4§6 
FdRfeST ANiD StFtEAM. 
ft>iBO. 19, 1896. 
MEASUREMENT RULES. 
In a iMfCUFPioD 'of tiie fundamental principles of the 
ineagxirement question care is rpquired in the definition and 
use of the terras "measurement rules" and "measuTeraent 
formxilge," for the reason that, sllhough such rules may have 
another form, thow we have become accustomed to have 
usually taken the shape of a single formula liaving two die^ 
tinct and unrelated function? one of them havine no con- 
nection with me^'purtno;. Therefore the words "measure- 
ment riile" ffenerally suarffpst onme kind of a formula. 
Before the sharp competition of racing had developed 
sucli a diversity of form in yachts, size was fairly enough 
represented by lensrth, and vfichts were elassitied and meas- 
ured for time allowances by the length of the l.w.l. The 
growth of new forms under this rule disciO'ed the fact tiiat 
size included other dimensions than 1 w 1. length, and the 
attempt was made to make a fair rule for measuring all 
forms by taxins; other dimensions, and the formula was in- 
vented having two of more factors. It was still a pure 
meapuremcnt formula; bu' a separate measurement rule for 
clnssification was u'fd, viz,, l.w.l. le.neth. A.n increasing 
differentiation of form demonstrated the impossibility of 
making fair time allowances by the formula in use, and 
yachts were all bnilt to the upper limit of their classes. The 
formula still failed to wm-k, and it bavin? become obvious 
that the number and coeffinientq of the factor of the meas- 
urement formula were the cfflnient causes of the diverse 
forms, nothing seemed easier th«)n to limit the diversity of 
form by a proper arrangement and valuation of the factors 
of the formula. This was attempted, and the result was 
the building of s motley lot of unFcaworthy racing machines 
and the total exclusion of cjuisers and yachts of moderate 
form from racing. 
This may not be historically accurate, hut it will serve to 
illustrate the growth of the measurement formula and the 
present predicament. 
It is also to be remembered that during this evolution of 
the measurement form<ila it was found desirable to abandon 
the original classifici'tion by l.w.l. length for one by cor- 
rected length, and this was done to counteract the tendency 
toward uniformity of tvpethat had been the result of each 
successive formula, and in the interest of elasticity, as it 
was called, so as to gi?e latitude for experiment in de- 
signing. 
Up to the pre.sent time the whole development of measure- 
ment rules has been the successive patching up of the em- 
pirical conglomeration that has grown by accretion from the 
original formula of one term only — l.w.l. length — without 
questioning the philosophy of such procedure. Length on 
the waterlina was once assumed, as a matter of course, to 
truly measure the size of a yacht for speed comparisons, 
and we still seem to have a superstitious veneration for that 
old notion. 
Some of the lessons that may be learned from the history 
of measurement rules are: 
(1) That it is probably useless to attempt to devise a 
formula of general application under which racing yachts 
and cruisers, differing widrly in form, may race together on 
a fair basis. For such contests only empirical handicaps, 
based upon trial of the yachts, are likely to a:ive satisfactory 
results. The formula lately suggested for this purpose by 
Mr. Irving Cox is ingenious and plausible, but its merit de- 
pends upon the accuracy of his estimates of the relative 
value of overhangs, draft,' l.w.l. length and sail as speed fac- 
tors, and when one undertakes to determine such values one 
is in danger of getting off soundings. 
(2) That so-called "elastic formula? do not foster experi- 
ments which produce diversity of form, but instead furnish 
opportunity by the sacrifice of desirable qualities for ex- 
aggerating 'he features that will produce the highest speed 
under the least penalty. The products of such experiments 
will always be found clustered together near some of the 
extreme limits. 
(3) That the efl'pct of a new or amended formula of the 
kind now in use cannot be foreseen. 
(4) That we cannot by such a formula control with any 
certainty the development of form along what we deem de- 
sirable lines. 
