POftESf AND ! STREAM. 
878 
racing season, and asking the aid of its component clubs 
in holding these races regularly, without default, and 
guaranteeing suitable prizes. With such aid from the 
clubs, it should be possible to secure a certain number 
of yachtsmen who, with races and prizes thus assured, 
would be willing to build at once for the class. Each 
would be at liberty to select his favorite type under the 
rule, which permits in theory at least the fin-keel, keel, 
moderate and shoal centerboard types; and the ingenuity 
of a number of designers would be called into play to 
test the rule to its utmost. In order to maintain the 
interest in the racing through the season, good series 
prizes might be offered in addition to the regular class 
prizes for each event; if the class filled to a fair number 
there would be no difficulty in securing one or two really 
valuable cups, such as have of late years been offered in 
vain for the racing schooners, for series trophies to be 
awarded permanently to the yachts making first and 
second averages in the class. 
One special feature which we believe would attract en- 
tries to the class is the offering of cash prizes, and of 
value in proportion to the importance of the class. With 
a guarantee of a series of races for cash prizes of say 
$50 for first, $30 for second if four start, and $15 for 
third if six start, there would be a substantial induce- 
ment for building to the class, not merely on account of 
the cash returns, but because all the conditions would be 
favorable to spirited and continued racing. While these 
prizes might tax some of the smaller clubs, it is certain 
that the money would be well spent, both for the club 
and for yachting, and that there would be something to 
show for it in the record of the class at the end of 
the season; whereas much of the money now given is 
wasted on a handful of yachts distributed over a number 
of classes, and racing which is poor in itself and devoid 
of technical results. 
The best possible class for such a purpose is, almost as 
a matter of course, the smallest that is generally prac- 
ticable, the 36ft. linear rating. This gives a yacht of 
about 30ft. l.w.l., fully capable of making the Sound 
circuit, and carrying her owner and usual crew, giving 
fair accommodation in the keel and deep centerboard 
classes, and a cabin of some sort even in the more ex- 
treme of the fin-keels. In this class a man can still build 
a good serviceable yacht at a moderate cost; it is pretty 
certain that, whatever type may Drove the most success- 
ful and the best suited to the rule, a yacht of good 
design well kept up, and skillfully and persistently raced 
through the season, will be able to show a goodly num- 
ber of winning prizes, and quite an amount of cash to 
boot; while she will still have a reasonable sale value in 
the class. If it were possible to select and thus build up 
the Sift, class, it would be. an excellent thing for that 
part of yachting, the racing of the medium and larger 
classes, which is now dead. All things considered, how- 
ever, a much larger number of yachts and a greater 
range of types may be had in the smaller classes, and we 
believe that the 36ft. would be better than the Sift., or 
even the 42ft., being within the reach of a larger number 
of those men who are now actively interested in yacht 
racing. 
This class is so nearly identical with the 37ft. class of 
tbe Great Lakes, allowing for the inclusion of topsail 
in the measured sail area of the latter, that the two 
might be brought completely into accord. This class 
is perhaps the best adapted of any for the needs of the 
lakes; it is rather small, but still even the 32-footers 
go from lake to lake for the races, and are perfectly sea- 
worthy; and the next larger class, the 42ft,, is too ex- 
pensive for the average owner. 
With the Canada cup again in competition in the 37ft. 
class, and the same class established on a permanent and 
practical basis on the Sound, the Y. R. U. would by 
next fall be in the possession of an ample amount of the 
most valuable evidence as to the possibilities of the new 
rule. Under such conditions the rule would be tested 
as it has not yet been in Great Britain; it should be 
possible to create a fleet of ten yachts at least on Long 
Island Sound, and to sail twenty races during the sea- 
son; and to the new yachts might be added several ex- 
isting ones fitted to the class. 
