a boat with out the fine hull shape of these
modern boats. I do win sometimes.
Doug
dnjost wrote:
> Wow - I have been away from the board for a while now, but this issue
> is one that intrigues me. I have owned a number of small boats over
> the years including Micro. Here are some unscientific observations.
>
> A Herreshoff full keel i.e. the Bullseye / 12 1/2 is very efficient
> upwind even with a gaff / jibheaded rig. Draft was close to 3' on
> the Goldeneye I owned. However, we could still climb over the side
> and push her off a sandbar if we got stuck. PHRF racers used to dread
> it when we showed up, even the J 24 folks. (it's the rating, not the
> keel)
>
> The Micro - does really well off the wind. Climbing to windward
> could be an excerise in futility when the water was choppy. This
> could also be due in part to my unfamiliarity with sailing a
> sprit/yawl. This is still a very comfortable boat that does not
> scare young kids too much. If you really, really, really need to go
> to windward in hurry start the motor.
>
> I always wondered if Micro would have done better with a
> keel/centerboard arrangement as in a Catalina 22. However, it would
> spoil the cabin. You can put an awful lot of stuff in a Micro as
> is.
>
> We did create a fuss in Salem Harbor one day when a Pearson 26 had to
> work like crazy to beat us off the wind on our return trip. Downwind
> is very cool. I also like the ability to put the rig way out rather
> than doing a short jibe. Very civilized.
>
> Hmmm...Birdwatcher or an AS 19 might be next. The need to go out on
> a whim is very important right now.
>
> Happy Boating.
> David Jost
> "Celebrating the 50th anniversary of Jack Holt's Enterprise Dinghy"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, or flogging
> dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
> - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930,
> Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "bolger
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.15/223 - Release Date: 1/6/2006
>
>
Wow - I have been away from the board for a while now, but this issue
is one that intrigues me. I have owned a number of small boats over
the years including Micro. Here are some unscientific observations.
A Herreshoff full keel i.e. the Bullseye / 12 1/2 is very efficient
upwind even with a gaff / jibheaded rig. Draft was close to 3' on
the Goldeneye I owned. However, we could still climb over the side
and push her off a sandbar if we got stuck. PHRF racers used to dread
it when we showed up, even the J 24 folks. (it's the rating, not the
keel)
The Micro - does really well off the wind. Climbing to windward
could be an excerise in futility when the water was choppy. This
could also be due in part to my unfamiliarity with sailing a
sprit/yawl. This is still a very comfortable boat that does not
scare young kids too much. If you really, really, really need to go
to windward in hurry start the motor.
I always wondered if Micro would have done better with a
keel/centerboard arrangement as in a Catalina 22. However, it would
spoil the cabin. You can put an awful lot of stuff in a Micro as
is.
We did create a fuss in Salem Harbor one day when a Pearson 26 had to
work like crazy to beat us off the wind on our return trip. Downwind
is very cool. I also like the ability to put the rig way out rather
than doing a short jibe. Very civilized.
Hmmm...Birdwatcher or an AS 19 might be next. The need to go out on
a whim is very important right now.
Happy Boating.
David Jost
"Celebrating the 50th anniversary of Jack Holt's Enterprise Dinghy"
is one that intrigues me. I have owned a number of small boats over
the years including Micro. Here are some unscientific observations.
A Herreshoff full keel i.e. the Bullseye / 12 1/2 is very efficient
upwind even with a gaff / jibheaded rig. Draft was close to 3' on
the Goldeneye I owned. However, we could still climb over the side
and push her off a sandbar if we got stuck. PHRF racers used to dread
it when we showed up, even the J 24 folks. (it's the rating, not the
keel)
The Micro - does really well off the wind. Climbing to windward
could be an excerise in futility when the water was choppy. This
could also be due in part to my unfamiliarity with sailing a
sprit/yawl. This is still a very comfortable boat that does not
scare young kids too much. If you really, really, really need to go
to windward in hurry start the motor.
I always wondered if Micro would have done better with a
keel/centerboard arrangement as in a Catalina 22. However, it would
spoil the cabin. You can put an awful lot of stuff in a Micro as
is.
We did create a fuss in Salem Harbor one day when a Pearson 26 had to
work like crazy to beat us off the wind on our return trip. Downwind
is very cool. I also like the ability to put the rig way out rather
than doing a short jibe. Very civilized.
Hmmm...Birdwatcher or an AS 19 might be next. The need to go out on
a whim is very important right now.
Happy Boating.
David Jost
"Celebrating the 50th anniversary of Jack Holt's Enterprise Dinghy"
I choose to build boats with traditional, low tech rigs, so please do not
take the following as being in any way critical. However, IMHO, if you want
high windward performance, you need a sloop and you need enough rigging to
keep the leading edge of the jib straight. All this rigging (aside from
being expensive, complicated, and fragile) is trying to either push the mast
through the bottom of the boat or pull the ends of the boat up. These
stresses require a complex, complicated, and expensive hull (at one time,
E-scows had a steel tube space frame inside the hull; and I well remember
when Australia 1 broke in two and sank).
I'll take lower windward performance as a reasonable trade off for low
tech, inexpensive, simple, and reliable rigs. Somehow, I manage to get
where I'm going with them and have a good time in the process.