(5) That by permitting any dimension to be enlarged to 
any extent by reducing others, such formulae are admir- 
ably adapted to the development of extravagant and undesir- 
able forms 
(6) The incfflciency of theoldtype of measurement formula 
prompts an inquiry into the logic of its underlying principles, 
and it is found to have little philosophic basis. Its proper 
function is to furnish a means of comparing the speed of 
yachts of different size; but its factors and their coeflacients 
have been chosen ydth reference to an entirely different 
function, viz , that of influencing form. These factors (S 
excepted) have no certain quantitative and causal relation to 
speed ; and a formula made in this manner cannot in the 
nature of things properly perform its functions of measur- 
ing speed. . ^ 
Prom The foregoing point of view let us consider the excel- 
lent editorial on this 8ul)ject in the Forest and Stbeam of 
Nov. 88. It is there said : 
{a) That it is necessary to "supplement the measurement 
formula proper by rigid restrictions on light construction," 
etc. 
(b) That "coming to the formula itself * * * the 
function of a rule is to produce the best possible yacht." 
(c) That "we do not yet understand how a satisfactory- 
formula, permitting different types to race together on a fair 
basis, can be made on the plan which Sextant suggests" of 
"absolute restrictions." ' . 
The use here of the words "formula" and "rule" makes 
the criticism a little ambiguous, and illustrates the necessity 
of discrimination in their use as suggested at the outset. 
Obviously a formula in its strict sense cannot be made on the 
plan of fixing maximum and minimum limits to the princi- 
pal dimensions of yachts, and was not suggested by the 
writer. It was recommended as the most efficient method of 
controlling form, and producing what the Forest and 
Stbeam terms "the best possible yacht," and for no other 
purpose. As stated above, it is the opinion of the writer 
that yachts of different types cannot fairly race together 
under any formula, or under any plan, except that of arbi- 
trary handicaps based upon a-tual pt- rformance. 
(d) That "by means of absolute restrictions one stereotyped 
model— and that a very good one— may be produced, but 
there seems to be no elasticity or opportunity tor experiment 
under such a fystem." The inference here seems to be that 
the old formulae are elastic, that thty furnish good oppor- 
tunity for experiment, and for these reasons are preferable 
to absolute restrictions. Experience with them has shown 
that they do furnish a Tvide field for experimejiting with 
ultra extravagant racing machines pi*actically unfit'for yacht- 
ing, and it was assumed that this was a strong objection to 
such formulai and not a meritorious feature. Experience 
further shows, as above suggested, that this so called elas- 
ticity is really illusive, because this kind of formula has 
always produced a siiigle type, as every formula and rule 
must; — the fastest machine that can be built under the riile. 
Ingenuity cannot devise a single formula that will produce 
several types of yachts equally fast. If there be any real 
experimenting, as in the evolution of Glencairn, it is because 
the logic of the formula cannot at once be foreseen; and in 
sucb cases the successful form kills the others, leaving one 
type as the net product of the rule A designer with perfect 
insight would go straight to the logical product of the form- 
ula without this wasteful experimenting The plan of abso- 
lute restriction will certainly fix the limits within which 
experiment can be made, but .it will be as elastic as any rule 
within those limits- and the tield will be limited Only by the 
wisheo of those who ihake the rule. 
(e) That "the result must inevitahly be the production of 
one type, a'" d," likely, "a bad one;" and six-beam cutters, 
sand-baggers, the "brute forties" and bulb-fins are cited by 
the editor as los?ical products of the system proposed. 
It is agreed that one type would be produced. Whether 
good or bad would depend upon the passing fancies of those 
who fix the limits to the dimensions. If they should like 
the deep, narrow cutter, that would be the type. If they 
should prefer the skimming dish they would "make a rule 
that would produce it. In short, they would get precisely 
what they want; and that is the chief merit of the scheme. 
