800 



FOREST AND STREAM. 



[i)EC. 8, 1892. 



The Y. R. A. Measurement Conference. 



The evidence of Messrs, Watson, Clayton, Boper, Fife, Richardson, 

 Payne, Nicholson and Itisdale, given before the Conocil of tQe Y. H. 

 A. at the meeting of Oct. 25, is too lengthy to reprint in full, bwt por- 

 tions of it are highly interesting to Americans in view of the simi- 

 iarliy of the Y. R. A. and Seacranhaka rules, and in particular of the 

 factVhat the Herreshoff fin keels appear to bethe main disturbing 

 element, though in reality but little more extreme than many of the 

 Hmaller Brit)sh yachts, 



Tlie following letters and notes give a very good idea of the origin 

 and scope of the inquiry, and of the ideas of the designers: 



The folloiving letter was issued to the yacht designers by direction 

 of the Council of the Yacht Racing Association : 



Sept. 27, 1892. 



Dkib Sib— 1 am directed by the Council to ask you to be good 

 enough to state your views, as concisely as possible, on the working 

 of the existing rule for the rating of yachts; and the probable effect 

 of the rule on yachts and yftcht racing should it remain in operation 

 longer than ii;s assigned period of seven years. 



IE you sugg-st any aitei-ation to ths existing rule, please be good 

 enough to state, as shortly as possible, your reasons for making the 

 alleratiion, au I wliat you consider will be tbe effect of the alteration. 



Please let mo havn your reply on or before O jt. 12 next. 



I am, etc., faithfully yours, Dixon Kemp, Secretary. 



The replies are as follows: 



108 West Regent St., Glasgow, Oct. 11, 1892. 

 J>ixon Kemp, Esq . Sec Y.B.A., London: 



Dear ^ir~1 tjerewirh enclose two or three copies of the joint note 

 whicli was drawn np at the meeting of yacht designers in London on 

 Thursday last. We were all really unanimous on the subject, and 

 fell that some modification would need to be made in the rule, so as 

 (in the lower classes at least) to get more body. We shall all of us 

 be very pleased to give tne members of the Council any further as- 

 sistaace In our power should they require it. Meanwhile, I am yours 

 very tridy, G. Watson. 



Private.— For the use of the Council of the Y. R. A. 



Langham Hotel, London. Oct. 6. 1892, 



We (0. P. Clayton, William Fife, Jr., Ctiaries Nicnolson, Arthm- E. 

 Payne, H W. Ridsdale. Joseph Soper, and G. L. Watson) have met 

 together for the consideratiou of the questions put before us in the 

 circular of the Council of tbe Y, R. A., dated September 37, 1892, 



We havf! considered tliat, besides the saving in time to the Council 

 and to ourselves, it would be more satisfactory for many reasons to 

 have such a preliminary meeting for interchange of ideas on the im- 

 portant issues raised in this circular, and we trust that this course of 

 action will be approved of by tne Council. We may state that we 

 are practically unanimous in tne opinions hereinafter expressed, the 

 only exception being on the one point of taxing overhang, Mr. Rids- 

 dale feeliijg that he could not go with the majurity in this. 



We would, then, most respectfully submit to your Council that, as 

 dpsigners of racing yachts, we have no desire whatever to interfere 

 with the present rating rule. It has the merit of being the existing 

 rule, and is a perfectly fair one for racing yachts together by, as in- 

 deed is any rule whatsoever, so far as designers are concerned, pro- 

 vided its conditions are clearly stated beforehand. But as naval 

 architects, and if we may be permitted to say so, as trustees for the 

 yachting public, we think it our duty to point out any deteriorating 

 iendency in a rule. We cannot help fearing that the 'present length 

 ank sad area rule has such a tendency, and is leading if it has not 

 already led, to an uuwhoiesome type of boat. 



We take it that the general yachting public require in a yacht, 

 that she shall be safe in all conditions of wind and weather; that she 

 shall combine the maximum of room on deck and below, with the 

 minimum of prime cost; and that she shall he driven as fast as may 

 be with the least expenditure of labor, / e., that she shall have a 

 moderate and workable sail area. Therefore, as but few men can 

 afford to build for racing, and for racing only, and that as the racer 

 of to-day is the cruiser of a few years hence, any rating rule should 

 by its limitations encourage such a wholesome type of vessel. 