John T
take the following as being in any way critical. However, IMHO, if you want
high windward performance, you need a sloop and you need enough rigging to
keep the leading edge of the jib straight. All this rigging (aside from
being expensive, complicated, and fragile) is trying to either push the mast
through the bottom of the boat or pull the ends of the boat up. These
stresses require a complex, complicated, and expensive hull (at one time,
E-scows had a steel tube space frame inside the hull; and I well remember
when Australia 1 broke in two and sank).
I'll take lower windward performance as a reasonable trade off for low
tech, inexpensive, simple, and reliable rigs. Somehow, I manage to get
where I'm going with them and have a good time in the process.
John T
----- Original Message -----
From: "awellbalancedgun" <awellbalancedgun@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 4:14 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Sharpies and Windward Performance
> Thanks, Jim-
>
> I think you have probably summarized things pretty
> well. "Reasonable" upwind perfomance is all I would expect from a
> sharpie. I'm just not sure that "...their lack of upwind ability is
> too pronounced."
>
> TJH
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Konst" <jkonst@c...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dave Gerr may have overstated his case, but not by much. A true
>> sailing sharpie (aka flatiron skiff) would not point as high as a
>> modern keeler whether it had a large centerboard, or a shallow
>> centerboard, or a ballasted centerboard. We accepted that when we
>> developed a preference for older designs that were low tech.
>> A "modern" keelboat has all the benifits of hydrodynamic shaping
> that
>> a sharpie eschews, plus the addition of a ballasted keel of high
>> aspect ratio. High aspect keels (or airfoils) inherently develope
>> less drag. Deep keels reach into undisturbed water. Outside
> ballast
>> increases righting moment. All these things reduce leeway, stand
> up
>> to the breeze, and even help climb to windward.
>> We are often surprised by the good performance of older designs.
> That
>> is because we know they lack sophistication adn we expect less of
>> them. To think that older designs are equal to well developed
> modern
>> designs is to refute progress and reality.
>>
>> The sharpie is a simple, affordable, easily built boat that has
>> reasonable performance and lots of character and history. That is
>> all it needs.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>>
>> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "awellbalancedgun"
>> <awellbalancedgun@y...> wrote:
>> >
>> > In "The Nature of Boats", Dave Gerr writes, "Though they can go
> to
>> > weather reliably, even with substantial centerboards, true flat-
>> bottom
>> > sharpies can never approach the upwind performance of a modern
> keel
>> > sailboat" and "...their lack of upwind ability is too
> pronounced."
>> >
>> > But, despite his clear explanations for just about every other
>> boating
>> > phenomenom, he fails to give an explanation for this apparent
> lack
>> of
>> > windward ability. I would like to know the explanation: Why
> (if
>> > indeed it is as bad as Gerr suggests) are sharpies such poor
> upwind
>> > performers?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Tom Hamernik
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, or flogging dead
> horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
> - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax:
> (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.9/217 - Release Date: 12/30/2005
>
>
A keelboat will NEVER plane. After you've beaten the sharpie to windward by
a few minutes, you might have to sail downwind.
--
Craig O'Donnell
Sinepuxent Ancestors & Boats
<http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fassitt/>
The Proa FAQ <http://boat-links.com/proafaq.html>
The Cheap Pages <http://www.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/>
Sailing Canoes, Polytarp Sails, Bamboo, Chinese Junks,
American Proas, the Bolger Boat Honor Roll,
Plywood Boats, Bamboo Rafts, &c.
_________________________________
-- Professor of Boatology -- Junkomologist
-- Macintosh kinda guy
Friend of Wanda the Wonder Cat, 1991-1997.
_________________________________
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
a few minutes, you might have to sail downwind.
--
Craig O'Donnell
Sinepuxent Ancestors & Boats
<http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fassitt/>
The Proa FAQ <http://boat-links.com/proafaq.html>
The Cheap Pages <http://www.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/>
Sailing Canoes, Polytarp Sails, Bamboo, Chinese Junks,
American Proas, the Bolger Boat Honor Roll,
Plywood Boats, Bamboo Rafts, &c.
_________________________________
-- Professor of Boatology -- Junkomologist
-- Macintosh kinda guy
Friend of Wanda the Wonder Cat, 1991-1997.
_________________________________
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Kreamer" <kreamer@a...> wrote:
of what constitutes a "sharpie" hull?
I may be completely out to lunch here but I seem to vaguely recall a
discussion regarding Long Micro some years back and the query was
put to Mr. Bolger as to whether or not Long Micro would benefit from
the addition of a high aspect centerboard, for offshore capability.
His response was that the added complication would probably detract
from the designs ability to go to weather at the hull speed
capablity of the design. The centerboard would be stalling at those
hull speeds.
The slab sided design of the Long Micro keel actually prevents
leeway more effectively at it's inherant hull speed than would a
stalled foil shaped centerboard. So even though it may not create as
much "lift" as a foil, the slab sides ability to prevent leeway is
the best compromise in overall performance.
Research by Swedish small boat designer Sven Yrvind also backs up
this observation and he compares it to how delta wings function in
aircraft. At low speeds they tend not to stall as quickly as do
streamlined foils at high angles of attack. This was proven in the
design of delta winged aircraft that take off and land at extreme
nose up attitudes. Therefore a slab sided keel acts more like a
delta wing than a NACA foil, or a narrow thin wing does.
Of course the vorticies created are also a lot different, but not
all bad at the low speeds we are talking about.
Nels
>a "silvery rope"
> This answers my question some months back about just such
> created by my keel-type Chebacco, when driven hard to windward.Maybe the
> centerboard Chebaccos go to windward a bit easier, and withoutseeing any
> vortex? - BillI wonder if the hull shape of Chebbaco actually meets the criteria
>
of what constitutes a "sharpie" hull?
