The CVRDA

Hi George,

I also have an old Roland europe - see the thread.

I put your query to the 'experts' here in the class association, this is what I got:

"I can't say what it is but it's probably not a Claridge, Taylor or Duquennoy. The tanks on my
Taylor had fore and aft orientation of grain on the outer veneer and I don't think he did any
all wood hulls. My Duquennoy has the same orientation of veneer on the cockpit floor as
the tanks whereas the boat in the picture has it laid at 90° to the angle on the tanks. My
boat also has a modern curved traveller and no cockpit floor reinforcement.

I suspect that Roland / Christalli had a longer production run than most other builders. The
fact that it has some different features to a known Roland doesn't necessarily mean it's not
an earlier Roland. Also if I wanted to replace some lost cockpit floor stiffness I might be
tempted to glue in some longitudinal stiffeners myself. There's no guarantee they were
there at build.

The US association seems to have been dormant since about 2008 so it's good to the see
some Europe sailing is still going on under the auspices of the Classic Moth class.

Sorry I can't be of more help.

Andy"

Hi George
Sorry for delay...been out in the sun working on one of the other boats, a Scorpion, ...(should be pics on here shortly of that one)....but here is a pic of an old advert (Yachts and Yachting, July 24th 1964) for a Tangye Europa Moth....just to throw another builders's name into the ring. I can't tell you any more than can be seen in the ad, and having looked at the pic of "Gypsy" I can't offer any further thoughts I'm afraid.



I'm still trying to work out who built my Europa Moth, all my pics on the link below:

http://s1177.photobucket.com/albums/x341/solentgal/

The one thing I do know is that the dimensions of my Moth differ slightly to those of the Roland Europe that I passed on to Nessa......I had the forethought to do a bit of measuring before she collected it......didn't note the dimensions stupidly, but the cockpit width between the tanks is noticably different for example......and of course my Moth has a swing keel. My original Europa Moth that I owned in the early '70s also had a swing keel, but I have never seen another E. Moth (as opposed to a Europe) so I'm not sure how common that was.......I have seen plenty of pics of early E.M.s with dagger-boards though.

Any thoughts anyone?

If you want measure,ments taken that's no problem - just tell me where.

Thanks Nessa..........2539 is back on her side in the (very tidy) garage at present while I crack on with the Scorpion....I don't want to get caught with all the early good weather and no seaworthy boat like last spring......so I'm afraid that's the kiss of death on a good spring folks......I'll be ready and we'll have snowstorms until July I'll try and remember to take a couple of measurements and let you know so we can compare anyway, thanks

Nessa and Sami: Many thanks for the input. That same photo from the Tangye ad also appeared in an ad in an early 1960s issue of MOTH DOINGS (the old Moth year book). The photo was part of an ad by John Wright Boats. Wright, who operated out of a shop in Germantown (suburban Philadelphia), Pennsylvania, built a number of different dinghies and also imported several Moth designs from both England and the continent. The Europa was one of those boats but I believe I'm correct in saying the Wright wasn't very successful in shifting very many. As an aside, Wright was instrumental in introducing the GP-14 to the USA. He only sold one or two Europas during that time period as the Cates "Florida" design was the boat to beat. By comparison, the Europa was both heavier than many contemporary Moths and additionally did not have the sophisticated sail shape controls seen on current Europe dinghies. Thanks for posting the photos of the boat with the fore deck removed. Very instructional.

George

Hi George,

Interesting, many thanks......if you need/want any more pics of my Europa let me know and I can take some and post them.

Lots more interesting stuff coming out - mention of Magnum 9.9 GBR-4009 reminds me that my last Moth was GBR-4010............

Back to "The Magnum Story" (or should that be 'Magnum Force'?)

While the Magnum 3 was the weapon of choice from 1977 to 1981, for the 1978 Worlds in Australia the Magnum 4 was produced - this was from the Magnum 2 mould opened out by 3" at the transom (so halfway between the M2 and Magnalium) for stability. John Claridge and Richard Hargreaves took two to Oz and were quickest in the light as expected, held their own in medium stuff but fell foul of being the only two quick skiffs in a huge fleet of scows (similarly to when a scow or two came to Europe for a Worlds and encountered mostly light winds).
Unfortunately one of the races was held in almost a full gale (which caused a lot of damage even to the Aussies) and the Brits decided not to sail since they were hoping to sell their boats - so Hargraves had to count a race where his trampolines had come unlaced and he finished near the back, as there was only one discard - if he'd finished better than 14th in that one, he'd have won overall.

I don't know whether any more M4s were built here, but the two that were sold out there in '78 were copied in GRP sandwich by some guys in New Zealand, and the only pics I have are from an old article about their building. I wonder if any still exist?

Next time: a sideline to the Phobia.

Paul

Those interested in seeing what's under the decking and cockpit tub of a Mk I Rondar Skol Moth can satisfy they're curiosity by viewing the pix which I've just posted on my blog spot:

http://mid-atlanticmusings.blogspot.com ... rt-ii.html

George in Maryland

Thanks! Its scary how little there is in the way of stiffening - I guess to keep weight down. I tbought there would be a fore-aft spine in the bow tank to support forestay loads and something like a bulkhead from the stay chainplates.