On the above assumptions we have based our' advice, and it is for 

 your Council, as representing the general body of vacbtsmen, to de- 

 termiue whether these assumptions are corri'Ct or not. 



We sre all agreed, then, that the prssent length and sail area rule 

 is a most admirable one for classification and regulation of time 

 allowance of racing yachts. But we are also of opinion that the 

 tendency of this rule is such as to induce a vessel of so large dimen- 

 sions, relative to displacement and internal capacity (i.e., tbe useful 

 room on board the ship) that it is advisable to so alter or modify this 

 rule that a type of vessel havmg more body may be evolved. 



We suggest that length and sail area (as being the leading ele- 

 ments in gpeed) should be preserved in some form, but modified so 

 as to make it to the interest of builders to produce a bigger bodied 

 boat. 



The direct method of doing this would be to introduce displacement 

 or register tonnage in some way, as a divisor in the formula, but we 

 foresee so many difficulties in the practical working of this that we 

 are not prepared to advise it. 



By taxing breadth and draft, or alternatively, girth, and by reduc- 

 ing the rax on sail, we tbink this result may be arrived at indirectly. 

 AS 10 the precise value that each element should take In such a for- 

 mula, we at this stage are not prepared to venture an opinion. 



The above on the general prmciples of the rule. 



But we also feel that the details of measurement, etc., require re- 

 vision. 



. uii the Hull. The overhang, at least forward, should be taxed, as 

 it may be carried to such an extent as to be a source of danger, but 

 it need not he taxed excessively or to extinction. 



The L.W.L. should be marked forward and aft. 



Should girth or draft be uHcd in the formula in centerboard vessels, 

 some proportion of the drop of board should be added, and a limit 

 should be placed on the weight of the board. 



In the smaller classes at least, the ci'ews should be limited. 



On the sails. The perpendicular of fore triangle should "be meas- 

 ured from top of deck to where the line of luff of sail would cut 

 mast. 



That the question of limiting the relative area of mainsail to total 

 sail in the \srious classes be considered. 



ilr. Alexander Richardson, of Liverpool, was tmable to be present 

 at this meeting, but this note has been submitted to him, and receives 

 his endorsatioh. 



I. CiJiiferenee of Naval Architects at Liangham Hotel, October 6, 

 to answer Y. R. A. Circular, September 27. All thought this Confer- 

 ence advisable, and that ic would strengthen the Y. R. A. 



Result of Conference sent Y. R. A. October 11. 



II. It was unanimously agreed to at at this meei,ing: 



(.1) That one measuring rule is as good as another for class or time 

 allowance racing, 



(2j That the value of a rule depends upon the type of vessel the 

 rule tends to produce. 



(3) That under the Y. R. A. rule the first productions, viz- 

 "Dragon.'" '-Deerhound,'' etc., were good. 



(4) That all later productions have been gradually deteriorating. 

 (b) That if obliged to continue designing under the rule, and pro- 

 duce more speed, that productions will be still worse. 



iC) There was a general desire for a rule that would tend towards 

 the production of vessels with more compact dimensions, and with 

 more proportionate displacement or register tonnage, viz., larger 

 vessels. 



(7) Ho combined attempt was made to scheme out a rule that 

 would prod'ice this result; firstly, because the,y were not asked to do 

 so; and, secondly, bfcau.se there was no time to do so. They simply 

 advised that beam and depth or girth should be considered in the 

 formula. That sail area might also be taxed, but not to the extent 

 of tbe present rule, and all agreed that unlimited sail area tended 

 towards big displaeemeut. 



III. Rt defective details in present rule. Head sails, marking 

 L.W.L , etc. ^ 



IV. Objectionable qualities produced under present rule: 



(1) Excessive draught. 



(2) Fin and bulb keels. 



(3) Small registered tonnage to dimensions. 

 <4) W^eak conslruction. 



(5) Overhangiugs, specially forward. 



(6) Mast in bow and big mainsails. 

 Taken in detail, objectionable: 



m Excessive draught, objected to under 1730 rule, but worse and 

 very objectionable in this. 

 (2) Fin iiiirt bnlb keels, three-quarters, and more than tbree- 



^. „ , ,T- , 'having being fitted with 



bulb tin, beat - U asp and "Glonana." This points to something of 

 the sort being necessary in our SO rating class, if not in larger vessels 

 Nothing else likely to succeed in the smaller classes. 