I may be completely out to lunch here but I seem to vaguely recall a
discussion regarding Long Micro some years back and the query was
put to Mr. Bolger as to whether or not Long Micro would benefit from
the addition of a high aspect centerboard, for offshore capability.
His response was that the added complication would probably detract
from the designs ability to go to weather at the hull speed
capablity of the design. The centerboard would be stalling at those
hull speeds.
The slab sided design of the Long Micro keel actually prevents
leeway more effectively at it's inherant hull speed than would a
stalled foil shaped centerboard. So even though it may not create as
much "lift" as a foil, the slab sides ability to prevent leeway is
the best compromise in overall performance.
Research by Swedish small boat designer Sven Yrvind also backs up
this observation and he compares it to how delta wings function in
aircraft. At low speeds they tend not to stall as quickly as do
streamlined foils at high angles of attack. This was proven in the
design of delta winged aircraft that take off and land at extreme
nose up attitudes. Therefore a slab sided keel acts more like a
delta wing than a NACA foil, or a narrow thin wing does.
Of course the vorticies created are also a lot different, but not
all bad at the low speeds we are talking about.
Nels
This answers my question some months back about just such a "silvery rope"
created by my keel-type Chebacco, when driven hard to windward. Maybe the
centerboard Chebaccos go to windward a bit easier, and without seeing any
vortex? - Bill
_____
From:bolger@yahoogroups.com[mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Bruce Hallman
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 1:35 PM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [bolger] Sharpies and Windward Performance
sharpies with long but shallow fin keels, like the Micro etc. Phil
Bolger wrote [7/15/95 MAIB]
"A few months back there was a story in this magazine about sailing a
Long Micro with a keel like this, and the visible vortex from the keel
was described. The phenomenon is quite common in boats wtih long
shallow keels, and is even odder than the author supposed. The vortex
comes off the middle of the keel, not the bow end, and the long
silvery rope twisting away off the weather quarter is not air; it's
vacuum minus a little water vapor pressure. It must take enormous
power to generate such a thing, and suggests why boats with deep fins
sail better, except in the many wide waters where they can't sail at
all!"
Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, or flogging dead
horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
- Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax:
(978) 282-1349
- Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
SPONSORED LINKS
Boating
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Boating+safety&w1=Boating+safety&w2=Boa
ting+magazine&w3=Alaska+outdoors&w4=Great+outdoors&c=4&s=83&.sig=mqcLF_9XV9o
nCtXqtJRwew> safety
Boating
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Boating+magazine&w1=Boating+safety&w2=B
oating+magazine&w3=Alaska+outdoors&w4=Great+outdoors&c=4&s=83&.sig=dkYm-wjQG
9dBpYDNsDoWYA> magazine
Alaska
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Alaska+outdoors&w1=Boating+safety&w2=Bo
ating+magazine&w3=Alaska+outdoors&w4=Great+outdoors&c=4&s=83&.sig=68HKZqTBED
IAkNEbirtqBA> outdoors
Great
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Great+outdoors&w1=Boating+safety&w2=Boa
ting+magazine&w3=Alaska+outdoors&w4=Great+outdoors&c=4&s=83&.sig=n8nlIuy_1Jm
78gnN-Zffgw> outdoors
_____
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
* Visit your group "bolger <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger> "
on the web.
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
_____
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
created by my keel-type Chebacco, when driven hard to windward. Maybe the
centerboard Chebaccos go to windward a bit easier, and without seeing any
vortex? - Bill
_____
From:bolger@yahoogroups.com[mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Bruce Hallman
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 1:35 PM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [bolger] Sharpies and Windward Performance
> why... such poor upwind performers?I am not sure this answers your question directly, but in the case of
> Tom Hamernik
sharpies with long but shallow fin keels, like the Micro etc. Phil
Bolger wrote [7/15/95 MAIB]
"A few months back there was a story in this magazine about sailing a
Long Micro with a keel like this, and the visible vortex from the keel
was described. The phenomenon is quite common in boats wtih long
shallow keels, and is even odder than the author supposed. The vortex
comes off the middle of the keel, not the bow end, and the long
silvery rope twisting away off the weather quarter is not air; it's
vacuum minus a little water vapor pressure. It must take enormous
power to generate such a thing, and suggests why boats with deep fins
sail better, except in the many wide waters where they can't sail at
all!"
Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, or flogging dead
horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
- Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax:
(978) 282-1349
- Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
SPONSORED LINKS
Boating
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Boating+safety&w1=Boating+safety&w2=Boa
ting+magazine&w3=Alaska+outdoors&w4=Great+outdoors&c=4&s=83&.sig=mqcLF_9XV9o
nCtXqtJRwew> safety
Boating
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Boating+magazine&w1=Boating+safety&w2=B
oating+magazine&w3=Alaska+outdoors&w4=Great+outdoors&c=4&s=83&.sig=dkYm-wjQG
9dBpYDNsDoWYA> magazine
Alaska
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Alaska+outdoors&w1=Boating+safety&w2=Bo
ating+magazine&w3=Alaska+outdoors&w4=Great+outdoors&c=4&s=83&.sig=68HKZqTBED
IAkNEbirtqBA> outdoors
Great
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Great+outdoors&w1=Boating+safety&w2=Boa
ting+magazine&w3=Alaska+outdoors&w4=Great+outdoors&c=4&s=83&.sig=n8nlIuy_1Jm
78gnN-Zffgw> outdoors
_____
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
* Visit your group "bolger <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger> "
on the web.