Have you got shots of under the deck?

Also curious as to why you did this - and hope we never have to do the same with Matt''s Hopple..

jpa: If you scroll around on my blog you'll find the first post about this Skol and some photos of the boat when purchased. The decks were heavily damaged and the interior of the hull was packed solid with all manner of dirt, sticks, squirrel's nests, etc. The decks had to come off in order to save the hull. I didn't take photos of the under sides of the decks but basically, like the hull, the decking consisted of glass skins over a foam core. In high stress areas there were localized foam filled fiberglass tubes as part of the laminating schedule. The only fore stay support in my Skol was a very small mahogany block glued into the stem of the boat. The fore stay fitting screwed directly through the glass of the stem into that wood block. After removing the fore stay fitting (which was bent), the block fell to the bottom of the hull!

Why do all this? A good question! In hindsight it would have been simpler to build a ply Mistral hull from scratch. I guess it just bothered me to see this poor old Moth go to the dump rather than back to the race course where she belongs. With that in mind, I'll need to pay attention during the rebuilding phase to make sure the finished boat doesn't get overly heavy. The Skol isn't particularly light to begin with and our minimum hull weight for Classic Moth Boats is 75 lbs. After I trim off the wings, which our rules don't permit, I'll weigh the hull. If it weighs around 35 lbs or so I'll have a sporting shot at an 80 lb finished boat using 3 and 4 mm ply. I have a feeling that the original glass transom will probably be replaced with a plywood one in the interest of saving weight.

George

That is a great blog, George. We are really missing a trick with no classic Moth bimbling and racing over here.

Agree with Rupert there - and its very interesting to see a Skol in bits... I think Matts was never stored with those hatches off! Always comes back bone dry from sailing (inside.)

Yours is I think a Mk II skol as far as I know the Mk 1 did not have the self-draining cockpit. Best wishes with the restoration. But if you can I would keep the winglets on! Is there a max width rule where you are?

And there should be no embarrassment about not returning to the original as these Skol moths were very odd in that there were more than 2 of them built the same!

The Classic Moths in the US have a 5 foot max width, John, so the winglets need to go. If I remember rightly, there were pictures of another Skol hull being done on the CMBA website a few years ago.
Of course, the major difference between the classic Moths over here and over there is the rig. Here, there are mostly high aspect fully battened rigs on the old boats, with just a few with the low aspect, but the US association have plumped for the one design low aspect sail. Given the number of later low riders, it wouldn't really work in the UK as the US have done it.

Mk I or Mk II? I can't profess a deep knowledge of Skol Moths but perhaps someone within this group can educate me. I will first offer up my limited, direct knowledge of these boats.

Back in early 1970s four Skol Moths were imported by sailors at the Ocean City (New Jersey) Yacht Club. These boats were referred to by their owners as Mk I Skols. During shipment, one of the boats was heavily damaged and Rondar replaced it with what we called a Mk II Skol. Both boats had similar hulls but the replacement boat had a different cockpit configuration. The three surviving Skols (of which my current blue hull is one) all had closed transoms with a cockpit scupper lead to a small square opening at the bottom center of the transom by a tube hidden behind the aft wall of the cockpit tub. The replacement boat did not have a laser style cockpit tub with the scupper but instead had a cockpit which terminated with an open transom. Interestingly, unlike the red boat which is pictured within this forum on a different post, none of the Ocean City Skols had pivoting centerboards. I assume that the pivoting centerboard is either a later modification or perhaps an early production example prior to Rondar standardizing around the dagger board style trunk. I will be very interested in feedback to either correct or uphold my assumptions.

As for organizing a UK based Classic Moth Club--I highly recommend it! My recommendation is that at first keep things simple and race any and all boats which come out to play regardless of which rig or era they represent. After a few events, hopefully the number of participants and boats will grow and some performance bracketing will prove useful. Here in the States we race three brackets: Vintage (pre-1953 designs), Generation I Classics (designs from roughly 1954 to the early 1960s) and Generation II Classics (designs after the Gen I period or new designs judged to have performance characteristics similar to narrow waterline boats such as the Duflos, Mistral and Skol. Boats which are new to us are eyeballed and provisionally assigned to a bracket with adjustments up or down as required. As noted, we have standardized around the low aspect (circle-M) rig (not to be confused with that of the British Moth which uses the same insignia). Two obvious brackets for your purposes could be divisions for low and high aspect rigs--if a critical mass of low aspect rigged boats materialize. Boats like the Shelley which started off with low rigs actually do quite well when converted to the tall rig.

As you may know, there is a French Classic Moth group: http://louis.pillon.pagesperso-orange.fr/moth/ So perhaps a friendly rivalry could be established.


George

thakns for the history there George.

I'm reasonably certain that no Roland Skols were built with pivoting boards - some modified later. And that the Mk II Skol is what you call Mk I and our Mk III is your Mk II.

Meanwhile I have been searching as the UK moth website used to have a lot of historical documents on it (e.g Roland sales info for the boats). I cant locate that now... if anyone knows where its gone?

Matt's Skol (used to be Rupert's) is in the cvrda gallery, http://cvrda.org/coppermine/thumbnails.php?album=27