Under the existing type of rule they vote for a mystery, and 
they get whatever monster the expert designer can best 
cheat the rule with, and get the highest speed without refer- 
ence to any other qualities. This would seem to be the 
efficient cause of the evolution of the several extravagant 
types cited ; and that they were not the ideals of the yachts- 
men of the several periods, and that they would not have 
been deMberately chosen had the system of absolute restric- 
tion on design been 'in vogue 'at that time. That, however, 
is immaterial. They would have chosen the type thpy pre- 
ferred and, if it happened to be one not popular at the pres- 
ent time, that does not seem to be any reason why we should 
not be permitted to choose a type that pleases us. Choosing 
a type does not prohibit experiment. It only confines ex- 
periment within known limits Does the Forest and 
Stream believe in the expediency of allowing experiments 
to be carried into the furthest fields of freakdom? If it 
would put any limit to experimenting, what is the objection 
to stating those limits in terms that can be understood by 
everybody? 
(/) It is finally objected that though the present system of 
measurement "has failed to bar the racing machine and to 
produce a desirable type of yacht," "we cannot see that 
anything more is to be expected from the system advocated 
by our correspondent, or even how his suggestions are to be 
put into practical shape." It would seem that no argument 
were needed to show that when one type of yacht is deemed 
to be more desirable than another, the preferred type would 
more surely result from a rule making absolute limits that 
define the type to a certainty than from a formula under 
which the dimensions have reciprocal relations only, and 
may be so arranged as to produce any conceivable type. If 
yachtsmen have no ideal type the proposed scheme is of no 
value, nor is any kind of measurement rule or formula ex- 
cept for classification and regulating time allowances. The 
making of any rule to influence form presupposes an ideal, 
and it is useless to attempt to make or amend rules until the 
ideal type has been definitely conceived. A.8 to the possibil- 
ity of putting the suggestions into practical shape, it would 
seem not very difficult to fix the maximum and minimum 
litSits of the ideal yacht by compiling and comparing the 
ratios of the measured dimensions of the representatiye 
freaks of the fleet and of the boats regarded as wholesome 
in form. There certainly are no more intrinsic difficulties in 
the way than yachtsmen have gayly faced time and again in 
making formula; of the L + l.a B. Girth -f *'S. kind. 
There remains the matter of a measurement rule proper for 
classification or for determining time allowances if they ai'e 
to be given. If nothing better can be devised, the present 
Seawanhaka formula will perhaps suffice, though it seems 
not to be made upon justifiable principles. It is the simplest 
and perhaps the best of all the formula? that have been 
tried, though if one may judge of the printed accounts of the 
latest yachts, the tax on sail is considerably too small. The 
chief objection though to this formula is that it is a failure 
in its function of restricting the building of undesirable 
yachts If this function be attended to by separate regula- 
tions, as suggested, that objection disappears The logic of 
this formula as a device tor measuring speed is, howeyer, 
believed to be fertile ground for discussion ; and it would 
give Sextant much pleasure if some one who thinks it a 
philosophical contiivance will demonstrate it in these col 
umns. With a fleet of yachts reasonably similar in form it 
would seem that measurement by sail area alone would be a 
less objectionable method. 
To sum up, it seems desirable to direct the skill and in- 
genuity of expert designers to tne discovery of the speediest 
form within such limits as are consistent with other desirable 
qualities in yachts; and it is believed that this will be ac- 
complished more certainly by directly establishing those 
limits than by any other means. 
It is not a valid criticism upon the plan to assert that one 
cannot oft"-hand draw up a perfect schedule of such limits. 
A tolerably close approximation to it ought to be made in 
the first season, and the ideal would surely be further ap- 
proached by subsequent amendments. Under the present 
plan we are every season departing further and further from 
the ideal. Sextakt. 
MY FIRST TRIP IN A HALF-RATER. 