This is a thing which will not take care of itself. If the 
rule is to be tested at all, it must be through the intelli- 
gent and persistent efforts of the larger clubs and asso- 
ciations. The latter have assumed of late many serious 
responsibilities, the majority of which they are dis- 
charging in a faithful manner. The greatest of all, 
however, is that of the amendment of the measurement 
rule, and it rests with them to continue the work to a 
point where they will have justified their action by a 
positive test. , 
The Measurement Rule* 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
The editorial defense of the report of 'the Seawanhaka 
committee on measurements in the Forest .and Stream 
of Aug. 11 was devoted chiefly to three points: viz., a 
comparison of the merits of the two types of rules; a 
justification of the committee's proposed formula, and 
answers to sundry criticisms. The only argument ad- 
vanced in favor of the formula type of rule with variable 
factors is the alleged fact that the consensus of opinion 
throughout the yachting world is overwhelmingly^ in 
favor of this type, which has been used'from the earliest 
days of yacht racing and is in universal use to-day. The 
rapid growth of restricted classes seems to show that 
this is not true; but if it were, the answer is that all 
popular superstitions and errors can be justified, and 
all reforms resisted, by this argument. Everything said 
on this point could have been said with equal force con- 
cerning all the formulas that have been tried and have 
failed. The value of a general consensus of opinion de- 
pends upon the circumstances. Sometimes it is practic- 
ally conclusive; sometimes it is^ worthless. The authority 
of a general agreement of opinion about a matter that 
can be tested by the canons of logic, or concerning a 
proposition that has been verified by long and unvarying 
experience, is very great. Consensus of opinion in favor 
of a theorem that cannot be proved by logic, and that 
has been repeatedly put to the test of practice, and has 
us'uafly failed, may be worthless. If there be any general 
agreement of opinion in. favor of the old formula type 
of measurement rules, it belongs to the last mentioned 
class and is of moderate value. 
We understand the Forest and Stream to admit that 
this type of rule is purely empirical, and that it has usu- 
ally failed. The truth is that in the proposed formula, 
I + + b. + d. -bh virs, the relative vaIues assigned 
to beam, draft, sail, length and midship section as speed 
factors (viz., ift. of beam = ift. of draft == 2ft. of l.w.l. 
= 2 units of f% A.) have no existence in fact. The 
quantitive relation of these factors to speed is not known 
and cannot be stated even approximately. There is then 
no scientific basis for their use in this manner, and no 
presumption in favor of the formula. Its value can be 
determined by trial only. But' it can be tried only on 
existing yachts; and therefore its value for measuring 
the speed of yachts to be built hereafter cannot be 
tested. This can only be inferred from an expectation 
that the new yachts will be like the old ones; and there is 
no warrant for such expectation. 
Such is the slender foundation upon which the Forest 
and Stream bases the opinion that an empirical rule 
of this kind is so much better for measuring the speed 
of yachts than any scientific rule that can now be 
made as to render further discussion of this point un- 
necessary. So far as is known to the writer, this is the 
first time that any advocate of the old type of rule has 
admitted that it has no scientific basis; and when yachts- 
men generally understand this fact, it will likely have 
to give way to something better. 
The fundamental objections to the new formula, which 
have not been answered, and the reasons why a rule with 
absolute restrictions and a rational classification would 
work better, may be briefly stated as follows: 
1. There is no good reason for saying that two 
yachts should race on even terms because they have the 
same R. M. under the formula, k«+ % + B + D - « 
•i 2 
It is rational to say that two yachts- having the same sail 
area should race on even terms, because they have the 
same motive power. 
2. There is no probability of foreseeing with reason- 
able certainty what kind of yachts the foregoing formula 
will produce. The main purpose in amending the rule 
being the production of wholesome boats, this objection 
to the new formula is fatal. 
With absolute restrictions calling for the minimum 
amount of M. S. deemed essential by the committee, 
there would be absolute certainty in getting it. 
3. Under the proposed formula the designer is en- 
couraged to produce undesirable boats with less than 
the requisite M. S. if he can discover a way of cutting 
down L., S., B. or D. without too much sacrifice of 
speed. With absolute restrictions there would be much 
less, if any, possibility of "beating the rule." Conse- 
quently designers would devote themselves entirely to 
the discovery of lines of least resistance consistent with 
comfort and safety, and thus advance the science and art 
of naval architecture. The Canadian, double-hull de- 
fender of the Seawanhaka cup is an excellent illustration 
of the effect of the old type of rule on naval architec- 
ture. 