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
_____
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "awellbalancedgun"
<awellbalancedgun@y...> wrote:
written up in BWAOM and "103 Small Boat Rigs" we begin to understand
that sharpies are capable of exciting and surprising performance with
the sheets started a bit and the boat heeled enough to immerse the
downwind chine so as to gain the added waterline length, as well
presenting a "Vee" hullform to the water surface - which is one of the
quickest hullform shapes - as far as wetted surface is concerned.
You may not be pointing as high as a fin keeler but you may get to
your destination almost at the same time. Particularly if you are
traversing shallows and your sails are properly cut and you are
familar with the boats capabilities.
Also reading the MAIB articles such as Mr. Bolgers experiences with
the Birdwatcher and the Aussie experience racing the Bolger Light
Schooner, or was it the Folding Schooner, as well as his other small
sharpies.
PCB&F often talk about the expense factor of high tech sails and
standing rigging and the tremendous stresses incurred with maintaining
proper headsail tension as well as the cost of extra sails, hardware
such as winches and standing rigging. Not to even take into account
the need for extra crew to keep it sailing upwind as designed.
Nor to mention money saved in being able to maintain your boat with
mostly home made rigging and fitting from the local hardware store.
These savings can be invested in a good quality efficient motor that
can get you to your destination in a relatively laid back fashion if
you really want to go faster upwind. Thus their interest in simple
motorsailers.
All these factors make for a great package for the average joe who
just wants to get out on the water and have fun. And you can
accomplish it all with your own home built boat. And at the end of the
day you don't even have to be concerned with the ever increasing cost
of marina fees.
And if you want to race, you can always engage the other guys who are
sailing the same type of boat!
Nels
<awellbalancedgun@y...> wrote:
>If we study the design parameters of Mr. Bolgers writings such as
> Thanks, Jim-
>
> I think you have probably summarized things pretty
> well. "Reasonable" upwind perfomance is all I would expect from a
> sharpie. I'm just not sure that "...their lack of upwind ability is
> too pronounced."
>
> TJH
>
>
written up in BWAOM and "103 Small Boat Rigs" we begin to understand
that sharpies are capable of exciting and surprising performance with
the sheets started a bit and the boat heeled enough to immerse the
downwind chine so as to gain the added waterline length, as well
presenting a "Vee" hullform to the water surface - which is one of the
quickest hullform shapes - as far as wetted surface is concerned.
You may not be pointing as high as a fin keeler but you may get to
your destination almost at the same time. Particularly if you are
traversing shallows and your sails are properly cut and you are
familar with the boats capabilities.
Also reading the MAIB articles such as Mr. Bolgers experiences with
the Birdwatcher and the Aussie experience racing the Bolger Light
Schooner, or was it the Folding Schooner, as well as his other small
sharpies.
PCB&F often talk about the expense factor of high tech sails and
standing rigging and the tremendous stresses incurred with maintaining
proper headsail tension as well as the cost of extra sails, hardware
such as winches and standing rigging. Not to even take into account
the need for extra crew to keep it sailing upwind as designed.
Nor to mention money saved in being able to maintain your boat with
mostly home made rigging and fitting from the local hardware store.
These savings can be invested in a good quality efficient motor that
can get you to your destination in a relatively laid back fashion if
you really want to go faster upwind. Thus their interest in simple
motorsailers.
All these factors make for a great package for the average joe who
just wants to get out on the water and have fun. And you can
accomplish it all with your own home built boat. And at the end of the
day you don't even have to be concerned with the ever increasing cost
of marina fees.
And if you want to race, you can always engage the other guys who are
sailing the same type of boat!
Nels
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "awellbalancedgun"
<awellbalancedgun@y...> wrote:
he was comparing them to. When the dock is straight upwind, all boats
lack of upwind ability is "too pronounced."
I would hate to be a published author and have to live with my
overstatements and comments that missed the mark. And the occasional
two dollar word. :)
Jim
Jim
<awellbalancedgun@y...> wrote:
>is
> Thanks, Jim-
>
> I think you have probably summarized things pretty
> well. "Reasonable" upwind perfomance is all I would expect from a
> sharpie. I'm just not sure that "...their lack of upwind ability
> too pronounced."that passage from Gerr in a long time(if at all), and don't know what
>
> TJH
>
>You are welcome.
>I tend to agree with you about his statement, but I haven't read
he was comparing them to. When the dock is straight upwind, all boats
lack of upwind ability is "too pronounced."
I would hate to be a published author and have to live with my
overstatements and comments that missed the mark. And the occasional
two dollar word. :)
Jim
Jim
Gosh, Bruce, I thought I just did!
And I should tell you before you get out the cat (o'nine tails) that my
favorite boat in life is the one on the front of Ruel Parker's book,
that was first shown on the Nov-Dec '85 WB cover. I like many of
Bolgers designs, but I would not call any of his sharpie models very
close winded. I don't think Phil would, either.
Centerboards are not faired, flatirons are not tank tested, sharpies
are not wet sanded before a race.
Jim
And I should tell you before you get out the cat (o'nine tails) that my
favorite boat in life is the one on the front of Ruel Parker's book,
that was first shown on the Nov-Dec '85 WB cover. I like many of
Bolgers designs, but I would not call any of his sharpie models very
close winded. I don't think Phil would, either.
