What made Pilot Cutter so fast? Just rumors?

[deblen]

My opinion:

The Bristol Channel is almost identical to Fundy,with it's extreme tidal currents-very rough, tide against wind. short period waves,day after day.
The BC cutter can carry full sail for longer periods in rougher conditions,without beating itself to death.
Hence,it will travel further faster than the avg. yacht in those conditions.
Look how dry she is in the video.
Cheers/Len

[Jim Cate]

I can have any sailboat I want for about 2 or 3k and make her top boat in the country.

Well, I am sure impressed! But I wonder why you were asking your questions upthread, considering your qualifications?

Jim

[Don C L]

Well, tell you what, I just happen to be a member of the 1%, so explain it to me please.

[Lee Jerry]

Originally Posted by NewAlexandria

You guys misunderstood me. I'm no simple kid of the street that walked in here and asked why is this boat faster than the other. I have architected and built things as complicated as a sailboat.

In early 2000s I designed the trading system (and most software algos) for Morgan Stanley. The house I built circa 2004 when it was time to sell people showed up with cameras and notebooks, not to buy, but to copy everything. The Crypto Coin I invented around 2017 had to be scratched and hidden form all, as it would possibly collapse the monetary system in the Western Civilization. The quality of restoration projects I do in my fun time don't exist in USA. More, the boats I watch "painted" make me realize you would learn a lot from me. There are paint compounds on this planet that don't peal and get damaged in water. I challenged many products and ideas on this planet and mostly I was correct. When I say there are flaws in boat designs and generic ideas, I'm not knocking anyone down, I simply see tons of way of improvement. There are many people on this planet that have different talents. If I REALLY will want to design a sailboat, it will top all sailboats on the planet most likely. Any software you need to me to have and learn it, I will have it and mastered in about 2 or 3 weeks. I have very little money,but own everything I ever wanted, as you don't need much to get things if you really want it. I can have any sailboat I want for about 2 or 3k and make her top boat in the country.

All your advises are great, but you can't judge everyone with an average instrument. Some people simple are different. I'm not cocky at all, but it's insanely difficult for me to explain myself to 99% of humans, unless they see the results, and at that point is simply too late.

ROTFLMAO!

That was some funny sh!t right there.







Apropos of nothing, your name doesn't happen to be "Trump" is it?

[NewAlexandria]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Well, tell you what, I just happen to be a member of the 1%, so explain it to me please.

No. It's OK. But I appreciate the intelligent reply.

[Chris 249]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Long overhangs was a means to beat handicapping systems for sailboat racing long ago.
The boats were rated on waterline length, LWL, when upright at the dock.
Underway and heeling more hull length would immerse and the boat would be faster than expected from the rating rule.
Over the decades various ratings rules have resulted in a number of design choices which in general offered no extra speed compared to similar sized boats from different rules but won races depending on which handicapping system was in effect for a given race.
All lot of these design choices are now considered "Shippy" or Classic".

If you want a long discussion of this history read "Seaworthiness, the Forgotten Factor" BY CA Machaj.

Actual working pilot cutters from way back tended to have a short stern overhang and a short overhanging bow or even a plumb bow.

This maximized strength and speed; handicapping was not a consideration.

These days thanks to internet archives we can read what designers of the 1890s (when overhangs really sprouted) actually said and thought. What is significant is that the overhangs were far LESS of a rating "dodge" than we think these days. We can now read what Watson, Herreshoff, Linton Hope and other masters actually thought privately and publicly. The long overhang aft was very often there so that the mainsail could be sheeted and reefed (reefing at the mooring was common) and for its cheap deck space and storage compared to the alternative of having a "bumpkin" sticking out the back. The overhanging bow was actually the logical way of developing the midships section as they became shallower and therefore drawing out the lines forward in a fair shape created an overhang. The overhang also made the boats roomier and faster than the alternative which was to have a vertical stem and an even longer bowsprit.

There was a tremendous amount of very sophisticated discussion about the interplay of rating rules and overhangs, and they were much less a product of rules than we think and far more a logical way of creating a design. As Linton Hope pointed out, given the design and materials of the day if you put vertical ends where the overhangs started you'd have a longer waterline but so much wetted surface that the boat would be a pig in lights winds, as well as being physically bigger. There was often little actual reason to build a vertical stem when you could just continue some of the planks forward and create an overhang.

As far as Marchaj.....hmmm. That book was written after the '79 Fastnet storm in which there was actually very, very little statistical evidence that the boats that were lambasted were actually less safe than those that were praised. There were two cruising boats in the same area as the racers that were lost with all hands but that's little known and usually ignored. Marchaj blasted boats like the Nich 30 Grimalkin but ignored conventional conservative designs like Flashlight (Ohlson 35) that lost as many crew and that was without the medical conditions that one of the Grimalkin crew suffered. He also praised the Contessa 32, a fine design, but ignored the fact that statistically the dozen C32s were just as likely to capsize as the dozen lightweight half tonners he deplored. Statisticians tell me that anyone who tried to draw conclusions to such a complex issue from such a small database is basically BSing.

