Yachting Volume I Part 5

In 1878 the Yacht Racing a.s.sociation recognised the right of builders to have the same length on load-water-line as that for which they were taxed on deck, and that without forcing them into adopting abnormal shapes, and therefore determined that the length should be measured on the load-water-line. Though it was at once pointed out that this would lead to overhang, so strong was prejudice in favour of the old-fashioned straight stem, that no advantage was taken of this until the advent of the 10-ton 'b.u.t.tercup' in 1880, and in her the outreach was extremely moderate. Indeed, it was impossible, with the deep, narrow style of yacht produced by the 94 rule, to use overhang to excess, this device only becoming objectionable when used in combination with a flat, shallow section. 'b.u.t.tercup' made a most excellent record; and though this was from causes quite apart from her clipper stem, yet she marks a stage as being the first cutter to reintroduce this adornment. 'b.u.t.tercup' was the work of an amateur, Mr. Robert Hewitt, and the following particulars of her may be of interest:--

_'b.u.t.tercup,' launched from yard at Barking, September 1880_

L.W.L. 42 ft. 3 in.

Extreme beam 7 ft. 4 in.

Draught 8 feet Least freeboard 2 ft. 9 in.

Displacement 22 tons Lead 14 "

Ship and gear 8 "

Sail-area 2,580 feet

First match, May 9, 1881; sailed 20 starts in 1881, won 15 firsts, 2 seconds; designed, owned, and sailed by Robert Hewitt, Esq., R.T.Y.C, now commodore.

I may mention that the first design for the 90-ton 'Vanduara' was drawn with a clipper or out-reaching stem; but I had not the heart to disfigure the boat (as I then considered I should be doing) by building her in this fashion. The rising generation of yachtsmen, however, is entirely reconciled to the clipper bow on a cutter-rigged yacht, and may eventually (though this seems improbable) look with complacency on such cut.w.a.ters as 'Dora's' or 'Britannia's.'

About this date--1875--builders were becoming more and more impressed with the value of a low centre of gravity got by outside lead, which, in combination with increased displacement, allowed of beam being reduced and length added almost indefinitely. Indeed, Mr. Dixon Kemp, probably the best authority on the subject in this country, declared somewhat later that there was no limit to this process of drawing out; and though I never could quite agree with him on that point, the beginning of the end was approaching, and yachts, more especially in the smaller cla.s.ses, were getting most uncomfortably narrow. The older men, however, were naturally timid about the introduction of external ballast, and it was left to 'the boys,' with the happy audacity and confidence of youth, to design 100-tonners with 70-ton keels, which, perhaps fortunately, did not get beyond the length of paper. But fives, tens, and twenties were built with nearly all their lead outside, and did not from that fact tear themselves asunder. Mr.

James Reid, of Port Glasgow, designer of the beautiful 10-tonner 'Florence' and many other fast boats, closely followed by Mr. John Inglis, of Pointhouse, and later by the writer, put all or nearly all of the ballast outside, and the practice in a few years became general.

[Ill.u.s.tration: 'Britannia,' 1893.

'Thistle,' 1887.

Sketch of cut.w.a.ters.]

Length and displacement went merrily on, as will be seen from the following tables and diagrams:--

_Elements of 5-Tonners (94 and 1730 Rules)_

+---------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+----------+--------+ Description | Diamond | Vril | Trident| Olga | Doris | Oona +---------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+----------+--------+ Length on | 25 ft. | 28 ft. | 32 ft. | 33 ft. | 33 ft. | 34 ft.

load-line | 3 in. | 4 in. | | | 8 in. | +---------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+----------+--------+ Breadth | 7 ft. | 6 ft. | 6 ft. | 5 ft. | 5 ft. | 5 ft.

Extreme |2-1/4 in.| 7 in. | |8-3/4 in.| 7 in. | 6 in.

