What on earth?

an area to discuss dinghy developments
davidh
Posts: 3166
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:43 am
Location: Ventor Isle of Wight

Re: What on earth?

Post by davidh »

Jim.... yep, you've put your finger right on the spot that I'd just tried to highlight! What IS a failure? Certainly, I'd not class the Laser II as one, it was, for many years, a spectacular success.

In the end it comes down to an interesting difference between a boat that has failed and a boat that was a failure. The Ghost only sold 22 boats in the UK, but I'd not class that boat either as a failure, though the class itself failed. The Jacksnipe was a failure, though through no fault of it's own.

Michael 4 - now that is an interesting perspective! It is not that hard to fairly quickly pull the rug on a good number of the Proctor designs. It is not that they were bad boats BUT - nor were they good! Now the Marlin is interesting, for if you wanted a boat that would be very good at classic dinghy events, then a Marlin, with a reasonable spinnaker, would be a good boat to sail. But you'd have to ask the question 'why would you want too'?

Come on Michael, you've added the Marlin to the list of nominations, you now need to say why you rated the boat so lowly!

D
David H
LASERTOURIST
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 9:54 pm
Location: France

Re: What on earth?

Post by LASERTOURIST »

I didnt know about the Cherub / Laser 2 connection, but most of the 70's boats were more or less influenced by the FD (certainly the case with the contender ) , it can also be said of the Equipe junior trainer (Marc Laurent designed it as a mini FD ) and it is strikingly similar to the Laser 2 except that it is something like at the 9/10 th scale...

As for the spreaders the problem is quite different between a keel stepped + mast gate boat and a deck stepped mast boat.

The mast gate and raked spreaders are used to control the longitudinal mast bend .
If the mast gate is closed (not allowed on early 420 and 470) it even can be done without putting too much rig tension (prebending the mast to get a flatter sail on flat water and point a bit closer to the wind while keeeping little tension on the sail leech and allowing air to flow out.

The early 420 s had no spreaders , no mast gates and a rather sturdy wooden mast that had no trouble accepting the retrofit of a trap wire (granted it was lightweigts only and primitive spreaders were often included in the trapeze conversion).

The raked spreaders (with some degree of rake adjustment and a strong collar fitting on the mast ) and the mast gate came in when small diameter aluminium masts were introduced in the mid late sixties.

I think the silly boat breaking rig tension (that caused so much trouble on the mid seventies lightbuilt Lanaverre 420) were brought in for the sake of jib cable kept taut and pointing a few degrees higher and has little to do with trapeze issues (It may be different on higher 505s masts where the fixing point of the trapeze wire is used to interfere with mast bend) .

As for the L 2 i saw a late example of the depowered "fun "version (not the regatta or the 3000) factory fitted with conventional spreaders , probably because it used a different (and sturdier ) mast extrusion from the original batches (the original proctor extrusion profile seems to have been discontinued at some point ).

My guess is that the initial extrusion profile (a rather thin one)on the L2 was selected because it could be fitted with an inner sleeve or a higher, thinner and more flexible top section (for the sake of car topping and alternative regatta / fun version ) .
LASERTOURIST
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 9:54 pm
Location: France

Re: What on earth?

Post by LASERTOURIST »

The Tasar was certainly a good design, lightweight Foam reinforced plastic construction PSI tried to market it as the 2 men dinghy from Laser , but had no spinnaker so the crew had no toy to play with (granted at hihgher levels the crew does most of the tactics and strategy , leaving the boatspeed aspect to the helmsman ,but at club level the crew may be glad to be in charge of something more than the jibsheet and boat balance).

The fact that it had chines (thanks to FRP construction) made it look a little old fashioned like a plywood boat adapted to plastic and that didn't help either

I may be wrong but i seem to remember a rotating mast on the Tasar (catamaran fashion) was it really efficient in the speed band dinghies usually sail?
alan williams
Posts: 1650
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 10:44 pm
Location: Devon

Re: What on earth?

Post by alan williams »