[Chris 249]

Originally Posted by Pauls

An excellent book on seaworthiness and performance of yachts,, with a significant focus on old yacht designs like the pilot cutters: Seaworthiness the Forgotten Factor, by Marchaj. You absorb this and you'll understand more about yacht design than a lot of the pros.

With respect, that's arguable. Marchaj's basic claim is that he knows better than people who had done a lot more offshore sailing and a lot more yacht designing than he did, and arguably he fails to make an actual logical case that he has superior understanding.

For example he quotes third-hand reports, normally from people ashore, about rating rules and seaworthiness and contrasts them with the claims of yacht designers (who were actually out there sailing the boats) and rates them equally. That's not logical. For example Douglas Phillips Birt, who he quotes, seems to have been retired from sailing well before the events Marchaj concentrates on and with respect to DPB I can't find any evidence that he was a particularly experienced sailor.

As another example, in the first few pages he repeatedly shows pics of speed record machines and skiffs along with comments that implies that such boats had anything to do with IOR yachts. That's just bollox. There were no wingmasted foiling IOR multihulled boats with trapezes, which are the sort of boats he pictures.

On p 23 Marchaj shows outlines of several eras of designs and claims that after the 1963 S&S type, from the introduction of the 1968 S&S design sthey became less seaworthy and a product of a "sea fever" that ignored anything but speed. I was lucky enough to interview owners of famous versions of the 1968 style, both of them people who had owned earlier types beforehand, and from what they said Marchaj was full of BS. Both these guys, by the way, did both the '79 Fastnet and the '84 Hobart that Marchaj referred to as evidence for his claims. Both of them (Syd Fisher and Lou Abrahams) denied Marchaj's underlying thesis - and they had done vastly more miles than he had, with far more success in far more designs. Contemporary records show no hint that the 1968 S&S designs showed less concerns about seaworthiness than the '63 ones and Marchaj gives absolutely zero evidence for this claim.

Contemporary documentary evidence shows that Marchaj's claim that from 1968 racing boats were designed only for speed is simply untrue. He either lied, or was ignorant. It's likely that it was the latter because the boats he holds up as ideals of seaworthiness were actually sometimes strongly criticised in their time. Lee Loomis' 1930s book on ocean racing, for example, calls Dorade (one of Marchaj's ideal designs) a "rolling fool". Firebrand, the 1963 design Marchaj refers to as one of the last seaworthy designs, was of a generation known at the time for bad downwind handling. A couple of pages later he mentions Colin Archer designs and Erling Tambs but ignores the fact that Tambs' first Archer was lost because he couldn't tack it, and his second pitchpoled with the death of a crewman. Given the way he then attacks the much smaller Grimalkin - the only one of the 20+ half tonners in the 1979 Fastnet to lose anyone compared to the two cruising yachts that were lost with all hands in the same storm in the same area - it's arguable that Marchaj has far more of an axe to grind than actual scientific rigour. For example he claims that Grimalkin "drowned some of her crew" which (unless I'm very much mistaken because I haven't got my copy of the crew's account to hand) is simply wrong; one of her two fatalities was due to exposure and lack of required normal medication and the other was hit on the head by an object and therefore only semi conscious as best.

There are many more criticisms that can be made, but basically whether Marchaj was actually more of an expert than those who actually do a lot more sailing on the boats he writes about is very open to doubt.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Chris 249

These days thanks to internet archives we can read what designers of the 1890s (when overhangs really sprouted) actually said and thought. ....

There was a tremendous amount of very sophisticated discussion about the interplay of rating rules and overhangs, and they were much less a product of rules than we think and far more a logical way of creating a design. As Linton Hope pointed out, given the design and materials of the day if you put vertical ends where the overhangs started you'd have a longer waterline but so much wetted surface that the boat would be a pig in lights winds, as well as being physically bigger. There was often little actual reason to build a vertical stem when you could just continue some of the planks forward and create an overhang.

.....

Did you use a particular internet archive to find these designers' letters or did you look them up individually?
I'd like to do some of this reading. What are the sites that were most productive?

[Chris 249]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Did you use a particular internet archive to find these designers' letters or did you look them up individually?
I'd like to do some of this reading. What are the sites that were most productive?

There are many years of letters between Nat and Francis Herreshoff at the Mystic Seaport site.

Other quotes from designers are available in the back issues of Forest and Stream at archive.org. W P Stephenson, for many years the yachting editor, was also designer of championship racing sailing canoes and the Seawanhaka Cup winner Ethelwynn. She was a fairly early example of a long overhang boat and in 1893 Stephens drew up diagrams looking at her overhangs and how they affected speed and immersed length. See for example the issues for 5 May 1895;

Also on Archive.org there's the Badmintoni book on Yachting for about 1895 which has articles by Watson and Lewis Herreshoff.