 Compare the 35-feet "Morgan" boat to ''Eclipse." What is she as 

 a vessel Y 



(8) Small registered tonnage, decreasing in aU classes. If it con- 

 tinues, there will not be 5 feet bead room in a 40-rater, and generally 

 small cabin space. ^ 



(4) Woak construction; dimensions are increasing, and displaoe- 



ment decreasing. The girth of mid section has increased in all 

 classes, viz., aoout 2^ feet in the 21^ class, up to 6 feet in the 40 

 class. 



Mid sections under the old rule were compact, with strength in 

 their shape. Modem sections with straggling dimensions, due to 

 uarestric;ed beam and draught Hollow in shape, with deep hang- 

 ing keels, and mast forward, a long way ahead of lead keel straining 

 vessel. 



Compare Lloyd's numerals on old-fashioned vessels, and compare 

 same to numerals of modei'n vessels. (Such numerals are a fair test 

 for real size.) 



For Llo.yd's numerals the length is taken stem to stern-post on 

 deck, beam extreme, with the half girth of mid section. 



If there is much counter, part of this length is added : 



The over all lengths— L.W.L. length— of same yachts areas follows 

 "Wee Winn" (IS feet 6 inches L W.L.), 23 feet 9 inches overall 

 "Wenonab'" (2.5 feet L.W.L ), 3K feet overall: "Dacii," 83 feet S 

 inches L.WMj., 48 feet overall; "Herreshoff," 35 feet L.W.L. boat, 

 52 feet over all; "Gloriana," 72 feet over all, 4H fet^t L W.L. 



This over all can only be used to advantage in vessels of small 

 middle body. 



Lloyd's numerals in such vessels are enormous in proportion to 

 disphicement or register tonnage; large deck area to cover with 

 plankmg, and large side to cover vich planking. Generally no mar- 

 gin of displacement to cover this, and so the tendency in towards 

 weak construction. 



All agreed that building to a Lloyd's class, or under some regulated 

 range of scantling.s was not advisable, as the strength of a vessel did 

 so much depend upon the sizes of scantlings, as upon the way they 

 were put together. 



V. Overhangs. All agreed that overhang forward was a source of 

 danger. Three N.A.'s spoke of having been in doubt of their own 

 boats giving out in a seaway when in them; they thump heavily in 

 a head sea. 



It was generally agreed that counters might be left alone. 



Mr. Fife had some proposal for preventing excessive overhang, 

 which Mr. Watson thought might be sufficient. 



Mr, Watson however proposes, X cositio of angle of stem to L.W.L. 

 by }^ freeboaid, Add this forward where angle was less than 45°, 

 and aft where less than 15"=; i.e., add the excess to length. (See 

 letter.) 



Mr. Clayton thinks it best to leave counters alone, as not danger- 

 ous as long as mast stands, and there is way on the boat, and allow 

 2-3'^ forward; anything under to be added to L.W.L., at the rate of 1 

 inch per degree," i.e., 33'^, 5 inches, and 20^, 15 inches. He thinks 15 

 Inches, as it affects speed and sail area, of equal value in craft of all 

 sizes. 



VI. Bow, mast, and top-sail rig. Fit and proper In craft of 5 rat- 

 ing and under, but objectionable in 10 rating. Mr. Fyfe spoke against 

 thlsin "Doreen." Mr. Payne had been asked to desiga two-sail 20 

 rater. All agreed a roost objectionable rig, expensive to work, etc. 



VII. All agreed that the interests of designers and owners were 

 identical; that changing rules of measuring meant hanging up work. 

 All pi>pired to go on designing under any rule, but thiaking bad 

 productions would ultimately affect racing boat.s; as such boats 

 were soon out- 3la.ssed, and unless after racuig for cruising, etc. 

 Designers wishing to act honestly towards their employei's, wished 

 that they should clearly understand what sort of craft they might 

 expect if the Y. R. A. rule is contiaued. 



VIII. A^l agreed that it would take several days to make a new 

 rule. Designers more used to evade than manufacture rule.^ of 

 measurement, and said, if a new rule made, each ought to scheme 

 out under it what he thought best, and also give his imagination 

 scope in thinking out what somebody else might produce. 