+---------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+----------+--------+ Draught of | 4 ft. | 5 ft. | 6 ft. | 6 ft. | 7 ft. | 8 ft.

water extreme| 6 in. | 2 in. | 3 in. | 4 in. | | +---------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+----------+--------+ Displacement |4.92 tons|7.18 tons|8.9 tons|10.4 tons|12.55 tons|12.5 tons +---------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+----------+--------+ Total | 671 | 830 | 912 | 985 | 1,116 | area of | sq. ft. | sq. ft. | sq. ft.| sq. ft. | | lower sail | | | | | | +---------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+----------+--------+ Designer | W. Baden| G. L. | W. E. | W. E. | G. L. | W. E.

| Powell | Watson | Paton | Paton | Watson | Paton +---------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+----------+--------+ Date when | 1873 | 1876 | 1879 | 1883 | 1885 | 1886 built | | | | | | +---------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+----------+--------+

[Ill.u.s.tration: Chart.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Profiles of 5-tonners.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Sections showing decrease of breadth and increase of depth in 5-tonners--under 94 and 1730 Rules.]

In the autumn of 1881 it was thought a check might be put on this development by adopting a rule somewhat easier on beam than the existing 94 one, and in 1882 it was determined that the tonnage should be reckoned in accordance with the formula:--

((L + B){2} B) / 1730

[Ill.u.s.tration: Diagram of variation under different rules.]

The incidence of this rule is clearly enough shown by the diagram, where the possible dimensions for a 10-, 20-, 30-, and 40-tonner are plotted under both rules; the two curves crossing at a point where the vessel is about 5-1/4 beams in length. Below this point the new rule was easier on beam, and above it more severe; and it was thought that the extra beam admissible below the five-beam point would have induced builders to avail themselves of this quality; but beam, as we learn by the light of later years, was then altogether undervalued, and length was taken at any price, with the result that the adoption of extreme proportions was hastened rather than averted, till in 1886 a radical change in the rule was demanded, and in the autumn of that year a Committee of the Yacht Racing a.s.sociation, after taking most exhaustive evidence from the various experts, decided on the adoption of a rule proposed by Mr. Dixon Kemp, based solely on length (which was measured on the load-water-line) and on sail-area.

In this rule, breadth, so sorely taxed by the 94 rule, was left absolutely unfettered; depth as heretofore being also untaxed, so that infinite scope was left for experiment in the way of beam.

Simultaneously with this change, the use of the centreboard was permitted; and, as the pessimists declared, the road made clear for all manner of skimming dishes and consequent caprices. I ventured to point out at the time the possible dangers of unlimited beam, and proposed that the rule should be ((L +B) sail-area) / constant; but this limitation was held to be unnecessary, as, indeed, it appeared to be for a year or two. With the exception of the 'Thistle,' built immediately on the pa.s.sing of the rule, and built probably more with a view to American racing than performance in home waters, builders were somewhat chary of availing themselves of the advantages of beam, and, in the larger cla.s.ses at least, successive yachts, though getting broader, only 'slowly broadened down from precedent to precedent.' To Mr. Alfred Payne, of Southampton, is due the credit of showing what could be done with large beam and moderate displacement.

In 1889 he built the 'Humming Bird,' 2-1/2-rater, for Captain Hughes; this boat was 26 feet on water-line, 7.5 feet beam--that is, 3.46 beams in length--and was extremely successful against other and narrower boats, notably 'Thief' and 'Queen Mab', of like rating and designed by the writer.

_Elements of 40-Raters (Length and Sail Area Rule)_

+------------+--------+---------+------+-------+------+-----------+------+--------+ | | | | | |Centreboard| | Description | Mohawk |Deerhound|Creole| Thalia|Varuna| cutter-- | Lais |Vendetta | | | | | | Queen Mab | | +------------+--------+---------+------+-------+------+-----------+------+--------+ Length on } 61.23 | 58.85 |59 ft.| 59.14 |59 ft.| 59 ft. |59.92 | 59.96 load line } ft. | ft. | 6 in.| ft. | | 8 in. | ft. | ft.