Through my library I can get access to Proquest which has old copies of The Field which has a lot of information such as the letters from Watson and other designers, detailed information about the overhang shape used by Nichoison, a letter from Linton Hope, etc. For example in the 1890s there was a committee about the rating rules which is reported with quotes from Watson etc about overhangs.

This is an amazing time to be interested in history, with so much stuff in so many areas coming on line.

[NewAlexandria]

One day I will create a post here on displacement boats, how they actually work, how to design one using super easy formulas, how to make them go fast easily, etc. Once I actually fully figure it all out. More, I can show you how to design software that can build the most optimal boat for you using 1 number given by you. It's all easy, but requires work. I'm on my 4th book almost and I can leave you off with some food for thought before I write my chapter.

Below I will mention the fundamental problem I see in all those books and online publications when it comes to hull desings. But before I do that let me show you how this world works and why these "fundamental problems" exist:

Adam Smith who basically invented capitalism, in all his genious ways, never mentions that if you follow his system only 1 person will end up with all the money (that can be computed btw). So was Marx, he never says the 1 person with all control at the end ends up with everything.

Tesla cars are advertised as the most efficient cars with best "millage". We own 1 Toyota Camry Hybrid, and 2 Teslas (my Millennium brother buys all the stupid hype on this planet without questioning it). The "gas" bill for Tesla is almost twice that of Camry if charged in Tesla stations. More, that 0 "water" oil in Toyota Camry if you put into a regular car (KIA OPTIMA) will render your gas millage almost that of Toyota Camry (I have done it). More, Black Diesel is legal in USA. You can run your diesel boat for almost free if you know how to correctly prepare black diesel and how to tweak that motor, but almost no one does it.

Solar panels are a scam for residential houses, but people install them. They don't know how to calculate correctly, but you can literally take your bills now, move to California for example, install solar panels, and show us both bills later on. Truth will be brutal.

And I can go on like this forever. Anything you investigate/calculate is like that. The bigger the genius the less of common sense, and the less of big picture view. More, very often it's all advertising, ego, money, power, corporations, etc. T. Kaczynski talks about this is his book even back in the 80's .

Bare with me, I am going somewhere with this. Boats are no different. Most of those authors about boats I read have clearly standing out ego, promoting their designs and calculations, but quick verification shows there are flaws there. And it happens that the biggest flaw (that's nobody's fault) is the most fundamental flaw when it comes to boat design. It has to do with speed of an object (hull in this example) in the water.

*Before we start, when I say sailboat, I mean displacement sailboat with hull inside water pushing the water. The Stern does not separate from water.

Explanation:
There is a method to calculate the MAX hull speed of a sailboat using hull's water line and made up speed to length ratio. Where the "madeup" speed to length ratio is a "constant" depending on hull/boat type/design. That method if explained slowly and correctly to elementary school kids could be questioned by few. Some kids could ask "What about if the boat is thin or fat?". They would be wrong, but their mind/eyes would notice something here. They would notice the formula does not take hull shape/lines into effect. That is because the formula calculates MAX speed only. It does not matter what the hull shape is to a sailboat, if you can come up with enough force to counter the resistance you will overcome the hull "shape" and get to the MAX speed. Easy. I think we all agree so far. Makes sense right? No, IT DOES NOT. Let's keep going.

Along came another naval architect, who calculated the speed of waves. He realized the speed of waves is CONSTANT for length between the waves. That constant is this: 1.34 It takes SQUARE ROOT OF the length between the waves TIMES 1.34 to arrive SPEED of ANY object MOVING in water. Read again. Do you see the problem or no?

Yes, both formulas calculate the same thing, but they contradict each other. One mutually excludes the other. Either waves move with this speed and the boat speed can't be calculated separately from the wave speed, or there is no wave speed and sailboats can sail at any imaginary speed you come with.

Obviously, the correct answer is any object pushing water is limited by the speed of the water he is pushing, because the object can't pass the water he is pushing (not talking about planing boats here). That is the only logical answer. So the architect who invented the speed of pushed waves is the correct one. This subtle change has some consequences in sailboat design:

1. The speed to length ratio used by designers of 1.25 to 1.5 is silly. Not only it's wrong, it's used at will based on their "assumptions". Actually knowing the number is 1.34 I came up with 2 formulas (also wrong but 10 times better) to calculate correct speeds for different sailboats depending on hull design. My formulas will finally allow you to compare boats. The difference is big enough.

2. Being able to calculate speed correctly using my formulas you will be able to take all sailboats in existence and truly evaluate their hulls. This will remove marketing/hype/glory/shame from some boats. I already checked and was surprised.