Hi
Sailed an early Laser two in 1974 ( it may even have been a prototype), and asked to test it. Needless to say we brought more Larks. Racing was blown off conditions wild. Crew Hornet sailors. Here is are feed back. Whats Wrong. Hull too shallow for good trapezing postion, if low crew is dragged through waves. Mast two piece disaster very little control over bend in these conditions. Boom too light can bend and a set set in. Rudder too small and stalls out. Spinnaker too baggy, pole system really naff makes take downs very hairy. Sails Cheap cloth. Kicker not powerfully enough but if power full enough could break/kink boom. Mainsheet system poor. Hated Dagger board. Very little room for the crew. very uncomfortable hiking postion fof helm. Sloppy tiller to rudder head connection ( may only have been typical of this boat),. Basically a raid on a Laser parts bin with an extended hull. Read somewhere that the first 1000 Laser two's were heavily discounted to Universities and the armed forces to build up the numbers. I'm not saying that the L2 was a failure, just that it was not a very well thought out boat with too many compromises made in it's design and execution. Like all things Laser built very cheaply and sold for a packet. ISO as Rupert stated mainsail terrible, boat heavy. Wings used break and the insert points weaked hull. Some people used the wings when over the weight limits for there use in Handicap racing gaining unfair advantage. Publicity hyped up performance 505 beater etc. when it could not beat a Fireball or Hornet. Hull whilst very stable seemed to pound going to windward in waves but a better thought out boat than the L2. Vandercrafts have given a new lease of life to the old dog with their updating to produce the V3000 reports of which are very postive in that it is a well sorted boat with good performance, a real pocket rocket by all accounts. It's what the L2 should have been from the beginning.
Cheers Al
Last edited by alan williams on Fri Jan 24, 2014 12:59 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Michael4
Posts: 504
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 5:25 pm
Location: West Sussex

Re: What on earth?

Post by Michael4 »

davidh wrote:
Michael 4 - now that is an interesting perspective! It is not that hard to fairly quickly pull the rug on a good number of the Proctor designs. It is not that they were bad boats BUT - nor were they good! Now the Marlin is interesting, for if you wanted a boat that would be very good at classic dinghy events, then a Marlin, with a reasonable spinnaker, would be a good boat to sail. But you'd have to ask the question 'why would you want too'?

Come on Michael, you've added the Marlin to the list of nominations, you now need to say why you rated the boat so lowly!

D
Prefixing my comments with statements about limited experience, lack of agility, age etc etc we probably bought the wrong boat...because it was cheap. Downwind in a blow it was wet and I think quite quick. What unsettled me though was an unpredictability and 'tippiness' that made me apprehensive. Also seemed slow to turn. I guess I was comparing it with Albacores and occasional trips in an Osprey. Anyway, I was happy to see it go and have never seen another. Not a very scientific review but I just didn't like it.

And then there was the colour...

Michael
Tideway 206
11+
Sold the 'Something bigger and plastic', it never got used.
solentgal
Posts: 466
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:01 pm
Location: twixt Chichester & Pompey

Re: What on earth?

Post by solentgal »

Rupert.....The Concept 302 is an interesting design.... I still have mine, but only been able to sail it once so far... I bought it specifically to roof-top on my 1955 Standard 10, and therefore needed something small and light, but fun. I have always assumed it was aimed at youngsters stepping up from Oppies and wanting to learn how to handle a gennaker. It is certainly youth sized with it's narrow beam and lowish volume, and very light to handle ashore.
I was amazed that I could get it to plane fairly easily.... I'm at the top end of the recommended weight at about 65K, and mine has the small rig..... main 4.2m (bigger main is 5.1m) and gennaker at a mere 2m .....I just measured mine. Interestingly I can only find reference to a genny size of 3.8m, but that would give it an 8m total rig.....Moth sized....on a smaller junior boat??? I think it more likely I have the standard genny which gives a rig size on mine of 6.2m total (7.1m with the bigger main) both of which give more canvas than a Topper.
I was sailing in a brisk F3, and found it great fun to sail, and although I'm tall (for a woman) there was plenty of room under the boom. It did mean that the straps were wrong for my leg length though, but would probably have been great for a youngster..... I wish I had the larger mainsail. I used to train kids in Oppies and Toppers many years ago, and I think they would have had a lot of fun in a 302.
I guess it wasn't successful here due to the Topper.......but having sailed both, I think I much prefer the Concept for fun, although the Topper is probably a better all round family boat.

Out of interest, would this boat qualify as a lost class? Would it be welcome at a CVRDA meeting if I hadn't anything else eligible and seaworthy?

Designs that I'm not keen on.........had a bad experience in a Skipper (can't remember if it was a 12 or 14) sailing offshore in Greece. Ok it was probably pushing it a bit, F4 and lumpy, but the whole boat flexed so much, slammed badly, and the rig was impossible to control with any degree of confidence.......we abandoned ship fairly quickly. As a concept for a family picnic boat it was ok.....but could have been so much better with a little more thought to hull production at the design stage, and a more refined (but still simple) rig.
Agree with the comments re beach boats in general, in particular the Swallow, and always suspected the Bonito did exactly what Nessa described. There are many beach boats that fall into that category I think.....My Flying Saucer certainly did.....and I wasn't impressed with my Sea bat.....not enough buoyancy, and dug the lee rail in every tack and stalled.....couldn't get it to sail to windward really. The sunfish, however I think is brilliant, so simple and comfortable, sails much better than I expected and really fulfills it's purpose in my opinion.....no real faults apart from needing a more vertical rudder blade......which proves beach boats can be designed well in my opinion.
Sami.
alan williams
Posts: 1650
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 10:44 pm
Location: Devon

Re: What on earth?