Centerboards are not faired, flatirons are not tank tested, sharpies
are not wet sanded before a race.
Jim
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:
>
> On 1/8/06, Jim Konst <jkonst@c...> wrote:
> > A "modern" keelboat has all the benifits of hydrodynamic shaping
that
> > a sharpie eschews,
>
> Can you elaborate your reasoning for this belief? To my eye at least,
> sharpies do not necessarily 'eschew' the benefit hydrodynamic shaping.
> Here in the Bolger group, considering the Bolger line of sharpie
> designs, <big grin> them is fighting words <big grin>.
>
On 1/8/06, Jim Konst <jkonst@...> wrote:
sharpies do not necessarily 'eschew' the benefit hydrodynamic shaping.
Here in the Bolger group, considering the Bolger line of sharpie
designs, <big grin> them is fighting words <big grin>.
> A "modern" keelboat has all the benifits of hydrodynamic shaping thatCan you elaborate your reasoning for this belief? To my eye at least,
> a sharpie eschews,
sharpies do not necessarily 'eschew' the benefit hydrodynamic shaping.
Here in the Bolger group, considering the Bolger line of sharpie
designs, <big grin> them is fighting words <big grin>.
Thanks, Jim-
I think you have probably summarized things pretty
well. "Reasonable" upwind perfomance is all I would expect from a
sharpie. I'm just not sure that "...their lack of upwind ability is
too pronounced."
TJH
I think you have probably summarized things pretty
well. "Reasonable" upwind perfomance is all I would expect from a
sharpie. I'm just not sure that "...their lack of upwind ability is
too pronounced."
TJH
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Konst" <jkonst@c...> wrote:
>
>
> Dave Gerr may have overstated his case, but not by much. A true
> sailing sharpie (aka flatiron skiff) would not point as high as a
> modern keeler whether it had a large centerboard, or a shallow
> centerboard, or a ballasted centerboard. We accepted that when we
> developed a preference for older designs that were low tech.
> A "modern" keelboat has all the benifits of hydrodynamic shaping
that
> a sharpie eschews, plus the addition of a ballasted keel of high
> aspect ratio. High aspect keels (or airfoils) inherently develope
> less drag. Deep keels reach into undisturbed water. Outside
ballast
> increases righting moment. All these things reduce leeway, stand
up
> to the breeze, and even help climb to windward.
> We are often surprised by the good performance of older designs.
That
> is because we know they lack sophistication adn we expect less of
> them. To think that older designs are equal to well developed
modern
> designs is to refute progress and reality.
>
> The sharpie is a simple, affordable, easily built boat that has
> reasonable performance and lots of character and history. That is
> all it needs.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "awellbalancedgun"
> <awellbalancedgun@y...> wrote:
> >
> > In "The Nature of Boats", Dave Gerr writes, "Though they can go
to
> > weather reliably, even with substantial centerboards, true flat-
> bottom
> > sharpies can never approach the upwind performance of a modern
keel
> > sailboat" and "...their lack of upwind ability is too
pronounced."
> >
> > But, despite his clear explanations for just about every other
> boating
> > phenomenom, he fails to give an explanation for this apparent
lack
> of
> > windward ability. I would like to know the explanation: Why
(if
> > indeed it is as bad as Gerr suggests) are sharpies such poor
upwind
> > performers?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Tom Hamernik
> >
>
Dave Gerr may have overstated his case, but not by much. A true
sailing sharpie (aka flatiron skiff) would not point as high as a
modern keeler whether it had a large centerboard, or a shallow
centerboard, or a ballasted centerboard. We accepted that when we
developed a preference for older designs that were low tech.
A "modern" keelboat has all the benifits of hydrodynamic shaping that
a sharpie eschews, plus the addition of a ballasted keel of high
aspect ratio. High aspect keels (or airfoils) inherently develope
less drag. Deep keels reach into undisturbed water. Outside ballast
increases righting moment. All these things reduce leeway, stand up
to the breeze, and even help climb to windward.
We are often surprised by the good performance of older designs. That
is because we know they lack sophistication adn we expect less of
them. To think that older designs are equal to well developed modern
designs is to refute progress and reality.
The sharpie is a simple, affordable, easily built boat that has
reasonable performance and lots of character and history. That is
all it needs.
Jim
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "awellbalancedgun"
<awellbalancedgun@y...> wrote:
sailing sharpie (aka flatiron skiff) would not point as high as a
modern keeler whether it had a large centerboard, or a shallow
centerboard, or a ballasted centerboard. We accepted that when we
developed a preference for older designs that were low tech.
A "modern" keelboat has all the benifits of hydrodynamic shaping that
a sharpie eschews, plus the addition of a ballasted keel of high
aspect ratio. High aspect keels (or airfoils) inherently develope
less drag. Deep keels reach into undisturbed water. Outside ballast
increases righting moment. All these things reduce leeway, stand up
to the breeze, and even help climb to windward.
We are often surprised by the good performance of older designs. That
is because we know they lack sophistication adn we expect less of
them. To think that older designs are equal to well developed modern
designs is to refute progress and reality.
The sharpie is a simple, affordable, easily built boat that has
reasonable performance and lots of character and history. That is
all it needs.
Jim
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "awellbalancedgun"
<awellbalancedgun@y...> wrote:
>bottom
> In "The Nature of Boats", Dave Gerr writes, "Though they can go to
> weather reliably, even with substantial centerboards, true flat-
> sharpies can never approach the upwind performance of a modern keelboating
> sailboat" and "...their lack of upwind ability is too pronounced."