Agreed designers ought to criticise any new rule in all its details, 

 so as to obtain, if possible, something perfect to start with and com- 

 plete; alterations afterwards are objectionable. 



Morley"s Hotel, Nov. 8, 1893. 

 To the yacht Racing Association Measurement Coinmittee, London: 



GENTLEiHEN— We Understand that you do not consider our letter of 

 October fi sufficiently answered the questions put in your circular 

 letter of September 27, and that you expected us to formulate some 

 rating rule instead of the present one. VVe cannot see that your 

 letter bears this interpretation. 



Our opinions, as expressed in that letter of October 6, practically 

 remain unaltered : but so far as we are able to interpret the wishes 

 of yacht owners, as stated in the public prints, and more especially 

 as expressed by your Chairman and majority of your Committee, we 

 now take it that speed, and speed before other good qualities, is what 

 is to be aimed at. 



We consequently withdraw any sugge.stions made in that letter as 

 having been made under a misapprehension as to vour requirements. 



But while it may be determined to retain a length and sail area 

 rule, either in its present or in some slightly altered form, we would 

 most respectfully suggest that at least in the classes above 5-raiing 

 (if, indeed, a lower line should not be drawn), that the tendency to- 

 ward abnormal and uoshipshape form should becurbedin some" way. 

 The main direction in which we would propose such limitation in 

 form would be in the outline of longitudinal section, and we would 

 suggest that this should be bound by a fair line, concave, or at least 

 not convex, toward the water line. That the stern post should show 

 say quarter of an inch above the water line aft. and the rudder be 

 hung thereon. That overhang forward and aft, should be restricted, 

 as also the extreme forward position of mast, but we deem .'t unde- 

 sirable to absolutely prohibit any form, we would simply propose to 

 tax such variations from this normal one so heavily as to make 

 their adoption unprofitable. We would propose doing this as follows: 



To length on L.W.L. add S -f S. 



To length on L.W.L. add excess of cosine of angles F and A above 

 cosines of 40'= and 15° respectively multiplied by 0-5 of the free- 

 board. 



NORMAL FORM 



Where tbe mast is forward of the limit as per following table such 

 distance to be added to length on L.W.L. ^ . 



In 10 raters or the equivalent corrected length from foreside mast 

 to fore end of water line not less than -3 of L.W.L • in 20-rater8 -SI- 

 in 40- raters. -33; above 40-raters, -35. ' ' 



We would further submit for your consideration the advisability 

 of altering the relative value of sail and length bv adoption of the 

 Seawanhaka Rule, rating of course, b.y corrected' length, in which 

 event these length ratings might be arranged somewhat as follows: 

 40 Rating, 00 ft. corrected length. 



20 

 10 

 5 



35 



48 

 39 

 32 

 26 

 19 

 15 



We would advise that all existing boats should be allowed to race 

 •n it hout restriction. 



G. L. W^ATSON. 



0. p. Clayton. 

 WiiLiAM Fife, Jr. 

 O. E. Nicholson. 

 Arthue £. Payne. 

 J. M. Soper. 



RIDER. 



T do not go with the majority in putting restrictions on the form of 

 the vert.cal longitudinal section, either above or below the water 

 line. 



On all other points I entirely agree with present report. 



H. Wheatley Ridsdale. 



The examination of each designer by the committee developed 

 considerable divergence o£ opinion over details; the designers one 

 and all expressed themselves as unable to sugge.st without further 

 study a really satisfactory rule, though several rather crude su^-ees- 

 lions were made. Tbe following extracts cover some of the more 

 important points touched upon; 



Now, inasmijch as you have pointed out to us in your letter the 

 dftHger of tho heavy overhang, what would you suggegt to get rid of 



that which you consider a dangerous element— the excessive over- 

 hang? I have given that some consideration, and I have had one or 

 two proposals, and I tbink probably the best way of limiting it 

 would be to tax the angle that the stem and ridge of counte- make 

 with the load waterline. The useful part of overhang is near the 

 water, and my suggestion would be to multiply the co-sine of this 

 angle by half the freeboard and add it to the length. That; would 

 he, as it were, take the mean length of tha lengt:h above, and the 

 length on the waterline. 