Post by alan williams »

Hi Solent girl
The Concept would classifie as a lost class (no Class association), and would be welcome. Had a friend at school who brought a Bonito and quickly made deeper Spitfire wing foils, filled in the dagger board case to accomodate the new more efficient dagger. Cut down the boom increased the mast length and made a new sail for it as part of his woodwork project (at least the foils were),. Boat went a hell of alot better with these improvements even if it was out of class, but he didn't care.
Cheers Al
Last edited by alan williams on Fri Jan 24, 2014 12:22 pm, edited 3 times in total.
solentgal
Posts: 466
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:01 pm
Location: twixt Chichester & Pompey

Re: What on earth?

Post by solentgal »

Thanks Al.....good to know I have a "reserve" boat if needed. Yes, I think a lot of the dodgy designs could be improved with a little effort...... I was going to make e replacement rudder blade for my Sunfish to take the awful weather helm away.....it was like sailing with the rudder half up.......but I never got that far. If I ever have another one (which is just possible) then it will be the first job to be done!
Sami.
JimC
Posts: 1721
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2004 10:24 pm
Location: Surrey
Contact:

Re: What on earth?

Post by JimC »

alan williams wrote: Publicity hyped up performance 505 beater etc. when it could not beat a Fireball or Hornet.
Portsmouth Yardstick returns consistently have the ISO close to the 505 (around 10 points) and a long way ahead (50 odd points) of the Fireball and Hornet. The hyped up publicity appears to have been far more accurate than your estimate. 10 points (1 point in old money) is close to level terms. Not that I'm going to claim it was a particularly good boat. All of those UK "we've seen a photograph of a skiff and looked at pre amalgamation 14s" boats were pretty poor.
alan williams
Posts: 1650
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 10:44 pm
Location: Devon

Re: What on earth?

Post by alan williams »

Hi Jim the ISO's that The Plymouth Hornet Fleet raced against were unable to match us on a normal club course on a regular basis. They may have been better on a W/L course but we never found out. Club fleet sailing of 22 competitive Hornets on most race nights may have been the reason for these results. As you know the chop at Plymouth has a great effect on the performance of flatter hulls to windward.
Cheers Al
Rupert
Posts: 6255
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:40 pm
Location: Cotswold Water Park

Re: What on earth?

Post by Rupert »

Crew skill factor in individual cases will always outweigh genuine boat speed - all the more so with boats that are hard to sail in the 1st place. I crewed Isos on the same water as Fireballs, and it was certainly a faster boat. Simply bigger and more powerful. However, if there was a lot of dead down wind stuff, or tight reaches, the Fireball was far more versatile and would often be ahead despite being slower when sailing alongside.
Rupert
LASERTOURIST
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 9:54 pm
Location: France

Re: What on earth?

Post by LASERTOURIST »

Iso certainly had issues with the racks (the dowels / holes arrangement to fasten them in the hull) and otherwise it wasen' t an outstanding boat ....Le Laser 4K definitely had been better thought of and was better de - bugged before launch....the only troubles with the 4K were the quick kite wear (chute , pole system etc) the not very useful orientation system of he pole and the overall weight (which granted long lasting hulls anyway).

In the topper range the Buzz was way bettter than the ISO and Boss.


Asfor the Laser 2 i think it was good for school / training purposes in light to medium conditions but started to fall to pieces in heavy conditions or when pushed hard for racing.

We organized the Laser Euro Masters in Corsica in 2008 and on the last day the races were cancelled as there was a 30 to 40 Kts Mistral coming in with very vicious gusts.

A few laser sailors (among them steve Cockerill) went out and enjoyed , I enjoyed too (I had selected a short windsurf and was hopelessly overcanvassed with a 5 SqM sail) .

A guy from the Irish team snatched our (well worn) Laser 2, the reduced sail "fun " version (he wanted to entertain on of the irish girls in our club staff and i was stupid enough to let them go)....the mast did'nt need even a capsize or a death roll to crack and there was no trapeze fitted on that boat ...it just cracked somewhere under the diamond bars fitting, and i had to tow them (with a power boat , not the windsurf)....

The original laser was regularly beefed up in the early stages of production (especially the critical vang clamp on the boom (new fitting, inner sleeve , reinforced inner sleeve) and same thing occured with the radial lower mast, even the sail was beefed up (because 2.2 oz cloth was no longer available they went to 3.8

the use of the same tube for top mast and boom was a good idea to keep the boat cheap (many booms made out of broken top masts ) but it had it's drawbacks (no centre main , bendy boom as vang tension increased under the pressure of competitive racing)....using the same tube for the Laser 2 with increased loads was a problem (i suppose it was tackled the same way , with an inner sleeve ) but the strangely stayed mast remained an issue.