The weather looked nasty, the papers had prophesied rain 
and wind, and the cold, gray sky, with some particularly 
oily-looking clouds, seemed to emphasize the warning. Half 
choked with dust, for the electric had to be taken, as the 
trains did not rvm conveniently, I arrived at the shop just in 
time to see Boat JMo 2, which 1 was to sail in, being pushed 
over the- hump in the railway. At last, after much effort, 
she was started off like a man who is asked to "have some- 
thing," and went shooting into the creek. That important 
ceremony having been successfully accomplished, a change 
into boat wear was the order of the day. A howl greeted the 
crew as he stepped out into the sunlight, that had for the 
time being consented to shine upon us, and showed to all the 
assembled multitude of small boyhood a startling racing cap 
in black and orange. Then came the stowing away. Two 
sets of oilers, a mackintosh, two suits of clothes, some half 
dozen bottles of light yellovS' bevei-age fot the skipper, and 
some bananas and a box of "Huyler's" for the crew, with the 
usual assortment of small line always to be found in a small 
boat, completed the outfit. As the water was not over deep 
in the creek, the fin was left up (we had the lifting fih like 
that originally put into Scarecrow), and under jib we began 
our voyage. 
In the meantime No. 1 had, with more valor than discre- 
tion, hoisted full sail, and was tearing up and down the 
creek, ripping up the surface of the water with her boom end 
every time a flaw struck her; and flaws were about what the 
wind was made of. As we passed a convenient wharf we 
sheered in and took advantage of a friendly pole to reeve off 
the topping-lifts, which had been forgotten; and here the 
crew had to shin that pole, while the skipper in perfect com- 
fort turned in two reefs, and then we went away in pursuit 
of the boat ahead of ua. 
But you must hear about out mascot. A<3 we were push- 
ing off a friend threw us a dime he bad just found on the 
bank for luck. That dime came straight for the crew, who, 
with dim recollections of some former baseball games many 
years ago, held out his hands to catch it. A convulsive 
clutch of the hands, and then an opening to see it, but it was 
not there. It had not dropped or we should have heard it. 
It was an anxious moment. Just then the crew felt some- 
thing moving in his sleeve, and lo! into his hand dropped 
the dime safe and sound. As the skipper said afterward, he 
was not superstitious, but he wouldn't have ftlt comfortable 
if that dime had dropped overboard. To come back to busi- 
ness. 
No. 1 had hove to and was getting in a reef, and we passed 
her, going along comfortably under our two. We had con- 
siderable start before she got under way again, and then we 
both settled down to work. Inch by inch she crawled up on 
us, until after we had shot through the oily streak that 
marks the sewer discharge at Moon Island she passed us just 
off the rocks, where "Joe, the Portuguese," had squatted. 
This was too much for human nature to bear, and so our 
reefs came out, all forg tful of what we would get when we 
rounded Point Allerton. We chased her till we pot off 
Boston Light, and there, with a favorable puff, we slipped 
by and took the lead. 
As we rounded ihe beacon and hauled in sheets for a close 
reach down the beach to Cohasset — our destination — we 
found that the wind had lightened considerably, although 
still heavy enough to pat the lee rail well under in the 
heavier puffs. Here the first defect showed itself; in order 
to trim the boats properly the fin had to be placed as far 
forward as the slot would allow it, and now we found the 
boat carried such a weather helm th.at it was impossible to 
keep her on her course. Behind us we could see No 1 in 
the same predicament, and could see by the thin blue haze 
that surrounded her boat like a halo that they appreciated the 
situation. At last we shifted the fia aft and the skipper 
forward, and then the crew proceeded to steer the boat with 
the mainsheet, the tiller being safely jammed back of the 
weather washboard. This worked to a charm, except in the 
heaviest puffs, when even a generous amount of sheet would 
not keep her anywhere in the neighborhood of her course, 
and the jib had to be hauled to windward to prevent lier 
flirting with the bea( h. 
AV e were now safely ahead, and, barring accident, had 
the race. We reached Black liock about two hours after 
leaving Neponset, and kept well outside of it; but No. 3, 
with the despair that comes to the last man, held bravely 
through inside, and gained a big slice on us, although not 
enough to win, and after some cross-tacking we passed 
Whitehead with a comfortable lead at 2:30, and after sound- 
ing several times with the fin were safely moored alongside 
the bank to await high tide. Parker H. Kemble. 