+------------+--------+---------+------+-------+------+-----------+------+--------+ Breadth | 14.5 | 13 ft. |13 ft.| 13.9 |14 ft.| 16 ft. | | 17.05 extreme | ft. | 5 in. | 2-1/4| ft. | 7 in.| 4 in. |17 ft.| ft.

| | | in. | | | | | +------------+--------+---------+------+-------+------+-----------+------+--------+ Draught of } 9.5 | 11 ft. |12 ft.| 12 ft.|13 ft.| 10 ft. | | water } ft. |6-1/2 in.| | 6 in.| 4 in.| 9 in. | -- | -- extreme | | | | | | | | +------------+--------+---------+------+-------+------+-----------+------+--------+ Displacement| 58.8 | 58 tons | 58 | 57 | 55 | 54.8 | -- | -- | tons | | tons | tons | tons | tons | | +------------+--------+---------+------+-------+------+-----------+------+--------+ Designer { C. P. | G. L. |G. L. |W. Fife|G. L. | G. L. |W. Fife| A. E.

{ Clayton| Watson |Watson| jun. |Watson| Watson | jun. | Payne +------------+--------+---------+------+-------+------+-----------+------+--------+ Date when | 1888 | 1889 | 1890 | 1891 | 1892 | 1892 | 1893 | 1893 built | | | | | | | | +------------+--------+---------+------+-------+------+-----------+------+--------+

In 1890 'Iverna' was built, of practically the same length as, and of less beam than, 'Thistle,' and no great advance was made until the present year (1893) in the adoption of beam in the larger cla.s.ses; but the progress in this direction may be easily traced in the 'forty' and 'twenty' rating cla.s.ses, where the growth of beam and decline in displacement are very well marked, as the table and diagram show.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Diagram showing variation of dimensions, &c., with years. 40-raters. L. and S.A. Rule.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Profiles of 40-raters.]

1893 will be remembered as having produced four notable boats on this side of the Atlantic, and five in America; and in all nine due prominence is certainly given to beam, if, indeed, more breadth has not been taken, in some of these at least, than can be advantageously used.

The dimensions of these boats, so far as they have been obtainable, will be of interest.

[Ill.u.s.tration: 'Deerhound,' 1889 'Thalia,' 1891 'Varuna,' 1892 'Queen Mab,' 1892, C.B.

Midship sections of 40-raters.]

How far under the present rating rule beam may yet be increased with advantage to speed is still matter for debate and experiment.

Personally I am inclined to think we have pretty nearly approached the limit. But of this much I am confident, that we have long ago exceeded the limit where beam improves a yacht as a comfortable sea-going craft, and that we should have a much more wholesome and useful vessel for all purposes, except possibly for international racing, with somewhat less beam and somewhat more displacement.

The diagram given _ante_ may serve to give the reader an idea of the influence that the various tonnage or rating rules have had on the proportions and form of yachts.

_British Yachts, 1893_

+-----------+------+-------+-----------+--------+-----+------+ | |Length|Breadth| Y.R.A. |Length | |Y.R.A.| | Name | on | ext. | sail |over all|Draft|rating| | |L.W.L.| | area | | | | +-----------+------+-------+-----------+--------+-----+------+ | | feet | feet |square feet| feet | feet| | |Satanita | 97.7 | 24.7 | 9,923 | 131.0 | 16.5|161.58| |Britannia | 87.8 | 23.66 | 10,328 | 121.5 | 15.0|151.13| |Valkyrie | 86.8 | 22.33 | 10,271 | 117.25 | 16.3|148.58| |Calluna | 82.0 | 24.3 | 10,305 | -- | 15.0|140.83| +-----------+------+-------+-----------+--------+-----+------+