The Equipe hull is remarkably similar to the Laser 2 but one of the differences is the mast foot arrangement: on the Equipe it is stepped on the cockpit bottom (with some sort of stanchion underneath the cockpit bottom) and is held in a kind of mast gate built in the front cockpit wall that helps keep the mast in one part.

Granted , the rig is different, with a genoa / high boom FD like look (and it is of course markedly smaller ) but the equipe never had issues with the mast like the L2 had.

The L3000 (same hull , centreboard and rudder) but different skiff like rig , and the V3000 were certainly faster and better ....but the price had rocketed.

I think the most difficult thing for a dinghy designer is not designing a fast boat or a long lasting boat (any idiot or at least any average designer / boat builder can do that , provided he has a deep pocket and access to top composite technology) but the real challenge is to build a cheap yet fast and durable boat, (the kind ofboat that people will buy in great numbers and become also a popular one design racer by the sheer number of equalboats around) , because you have to make very well thought compromises and choices.
davidh
Posts: 3166
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:43 am
Location: Ventor Isle of Wight

Re: What on earth?

Post by davidh »

Jim C wrote...
Portsmouth Yardstick returns consistently have the ISO close to the 505 (around 10 points) and a long way ahead (50 odd points) of the Fireball and Hornet. The hyped up publicity appears to have been far more accurate than your estimate. 10 points (1 point in old money) is close to level terms. Not that I'm going to claim it was a particularly good boat. All of those UK "we've seen a photograph of a skiff and looked at pre amalgamation 14s" boats were pretty poor.

Jim, I'd say your analysis is pretty much on the mark! We had some good ISO sailors locally and they were a tricky boat to beat in quite a wide range of conditions. The boat had a couple of real weaknesses..... a square run, when they were just unable to generate the VMG to overcome the conventional boats that just sailed for the mark. The other real weakness was on a two sail reach, when that big roach on the mainsail made keeping the boat pointing in the right direction and more importantly, keeping the power on, something of a real problem.

The harsh reality was that by then even the Fireball bubble had eased off and though the Hornet had had tweaks on the rig, their refusal to modernise and adapt meant that they were never really able to match the newer boats for pace - except in some very specific conditions. I don't have the stats to hand and besides, you're far better at this than I am, but if we take the last 20 years - 1993 to 2013, how many Hornets and Fireballs have ben registered, compared with the Isos, Laser 4000s and now RS 800s. The trouble is, if you spread your net even wider, how many 505s have been UK registered in that time? Bottom line is that the performance boats may been going quicker but there is a lot less of them!

D
David H
LASERTOURIST
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 9:54 pm
Location: France

Re: What on earth?

Post by LASERTOURIST »

The trouble with 505 , Fireballs and many other "old school" dinghies is that Forty ,Fifty or more years of refinement led the original simple , even crude (but affordable) boats into peaks of sophistication and into a nightmare of complicated spaghettis , each one with a dozen ballbearing cleats and cleats....and Harken carbo blocks arn't cheap these days.

Thats why , even though the classses still exist and owners keep on racing , there are very few new boats produced each year ,and considerably less than in the golden 60's and 70's

In comparison a "modern" skiff like say the Iso or Laser 4K may seem awfully complicated if compared to a beach boat (say Hobie Cat 16 which is both fast and crude ...and enormously enjoyable in a breeze) but it is a miracle of simplicity compared with a top notch , incredibly expensive 505 or 470.

The single manufacturer configuration generally goes with some sort of strict one-design principle
(only one sailmaker , fixed controls layout , no go fast gadgets added) that keep the price within reasonable limits
davidh
Posts: 3166
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:43 am
Location: Ventor Isle of Wight

Re: What on earth?

Post by davidh »

Laser Tourist,

How right you are!

This year sees the 60th anniversary of the 505 Class, so at the Dinghy Show there will be a display of 505s showing the development of the boat. I'm not sure what boat they will have on the main stand but if it is a state of the art 'new boat' then you are looking at 28,000 euros worth of performance. Little wonder that the number of new boats registered here in the Uk is but a mere handful.

the other issue is that the new boats (8400 and after) are now sailed off a PY of 902. Yet, for all those wonderful and still sound Parker 25s and Rondars out there, this is a totally unrealistic PY for the Round the Cans club sailing that used to be the forte for the boat. It ought to be the case that the recommendation that the older boats sail off 938 be given greater importance but this would need more support from the Class and it just doesn't seem to be happening.

So, the class has lost it's broad base of appeal and now, with the exception of a few that still do the events (and it is just a few) are all that remains of one of the great classes. But elsewhere in Europe, Australia and the US, the class is booming!

D
David H
Post Reply