>
> But, despite his clear explanations for just about every other
> phenomenom, he fails to give an explanation for this apparent lackof
> windward ability. I would like to know the explanation: Why (if
> indeed it is as bad as Gerr suggests) are sharpies such poor upwind
> performers?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tom Hamernik
>
Oh, I agree - Micro is a fine design for shoal water cruising.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:
>
> > Micro is a deep drafter!
> >
> > TJH
>
> 14" of draft.
>
> Micro is a deep drafter!14" of draft.
>
> TJH
Yes, I understand his perspective. But, keeping it in context, I
think Bolger is recognizing that the low-aspect keels waste a lot of
energy forming that vortex.
What's almost comically ironic, here, is that some would say Micro
is a deep drafter!
TJH
think Bolger is recognizing that the low-aspect keels waste a lot of
energy forming that vortex.
What's almost comically ironic, here, is that some would say Micro
is a deep drafter!
TJH
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:
>
> >But I would say that Bolger is saying
> > that high-aspect ratio foils should outperform low-aspect ratio
> > keels.
>
> From Bolger's perspective, considering the huge amounts of grief
that
> shoal water brings to deep keel sailboats in real life, low-aspect
> keels 'out perform' deep foils for recreational sailboats.
> Performance to windward is not the only [or most important] type of
> performance.
>
> He does design deep foils for specialized boats, such as ocean
> crossing race boats. He just doesn't favor them for recreational
> sailboats that need to navigate shallow water, and need to be
trucked
> or trailered.
>
> Point of reference, I recently was reading a sailboat cruising
guide
> book to San Francisco Bay, and the authors have a deep keel
sailboat.
> One cannot miss the irony of the great lengths they go to avoid
shoal
> water, and the huge areas [indeed the majority] of the bay they
avoid
> and neglect.
>
>But I would say that Bolger is sayingFrom Bolger's perspective, considering the huge amounts of grief that
> that high-aspect ratio foils should outperform low-aspect ratio
> keels.
shoal water brings to deep keel sailboats in real life, low-aspect
keels 'out perform' deep foils for recreational sailboats.
Performance to windward is not the only [or most important] type of
performance.
He does design deep foils for specialized boats, such as ocean
crossing race boats. He just doesn't favor them for recreational
sailboats that need to navigate shallow water, and need to be trucked
or trailered.
Point of reference, I recently was reading a sailboat cruising guide
book to San Francisco Bay, and the authors have a deep keel sailboat.
One cannot miss the irony of the great lengths they go to avoid shoal
water, and the huge areas [indeed the majority] of the bay they avoid
and neglect.
I'm not sure the Bolger quote Bruce cited is relevant to my
question. By apples to oranges, I mean modern versus traditional -
I'm not sure it's a fair to compare a sharpie built by a fisherman
to a modern racer engineered by a team of hydro-dynamicists!
And, I am not suggesting that a sharpie is a great windward
performer, but I am calling into question the bleak characterization
Gerr uses.
TJH
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Chamberland" <cha62759@t...>
wrote:
question. By apples to oranges, I mean modern versus traditional -
I'm not sure it's a fair to compare a sharpie built by a fisherman
to a modern racer engineered by a team of hydro-dynamicists!
And, I am not suggesting that a sharpie is a great windward
performer, but I am calling into question the bleak characterization
Gerr uses.
TJH
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Chamberland" <cha62759@t...>
wrote:
>to
> I like the Bolger quote that seems to me to support Dave Gerr. As
> comparing apples and oranges the comparison is of boats to boatsand
> quite reasonable.overstating
> Bob Chamberland-
>
>
> -- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "awellbalancedgun"
> <awellbalancedgun@y...> wrote:
> >
> > My reaction to Gerr was that he must be biased and is
> > the poor performance. He also seems to be comparing apples tothat
> > oranges. He elaborates a bit in Chapter 21 where he suggests
> > the heavy ballasted, fin keel boats provide the necessarystability
> > to carry lots of sail and, therefore, make good progress toto
> > windward. To compare this type of craft to a sharpie is apples
> > oranges, IMHO.
> >
> > TJH
> >
> >
>
Boy, I am not sure I am reading this correctly - it's risky to takes
statements out of context. But I would say that Bolger is saying
that high-aspect ratio foils should outperform low-aspect ratio
keels. So, I am not sure this is relevant.
statements out of context. But I would say that Bolger is saying
that high-aspect ratio foils should outperform low-aspect ratio
keels. So, I am not sure this is relevant.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:
>
> > why... such poor upwind performers?
> > Tom Hamernik
>
> I am not sure this answers your question directly, but in the case
of
> sharpies with long but shallow fin keels, like the Micro etc. Phil
> Bolger wrote [7/15/95 MAIB]
>
> "A few months back there was a story in this magazine about
sailing a
> Long Micro with a keel like this, and the visible vortex from the
keel
> was described. The phenomenon is quite common in boats wtih long
> shallow keels, and is even odder than the author supposed. The
vortex
> comes off the middle of the keel, not the bow end, and the long
> silvery rope twisting away off the weather quarter is not air; it's
> vacuum minus a little water vapor pressure. It must take enormous
> power to generate such a thing, and suggests why boats with deep
fins
> sail better, except in the many wide waters where they can't sail
at
> all!"
>
I like the Bolger quote that seems to me to support Dave Gerr. As to
comparing apples and oranges the comparison is of boats to boats and
quite reasonable.