The Satanita-Valkyrie Collision! 
yya reprint from thB Field the following report of the important de- 
cision of the appeal of the owner of Satanita; 
(Before the Lord Chancellor, Lord Wataon, Lord Herschel, Lord 
Bhand, Lord Davey and Lord Macnaghten, Nov. 16.) 
The hearing of the appeal of Mr. A. D. Clarice, the owner of tbe 
yacht Satanita, against a decision of the Court of Appeal in the 
action raised against him by Lord Dunraven for £10,000 in conse- 
quence of the sinking of the yacht Vaikyrie, during a regatta on the 
Ulvde, in July. 1894. 
After the opening statement of counsel, 
Sir Robert Keed, for the appellant, contended that the rules of the 
Yacht Racing Association, wbich both gentlemen had signed, did not 
impose on ttie owner of a yacht at fault any tieavier obligation for 
lo8s by collision than was provided for by the Merchant Stilpping Act, 
namely, £■! p^r registered ton, Although the rule said "all damage," 
that mflan^ all damage under the statute. 
Tbe Lord Chancellor: It may be a question whether the sailing rules 
did not add something to the sta'ute. 
Sir R. Reed paid the yacht racing rules did add something to the 
ordinary sailing rules of navigation, but there would be liability in 
any case. The first question to be considered here was: What was 
the contract made between the parties? and the second question was: 
If trere was a contravention of the contract, what was the meaning 
of it? There was no doubt at all that there was an obligation to the 
yacht club to comply with the sailing rules, but he thought that a 
great deal too much had been made in the judgment appealed from as 
to wbe.the-r or not there was a contract between the difEerent yachts, 
or course one yacht was under an obligation to the others to observe 
the rules, bu* the real point was, what was the meaning of the rules 
in 80 far an damages were concerned, He might establish his point 
perfectly well by referring merely to the rules as they were before 
their lordships, but he proposed to examine the rules in full, because 
a yacht race was not exactly the same thing as ordinary vessels navi- 
gating the Channel. He wished to show that the object of the words 
which were so much referred to in the case meant that the parties 
agreed to pay any damages that might arise from the breach of the 
rules, but that might not arise from a breach of the ordinary rules of 
navigation. Rules 34 and 33 said that the owner of the defaulting 
yacht should pay all damages. 
Tbe Lord Chancellor: Pops that not suggest that the framers o' the 
rule had in their mind the limiting character of the statute, and there- 
fore they put in the words "all damages." 
Lord Herschel said it struck him that if the case was to be judged 
by the common law the words of the rule were useless. 
Sir B. Reid admitted that in cases which did not come within the 
56th section of the Shipping Act there would be no hmit of liability. 
Lord Herschel said it appeared to him that here they had a case in 
which the parties themselves created the liability. 
Sir R Reid said there were certain duties no doubt on the part of 
one vessel toward another, but they were generally summarized 
under the words "proper navigation." In this case the rules agreed 
to embodied the statute regulations, and It could not toe said that 
those rules got rid of the statute, so far as damages were concerned. 
Lord Herschel said it appeared to him that there was a contract to 
that effect. 
Sir R. Reid said the words "all damages" meant the payment of the 
money the particular vessel might be liable to accordmg to the rules 
of the statute. 
Lord Herschel: According to that the rule would mean nothing. 
Sir E. Reid said that if it were true that apart from these rules there 
would be a limit of liability, then tbe words "all damages" were not 
applicable in the present case, and what was intended were damages 
as allowed by the law. 
The Lord Chancellor: You exclude the contract. 
Sir R. Reid could not admit that the words were inserted to get rid 
of the limitation contained in the statute. 
The Lord Chancellor said it struck him that if the rule did not go 
beyond where it was put by Sir Robert the framers might as well 
have adopted the words of the statute itself, and expressly limited 
,he damages to £8 per ton, instead of which they bad dep> rted from 
he words of the statute and used the words "all damages." 