_American Yachts, 1893_

+------------------+------+-------+-----------+--------+-----+------+ | |Length|Breadth| Y.R.A. |Length | |Y.R.A.| | Name | on | ext. | sail |over all|Draft|rating| | |L.W.L.| | area | | | | +------------------+------+-------+-----------+--------+-----+------+ | | feet | feet |square feet| feet | feet| | |Navahoe, C.B. | 86.93| 23.0 | 10,815 | 128 | 13 | 156.7| |Vigilant, C.B. | 86.19| 26.25 | 12,330 | 124 | 14.0| 178 | |Colonia, K. | 85.00| 24.00 | -- | 124 | 14.0| -- | |Jubilee, C.B. and } 84.00| 22.5 | -- | 123 | 16.0| -- | | Fin } | | | | | | |Pilgrim, K. | 85.00| 23.0 | -- | 122 | 22.0| -- | +------------------+------+-------+-----------+--------+-----+------+

But an entirely false impression has been conveyed should it be understood that the only advance made in yacht designing was due to more or less ingenious methods of evading the existing measurement rule; and it will be sufficient if the fact has been impressed, that a designer is as unlikely to make a successful vessel if he ignores the measurement under which the yacht is to race as by failing to recognise those laws of nature which govern the stability of bodies in water and their resistance in pa.s.sing through it.

What has to be done by the yacht designer, besides getting the very utmost out of the tonnage rule, has never been more happily put than by Lord Dunraven in an article on International Yachting, from which I venture to quote:--

How most successfully to drive a body through the water by the means of the motive power of the wind acting upon the sails, is the question that puzzles men and turns them grey-headed before Nature should have thinned or whitened their locks. The designer has not merely to discover the form of solid body which, at various rates of speed, will excite the smallest degree of resistance in pa.s.sing through the water, for the body is not solid, it is hollow. It must have buoyancy, and suitable accommodation for all the living and dead freight on board. It must possess stability, real and acquired; that is, natural by means of breadth, and artificial by means of ballast, if the expressions are allowable. It does not proceed on a level keel or at any uniform angle, but at angles varying at every moment, and the contour of the body must be adapted to these various angles. Neither does the wind exert its force upon it from a fixed direction, nor propel it through water uniformly smooth or constantly rough. On the contrary, the propelling power strikes from various angles on the surface of the sails; and the sea, as we all know--and some of us to our cost--has a reprehensible habit of becoming, on the shortest notice, agitated in the most disagreeable manner.

Every point of sailing suggests an appropriate and different form of hull. The shape that is well adapted for one kind of weather is ill adapted for another sort; vessels that move as by magic in light airs may be of little use in a whole sail breeze; one that is by no means a flier in smooth water may be very hard to beat in a sea-way. In short, a vessel must be light enough to be driven easily by a moderate breeze, stiff enough to stand up to her canvas in a hard wind, shallow enough to be docked with ease and to run with speed. She must have depth enough to hold her up to windward, breadth enough to give her stability; she should be long enough to reach well, and short enough to turn well to windward; low in the water so as not to hold too much wind, with plenty of freeboard to keep the sea off her decks. The satisfaction of any one requirement necessitates something antagonistic to some other requirement equally clamorous for satisfaction. Your vessel, to be perfect, must be light, of small displacement, and with the centre of gravity brought very low; she must also have large displacement, and the ballast must not be too low, in order that she may be easy in a sea-way; she must be broad, narrow, long, short, deep, shallow, tender, stiff. She must be self-contradictory in every part. A sailing ship is a bundle of compromises, and the cleverest constructor is he who, out of a ma.s.s of hostile parts, succeeds in creating the most harmonious whole. It is not strange that designers pa.s.s sleepless nights, and that anything like finality and perfection of type is impossible to conceive. No wonder that yacht designing is a pursuit of absorbing interest.

It has been shown, then, how from the three beam yachts of fifty years ago, the proportions drew out, under the 94 rule, to five, five and a half, and in some instances six beams in length, the 'Evolution'

reaching even 7.8 beams; and even more rapidly, under the length and sail-area rule, fell back to something like three again. But the proportions are about all that remain in common to the clippers of 1845 and 1893 and it will be interesting now to trace how form, mode of construction and equipment have developed, as well as proportions.