Bob Chamberland-
-- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "awellbalancedgun"
<awellbalancedgun@y...> wrote:
comparing apples and oranges the comparison is of boats to boats and
quite reasonable.
Bob Chamberland-
-- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "awellbalancedgun"
<awellbalancedgun@y...> wrote:
>
> My reaction to Gerr was that he must be biased and is overstating
> the poor performance. He also seems to be comparing apples to
> oranges. He elaborates a bit in Chapter 21 where he suggests that
> the heavy ballasted, fin keel boats provide the necessary stability
> to carry lots of sail and, therefore, make good progress to
> windward. To compare this type of craft to a sharpie is apples to
> oranges, IMHO.
>
> TJH
>
>
I believe you are putting more into Dave Gerr's statement than is
there. I would not class the Lightning as a "true flat bottom sharpie"
and I don't believe you need "a few million lying around" for weather
going performance.
Bob Chamberland
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "chaemeocyparis" <chaemeocyparis@y...>
wrote:
there. I would not class the Lightning as a "true flat bottom sharpie"
and I don't believe you need "a few million lying around" for weather
going performance.
Bob Chamberland
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "chaemeocyparis" <chaemeocyparis@y...>
wrote:
>give you the Lightning
> The flat statements from Dave Gerr goes too far -- way too far. I
> class by Olin Stephens, the Geary 18 racing class from the WetCoast, the 110 (and 210?) (I
> can't bring the designer's name to mind). Indeed the amazing Starclass boats . . .
> All of them will get to the windward mark a bunch quicker than youwill and on bottoms
> that are flat as P on a plate.metre classes, skerry
> The best weather-going performance IS prolly from keelboats. The
> cruisers, the latest iteration ofmillion lying around, build
> America's Cup rules, etc etc. And so what. If you have a few
> one and start looking for a really big crew. William Garden did anOcean 60 class as an
> exercise in creating the biggest boat that could be cruised veryfast by a man and wife.
> You and I can afford a lot of boat if it is a sharpie -- see BruceKirby's designers. And
> speaking of Kirby's designers -- I've walked a Laser to windwardright through a whole
> crack fleet of Thunderbirds because a Laser makes good a course towindward very much
> higher than it looks. Meaning it steers over here and ends up wayup there.
> Just try cruising on a Laser, though.off a lee shore. The
> The minimum windward performance is the ability to claw your way
> rest is relative. Pick the design that does what you want to do ina way that will give
> maximum enjoyment -- and tune out some of the te chnically correctrubbish.
> Eric O'Higgins, who obviously lives in a high rant district.<awellbalancedgun@y...> wrote:
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "awellbalancedgun"
> >flat-bottom
> > In "The Nature of Boats", Dave Gerr writes, "Though they can go to
> > weather reliably, even with substantial centerboards, true
> > sharpies can never approach the upwind performance of a modern keelboating
> > sailboat" and "...their lack of upwind ability is too pronounced."
> >
> > But, despite his clear explanations for just about every other
> > phenomenom, he fails to give an explanation for this apparent lack of
> > windward ability. I would like to know the explanation: Why (if
> > indeed it is as bad as Gerr suggests) are sharpies such poor upwind
> > performers?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Tom Hamernik
> >
>
My reaction to Gerr was that he must be biased and is overstating
the poor performance. He also seems to be comparing apples to
oranges. He elaborates a bit in Chapter 21 where he suggests that
the heavy ballasted, fin keel boats provide the necessary stability
to carry lots of sail and, therefore, make good progress to
windward. To compare this type of craft to a sharpie is apples to
oranges, IMHO.
TJH
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "chaemeocyparis"
<chaemeocyparis@y...> wrote:
the poor performance. He also seems to be comparing apples to
oranges. He elaborates a bit in Chapter 21 where he suggests that
the heavy ballasted, fin keel boats provide the necessary stability
to carry lots of sail and, therefore, make good progress to
windward. To compare this type of craft to a sharpie is apples to
oranges, IMHO.
TJH
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "chaemeocyparis"
<chaemeocyparis@y...> wrote:
>I give you the Lightning
> The flat statements from Dave Gerr goes too far -- way too far.
> class by Olin Stephens, the Geary 18 racing class from the WetCoast, the 110 (and 210?) (I
> can't bring the designer's name to mind). Indeed the amazing Starclass boats . . .
> All of them will get to the windward mark a bunch quicker thanyou will and on bottoms
> that are flat as P on a plate.The metre classes, skerry
> The best weather-going performance IS prolly from keelboats.
> cruisers, the latest iteration ofmillion lying around, build
> America's Cup rules, etc etc. And so what. If you have a few
> one and start looking for a really big crew. William Garden didan Ocean 60 class as an
> exercise in creating the biggest boat that could be cruised veryfast by a man and wife.
> You and I can afford a lot of boat if it is a sharpie -- seeBruce Kirby's designers. And
> speaking of Kirby's designers -- I've walked a Laser to windwardright through a whole
> crack fleet of Thunderbirds because a Laser makes good a course towindward very much
> higher than it looks. Meaning it steers over here and ends up wayup there.
> Just try cruising on a Laser, though.off a lee shore. The
> The minimum windward performance is the ability to claw your way
> rest is relative. Pick the design that does what you want to doin a way that will give
> maximum enjoyment -- and tune out some of the te chnically correctrubbish.