That would be equivalent to taxing abou'. how much of the over- 

 hang? Half of it. The useful bit of your overhang Is pretty near 

 the water. I would multiply the co-sine of that angle by half the 

 freeboard. I should be inclined to allow an angle of 45", and tux 

 anything under that. 

 Yon take it it is important it should be taxed in some way? Yes. 

 Sir Q. Leach— Will you explain, Mr Watson, how the overhang 

 becomes the serious danger you say it; is. Is it weakness of construc- 

 tion? It leads with shallow-oodied boats to flat sections that ham- 

 mer in a sea-way. 



When she lists over then she throws the *ido of the overhang as it 

 were against the sea? Yes, and it becomes a bottom as it were and 

 strikes the sea with terrible force. 



Is it likely if the overhang is only useful for a very short distance 

 up that constructors would give very long overhangs? Y'^es, especi- 

 ally in the smaller classes. 

 Then it must be useful? Yes, it is decidedly useful. 

 Even beyond what you at firit said? No, that would abo'it make 

 it; a man would debate as to whether he used overhang or not. 



If it is no use, he would not extend the overhang to a dangerous 

 extent? Not it it was of no use. As if he felt that useful as it was, 

 he was paying too dear for it in length. 



That being the case, are the builders likely to extend the overhang 

 very much? If the shorter overhang is sufiScientf or useful purposes, 

 why should they extend ic to any great length? What you want to 

 tax is the flatness of the angle of the stem with the water. I have 

 seen boats thrash the sea in a very ugly way, and Mr. Fife spoke 

 very strongly of having sailed on board a boat which he thought 

 was going to break up. she struck the water so fiercely. T was sug- 

 gesting an angle of 45", as permitting you to make a nice looking 

 bow, and being as much as was useful in a seaway, but not as much 

 as is useful for speed, provided you could get it for nothing. 



There was no difificuliy in constructing it strong? When we knock 

 the bow of a boat in we shall probably make the next one stronger. 



You can make it stronger? Ye,s; but putting breasthooks in the 

 bow of a boat does not improve her seaworthiness. 



Would there be any difficulty in taking that angle in practice. If 

 that was going to be the only measurement the least little change of 

 waterline would immediately alter the tangent? There would be 

 great quarreling. 



Mr. Dixon Kemp— A correction for the angle would be made with 

 every measurement? You could easily take a height at a distance 

 out. 



The Chairman— I take it you did not propose to interfere with it 

 aft? I think it is as necessary to tax it aft as forward. I would put 

 a minimum angle aft. 



What angle would you put aft? I think it was lao or 16°. I would 

 limit the angle to what would be the extreme flatness of a good- 

 looking stern, and if a man wanted to make anything particularly 

 ugly let hitc pay for it. 



Do you think overhang improves a boat's chance for speed except 

 in so tar as it dodges the waterline? I thiok it does; in a seaway she 

 goes drier and more buoyantly. 



It is not entirely due to being able to crib a little length on the 

 measured length of the load waterline? When a boat makes waves 

 under the lee bow she meets an easier ribbon. 

 The Chairman— She gains more in .speed than she gains in length. 

 Mr. G. B. Thompson— I wanted to know whether it was the load 

 waterline or the bow? I do not think you lengthen the load water- 

 line at all, but it makes an easier ribbon line. 



Prestcott Wesicar— Do you think it would be sufficient if a tax 

 were put on forward of so much per cant, of the load waterline? If 

 you have a certain amount of overhang allowed, that is the kind of 

 stern you would get (sketching a counter cut ofl). I have no objec- 

 tion to it except that it Is abominably ugly. 



Mr. Baden Powell— You have talked about the useful bit of length, 

 and yo* have told us practically it is what may be immersed when 

 she is sailing? No: there is rc-ally very litttle immersed when she ia 

 sailing in smooth water at least. 



Then what is it useful for? Why do .you call it useful? You say it 

 is owing to this low piece of overhang you meet the water at a better 

 angle? Yes, an easier angle. 



That ought to make a better sea boat? Yes, when used in moder- 

 ation. 



That is a question of section. I am talking of the angle at which 

 th 3 stem (it is probably the keel) comes out of the water. The angle 

 at which it comes out is useful in that it catches the water better? 

 Yet, you meet it at an easier angle. 