3. Knowing correct speed you will be able to design a sailboat where reaching HIGH AVERAGE SPEED (most important) is much easier. Seeing which boat reaches average speed easier will be available now.

4. The guessing game of the speed to length ratio between 1.25 and 1.5 is no longer needed, which was always wrong btw.

5. Most important. All sailboats have the same MAX speed for the water line they have. Hence all those boats out there basically sail between 6 and 8 knots max on paper.

6. Having correct speed and being able to compare boats now, one can design a boat that won't hobby horse, will be smoother, easier to push faster, easier to handle. It will allow to build smaller sails, small engine, etc. You name it.

There is more but I kept this to minimum just as introduction to what I'm thinking. The other stuff I don't really know yet. I concentrated on the most important aspect of boating, which is object moving inside of water body. We all agree there is such a thing as the most optimal hull. It does exist in theory, and maybe I found a Mathematician that can help me calculate it, but it will be hard. I already played with BEAMs of the boat, and I think I found the perfect ratios for that, but I have no way of proving it mathematically yet.

There will be tons of people that will disagree with what I wrote, or those that will say DA, you discovered nothing. It's true, my intent is not to discover much, I just wanted to put all info that's out there together into a big picture, validate it and refocus it, since it's not in the books. Obviously any boat built using speed to length ratios is good enough, maybe even best. But I wanted to remove the guessing and have a simple formula (btw my formulas are insanely simply, anybody here will calculate it with in few seconds) that gives us optimal designs.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by NewAlexandria

There is more but I kept this to minimum just as introduction to what I'm thinking. The other stuff I don't really know yet. I concentrated on the most important aspect of boating, which is object moving inside of water body. We all agree there is such a thing as the most optimal hull. It does exist in theory, and maybe I found a Mathematician that can help me calculate it, but it will be hard. I already played with BEAMs of the boat, and I think I found the perfect ratios for that, but I have no way of proving it mathematically yet.

There will be tons of people that will disagree with what I wrote, or those that will say DA, you discovered nothing. It's true, my intent is not to discover much, I just wanted to put all info that's out there together into a big picture, validate it and refocus it, since it's not in the books. Obviously any boat built using speed to length ratios is good enough, maybe even best. But I wanted to remove the guessing and have a simple formula (btw my formulas are insanely simply, anybody here will calculate it with in few seconds) that gives us optimal designs.

My question is, if you can't prove it mathematically yet, how do you know you are right? Perhaps you will forgive us if we say, come back when you have the math to back it up.

[NewAlexandria]

Read again, I was not talking about my speed formula. You kind of "manipulated" the quote. I was saying I have ANOTHER theory on how to design an optimal sailboat mathematically, but I can't calculate it yet. 2 different things.

Read my post 10 times, take calculator out. Check everything I wrote. Check calculations in the book. Go and ask everyone how come you're using speed to length ratios if the waves are moving at 1.34. Ask those questions. I'm only a messenger.

[TrentePieds]

NewAlexandia sez: "Most of those authors about boats I read have clearly standing out ego..."


HUH??? Who does :-0)?

TP

[Bowdrie]

Of course a vessel can exceed a S/L ratio of 1.34, that number is not etched in stone for ALL displacement hulls.
The last iteration of the US Destroyers of WWII, the "Gearing" class made almost 37Kts. on a WL of ~380Ft., (depending upon load,) if you do the math you'll find that speed is well in excess of a 1.34 ratio.
How did it make that speed?
Easy, it had a huge amount of horsepower, and a B/L ratio of close to 10:1, when your vessel is 10 times as long as its beam speed becomes easier.
There are also recorded instances of square-rigged ships also exceeding what is generally considered as "hull speed".
As far as B/L ratio, I'm not so sure many cruisers would want a 60' boat that only had a beam of perhaps 6>8Ft.
The staffs of the School of Naval Architecture at MIT and the David Taylor Model Basin might welcome you to present your knowledge/ideas/theories.
While you're waiting for their responses there is another thread where the OP could use your help in design and acheiving some speed.
https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...on-281607.html

[NewAlexandria]

Show me mathematically how what you say is true. You can't have both formulas or assumptions TRUE. They are mutually exclusive. All those examples and bragging online, that's all that is bragging.

I said an object in the water has to travel faster than the waves it creates in order to go faster than 1.34. Prove me it's not true. And if you do the Wave Speed theory is wrong. Read 10 times what I wrote and spend a month before you reply. Examples of some boat someone said went this and that has no meaning in physics.

Better, show me a sailboat that pushes waves and stays in water but passed the waves. Not a single picture of that because it's not physically possible. You can't have an object move in the water and not push the water. Length and power has no meaning here. It's not length or power that limits MAX speed of a sailboat.

Really, spent a month thinking what I wrote. I only proved that both theories are mutually exclusive. Nothing else.