> Eric O'Higgins, who obviously lives in a high rant district.<awellbalancedgun@y...> wrote:
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "awellbalancedgun"
> >to
> > In "The Nature of Boats", Dave Gerr writes, "Though they can go
> > weather reliably, even with substantial centerboards, true flat-bottom
> > sharpies can never approach the upwind performance of a modernkeel
> > sailboat" and "...their lack of upwind ability is toopronounced."
> >boating
> > But, despite his clear explanations for just about every other
> > phenomenom, he fails to give an explanation for this apparentlack of
> > windward ability. I would like to know the explanation: Why(if
> > indeed it is as bad as Gerr suggests) are sharpies such poorupwind
> > performers?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Tom Hamernik
> >
>
The flat statements from Dave Gerr goes too far -- way too far. I give you the Lightning
class by Olin Stephens, the Geary 18 racing class from the Wet Coast, the 110 (and 210?) (I
can't bring the designer's name to mind). Indeed the amazing Star class boats . . .
All of them will get to the windward mark a bunch quicker than you will and on bottoms
that are flat as P on a plate.
The best weather-going performance IS prolly from keelboats. The metre classes, skerry
cruisers, the latest iteration of
America's Cup rules, etc etc. And so what. If you have a few million lying around, build
one and start looking for a really big crew. William Garden did an Ocean 60 class as an
exercise in creating the biggest boat that could be cruised very fast by a man and wife.
You and I can afford a lot of boat if it is a sharpie -- see Bruce Kirby's designers. And
speaking of Kirby's designers -- I've walked a Laser to windward right through a whole
crack fleet of Thunderbirds because a Laser makes good a course to windward very much
higher than it looks. Meaning it steers over here and ends up way up there.
Just try cruising on a Laser, though.
The minimum windward performance is the ability to claw your way off a lee shore. The
rest is relative. Pick the design that does what you want to do in a way that will give
maximum enjoyment -- and tune out some of the te chnically correct rubbish.
Eric O'Higgins, who obviously lives in a high rant district.
class by Olin Stephens, the Geary 18 racing class from the Wet Coast, the 110 (and 210?) (I
can't bring the designer's name to mind). Indeed the amazing Star class boats . . .
All of them will get to the windward mark a bunch quicker than you will and on bottoms
that are flat as P on a plate.
The best weather-going performance IS prolly from keelboats. The metre classes, skerry
cruisers, the latest iteration of
America's Cup rules, etc etc. And so what. If you have a few million lying around, build
one and start looking for a really big crew. William Garden did an Ocean 60 class as an
exercise in creating the biggest boat that could be cruised very fast by a man and wife.
You and I can afford a lot of boat if it is a sharpie -- see Bruce Kirby's designers. And
speaking of Kirby's designers -- I've walked a Laser to windward right through a whole
crack fleet of Thunderbirds because a Laser makes good a course to windward very much
higher than it looks. Meaning it steers over here and ends up way up there.
Just try cruising on a Laser, though.
The minimum windward performance is the ability to claw your way off a lee shore. The
rest is relative. Pick the design that does what you want to do in a way that will give
maximum enjoyment -- and tune out some of the te chnically correct rubbish.
Eric O'Higgins, who obviously lives in a high rant district.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "awellbalancedgun" <awellbalancedgun@y...> wrote:
>
> In "The Nature of Boats", Dave Gerr writes, "Though they can go to
> weather reliably, even with substantial centerboards, true flat-bottom
> sharpies can never approach the upwind performance of a modern keel
> sailboat" and "...their lack of upwind ability is too pronounced."
>
> But, despite his clear explanations for just about every other boating
> phenomenom, he fails to give an explanation for this apparent lack of
> windward ability. I would like to know the explanation: Why (if
> indeed it is as bad as Gerr suggests) are sharpies such poor upwind
> performers?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tom Hamernik
>
> why... such poor upwind performers?I am not sure this answers your question directly, but in the case of
> Tom Hamernik
sharpies with long but shallow fin keels, like the Micro etc. Phil
Bolger wrote [7/15/95 MAIB]
"A few months back there was a story in this magazine about sailing a
Long Micro with a keel like this, and the visible vortex from the keel
was described. The phenomenon is quite common in boats wtih long
shallow keels, and is even odder than the author supposed. The vortex
comes off the middle of the keel, not the bow end, and the long
silvery rope twisting away off the weather quarter is not air; it's
vacuum minus a little water vapor pressure. It must take enormous
power to generate such a thing, and suggests why boats with deep fins
sail better, except in the many wide waters where they can't sail at
all!"
In "The Nature of Boats", Dave Gerr writes, "Though they can go to
weather reliably, even with substantial centerboards, true flat-bottom
sharpies can never approach the upwind performance of a modern keel
sailboat" and "...their lack of upwind ability is too pronounced."
But, despite his clear explanations for just about every other boating
phenomenom, he fails to give an explanation for this apparent lack of
windward ability. I would like to know the explanation: Why (if
indeed it is as bad as Gerr suggests) are sharpies such poor upwind
performers?
Thanks,
Tom Hamernik
weather reliably, even with substantial centerboards, true flat-bottom
sharpies can never approach the upwind performance of a modern keel
sailboat" and "...their lack of upwind ability is too pronounced."
But, despite his clear explanations for just about every other boating
phenomenom, he fails to give an explanation for this apparent lack of
windward ability. I would like to know the explanation: Why (if
indeed it is as bad as Gerr suggests) are sharpies such poor upwind
performers?
Thanks,
Tom Hamernik