An therefore it must give the boat better sea-going powers? It lets 

 her get through the water easier 



Would there be any objection to the useful piece of ovei-hang, sup- 

 posing that the load waterline were marked, and that marks were 

 bound to be kept above water in smooth water when she was lying 

 still. Would there be any objection'to that overhang? Limiting it 

 do you mean? 



Suppo.<iing the load waterline had to be marked and the marks kept 

 above water, would there be any objection to having any length of 

 overhang? Yes, a man is bound to keep his marks above water or 

 he would be over the rating. 

 But he has no water marks? If he has a conscience he has. 

 Taking that as the load waterline when at still water that would be 

 above the water. When he is at speed he immerses that. Dj you 

 think that is objectionable ? Not so objectionable aft. 



But you think, supposing he were to have the same sort of bow it 

 would be objectionable? Yes. 



Why ? Because if you have a flat bow you are bound to have more 

 or less flat section unless you have an extremely deep, narrow boat 

 and then there becomes no objection whatever. 



Then it amounts to this, that ic is a question of section, whether it 

 is a bad thing or a good thing ? It is a combination of the great over- 

 reach and the section. 

 The overhang is weight and windage? Yes. 

 Those are both dead against overhang? Yes. 



The Chairman- Now the next subject is the centerboard. You 

 liink some limit .should be placed on the centerboard. How would 

 you propose to do that? According to the rating of the vessel. It 

 would not want to be the same proportion in a big ship that it would 

 be in a little ship. It would want to be a slidinig scale. A rule could 

 be very easily duvised for that. 



You think it would be desirable to have such a rule? I would cer- 

 tainly limit it, especially if we limit draft of water. 



Sir' G- Leaih— Is it your idea that the centerboard should be merely 

 a centerboard and not ballast? I think it should be limited to a rea- 

 sonable workable weight. In a metal plate you would get a smooth 

 working thing, and you can make a nice clean fit iu the keel. Let it 

 be a tenth of the ratmg in small classes and less as you come up. 



Major Willan— I understood you to objuct to my proposal to limit 

 the overhang because it was grandmotherly. Would this not he 

 equally grandmotherly? Well, it might. 



Mr. Baden-Powell— If you must limit the weight of a board in the 

 first place, how are you to get at the weight. Supposing the case is 

 down below tbe cabin floor? I Chink we are all suiificiently honest for 

 that. If a builder declares it is a certain weight 1 think we may take 

 that. 



Assuming it was fixed, would not that drive men at once to give up 

 the centerboard boat which could go into shoal water and go in for 

 bulb keel boats— are not you limiting that most useful type of boat 

 because it would only affect the small boat? My idea was to give a 

 pretty generous boat. 



If you limit it, you advise a man not to have a centerboard but a 

 bulb keel, when he can carry what weight he likes. It would be a 

 great tax on the measurers" to have to consider the centerboard? 

 You would have to ask him show me the weight of your board. 



I should like to ask you what your objection to the weighted cen- 

 terboard is? You go to such an expense in the structure of the boat. 



Do you think a weighted centerboard require more expensive struc- 

 ture than a flu with a lead bulb at the bottom of it? Yes; I am in- 

 clined to think so. 



It has nothing to do with the trouble of working it well, the winch 

 or whatever it is? Men always want to save trouble. 



That is a .secondary consideration? Yes, 



Mr. Mannhig— I think- if Mr. Watson would consider that questiou 

 and make any suggestion by which the boats could be properly built 

 it would be ver.y valuable. Even now there are boats built which in 

 a month are leaking like a sieve, and probably chat has led to the out- 

 cry about the unserviceable nature of tbe boats, especially in the 

 small class? It would bean extremely difficult boat to do much in. 

 For instance, the Winonah has probably a lighter hull than any of 

 the 2},^^ raters, but is as tight as a bottle, and stands any amouiic of 

 hammering about; but she is buil: with a double skin. 



That answer rather emphasizes mv point that it is very de.sirable 

 that some authority (you say Lloyd's is impossible) should exist to 

 see that the boats builc for racing are scientifically built? Then you 

 come to the man of moderate means again. Is he to be debarred 

 from racing altogether? 



Do you consider that the difference in cost of the hull of a boat 

 very lightly built, and yet strong enough to keep tight, is increased 

 over one that Ig thrown together io tbe most iinscientiflc way? Every 