In answer to the argument that the old type is dis- 
credited by its repeated failures it is said that those, fail- 
ures were not due to intrinsic defects of the type, but to 
specific defects of individual rules. This is fair argu- 
ment, if true; but its truth is difficult to establish; and 
the burden of proof is on those who assert it. If there 
are. strong presumptions in favor of a type of rule, a 
reasonable amount of failure may be explained in this 
way; but if the failures are constant after repeated amend- 
ments of the rules, it raises a presumption against the 
type. When a type of rule has no presumptions in its 
favor, repeated failure is sufficient to condemn it in 
favor of something that rests upon sound theory. If 
there are a priori reasons why a type of rule should not 
work well in practice, as in the present case, allegations 
that its failures are due to errors of details will be re- 
ceived with great incredulity. 
The only argument advanced against the new type of 
rule is that it has succeeded because of the defects of 
the old rules and not through intrinsic merits; and that 
its success is not unqualified. 
In this case the Forest and Stream urges a partial 
want of success in the case of the Boston knockabouts 
as an objection to this type of rule; but it does not con- 
sider that the repeated failures of the old type are signifi- 
cant. The distinction in the two cases is obvious. In the 
one case the method of controlling design is unscientific, 
as has been shown, and it is likely to fail. In the 
other it is a rational scheme, and is likely to succeed. 
Errors of judgment may be expected under both S3 r stems; 
but a given amount of wisdom and skill is sure to attain 
the best results with a rule that has a scientific basis. 
In justification of the formula proposed by the com- 
mittee it is said : First, that fifteen years' test of the 
Seawanhaka formula shows that the values of L. and S. 
"are as nearly correct as they can well be"; and, second, 
that the only defect in that formula has been remedied 
by the addition of the factors B. + D. — 3^ v M. S., the 
arrangement of which is especially scientific and accu- 
rate. It is not clear what is meant by the first state- 
ment; and this point should be further elucidated. It 
has been hereinbefore maintained that there are no 
quantitive relations between S. and L. with reference 
to speed that can be stated in simple ratios. If this be 
true the relative values of these factors in the Seawan- 
haka formula cannot be correct. There is no reason why 
the whole of S, should not be taxed if any of it is; nor 
why L. should be taxed at all. 
It cannot be meant that these values worked well in 
practice, for it is admitted that the rule is a failure. 
Furthermore, if S. and L. are properly taxed under the 
Seawanhaka formula, they are improperly taxed under 
the new formula, for the rate of taxation has been 
changed. 
The scientific character of the amendment, 
E. + D. — i/KlT, 
is not obvious. It is based upon the theorem that 
speed is due to the free use of the lever by which stability 
is obtained, and therefore this lever is as justly an ob- 
ject for taxation as the other elements of speed. The 
truth is this lever is no more an element of speed than 
the main rigging. Both of them enable the yacht to 
carry her sail, which is the proximate cause of speed. 
Apparently the committee has not apprehended the 
logical effect of the amendment. In the report it says: 
"It appears extremely doubtful if any rule which in- 
cludes beam as a separate and distinct factor would 
meet with acceptance, and it appears to be nothing less 
than a truism that to assign to either of these (beam and 
draft) distinct and separate value or values relatively each 
to the other, is in the absence of more accurate know- 
ledge wholly unwarranted." 
It is obvious that in the formula, ^+|+H.+D.^^M. s. 
1 
beam is as separate and distinct a factor as L. 
or S. or D., and that relative values have been assigned 
to all of them. 
The third division, in which the Forest and Stream 
answers sundry criticisms, demands a few words. In 
saying that yachtsmen were asked to accept the new 
formula on faith, the perfect candor and patriotism of 
the committee were not questioned. It was only intended 
to make the point that the merit of the new formula 
cannot be demonstrated by reasoning, and that it cannot 
be tested except by building. The plan of controlling 
form by direct restrictions on the principal dimensions 
is characterized as being practically a plan for the estab- 
lishment of a series of standard designs, one for each 
class, to which yachtsmen shall be compelled to build, all 
other types being barred. 
It is undoubtedly fair to push an opponent's views to 
their logical conclusions; but the foregoing is not even 
an approximation to the writer's position, which is 
briefly this: That there seems to be a general demand 
for a rule that shall induce the building of safe and 
commodious yachts in the racing classes; that there is- 
no other way to bring about this result so efficacious as 
to state in plain terms the least that will be deemed 
safe and commodious, and to make this a minimum re- 
quirement. It may be as little as the carrying of a life 
buoy on deck, or so comprehensive as to cover every 
element of size, form and construction. In order that 
these so-called wholesome boats race on fair terms, they 
should be classified by sail area, all yachts in each class 
sailing on even terms. Under any form of rule, racers 
that are faster must be handicapped in some way so 
as to enable the wholesome boats to get the prizes, other- 
wise yachtsmen will continue to build prize winners of 
undesirable form. Such handicaps practically bar these 
boats; and they may as well be barred at the outset in 
s,o many words. In short, the writer has not advocated 
"one-design" boats; but a new method of measuring 
the speed of yachts, and of controlling their form within 
any desired limits, wide or narrow. 
The position of the Forest and Stream on the ques- 
tion of freedom of the designer is left uncertain. In the 
issue of July 2 it said: "No rule can be framed that will 
not put at a premium some one class of yacht, the racing 
machine, the all-round fast cruiser, or possibly even the 
slow cruiser. It has so happened in the past that every 
rule tested on an extensive scale has in time resulted in 
the production of an extreme racing type." * * * 
"This inevitable tendency of every rule has been fully 
recognized of late years by the various experts and com- 
mittees called upon to suggest new formulas." It now 
apparently modifies that opinion, though it still holds 
that the designer must not be allowed to put fin-keels in 
a class of full-bodied, wholesome boats. It admits the 
charge that heretofore designers have been free to make 
a single type of racing machines, and nothing else, and 
attributes this to defects in the rule, which it says are 
now remedied, so that hereafter designers will < be free 
to design good boats. 
The freedom of the designer to design good boats will 
depend entirely upon the speed of these boats as meas- 
ured by the rule. If it turns out that the formula suffi- 
ciently handicaps all other kinds to enable the good 
boats to win on allowance, then the designer will be 
obliged to make good boats. He must design winning 
yachts or lose his patrons. How many kinds of winning 
yachts can there be under one rule? At most two — 
centerboards and keels — and it is doubtful if in any 
class these two can be equal in speed. In the small 
classes the centerboards seem faster; and keels apparent- 
ly do better in the large classes. The extent of the de- 
signer's possible choice is between these two types. He 
has no liberty to make boats absolutely fast or safe or 
comfortable; but he is bound to turn out the boat that 
can win under the rule, either by speed or allowance, it; 
matters not which. He must decide at his peril (or rather 
at the peril of his patron's purse) which is worth more;, 
under this complicated formula, absolute speed or the 
allowance that can be obtained for a small midship sec- 
tion, a short waterline or a small sail plan — a problem 
of uncommon intricacy and difficulty. All his ingenuity 
and skill must be expended in getting a result worth- 
less to naval architecture and the evolution of the yacht. 
If the net product of the rule should happen to be a 
wholesome boat (which can only be determined by sev- 
eral year^ of building and racing under it), it will bar all 
other types from racing, and they would better be barred 
at the outset, and save an immense amount of money. 
The probability of predicting the kind of boat that will 
be produced by the formula, 
R , M . =- + - + B - + D " 4/ mTsT, 
is precisely the probability that the committee 
could, at the first trial, design the fastest possible 
boat under the rule in every case, and that every boat 
would turn out to be a wholesome yacht. 
" ~ ; - " Sextant. 
Painting a Yacht. 
In answer to the inquiry as to painting a yacht, a cor- 
respondent in Port Clinton, Ohio, advises white lead 
mixed with turpentine to a good consistency. This 
gives a dead white, free from the gloss and yellow tint 
of oil; it is light, and a little comes off with each scrub- 
bing, leaving a clean surface. Three coats will stand a 
season's scrubbing, and will show white when the time: 
comes for laying up. 
