FOREST AND STREAM. 4*1 
Dec. 12, 1903.] 
been able to find a chart otlier than that issued by 
United States engineers. 
A Canoe Yacht on Lake Ontario, by J. Edward Maybee, 
is prefaced hy some very pertinent remarks on the hird 
task that a cruiser has to make himself interesting when 
aboard of a well-found little ship. His story does not 
prove his case, however, as Lorna's cruise is interest- 
ing from cover to cover. Mr. Maybee is a student of 
human nature as well as a sailor, and his words on the 
frying pan and on whiskey must not be overlooked. 
Cruise of the Nerine, S. G. Etherington, New Ro- 
chelle to Marblehead and return, is carefully done 
with very good photographs, and no end of work in 
making a good chart. The story is very interesting; but 
unfortunately little attention is pai<l to pilotage. 
In A Vacation Cruise, William Kuhnle, a graduate 
of the schoolship St. Mary's, we are shown the 
benefits of a practical education in seamanship. Mr. 
Kuhnle gives a very good description of his boat and 
of the use of the lead. Tells the character of the bot- 
tom by it, which he is careful to find out before anchor- 
ing. Takes cross bearings of his anchorage for pur- 
poses which he explains. The schoolship St. Mary's is 
a New York City public school afloat. She is com- 
manded by an officer of the navy, and usually makes a 
summer voyage to Europe. Mr. Kuhnle proves that 
the students are well grounded in navigation and sea- 
manship. The few photographs sent are not very 
good. 
Cruise of the Tainui 1903, Jas. W. Commeford, Jr., 
is a plucky one, as the boat is small for the bad 
weather encountered on the Great Lakes. The seaman- 
ship is fair, the pilotage not up to the mark; a good 
number of photographs are sent which will interest 
readers. Tainui was in the last competition, and her 
cruise gained first prize. 
A Cruise on Long Island Sound, by C. N. Robinson, 
is prefaced by a verj' interesting description of Ramea, 
whose owner is evidently very fond of her and justly 
so. The seamanship and pilotage column show good 
I marks, but the chart has no course marked on it. The 
' photographs are good and excellent descriptions are 
given of the anchorages. 
The Tndra Log, Henry Picterny, takes us from Mar- 
blehead to Sydney, Cape Breton, over most interesting 
waters. It is very well written by a man who, with 
too much modesty, calls himself a landsman. The pre- 
liminary remarks are specially good and the descrip- 
tions of the boat excellent. The interest is maintained 
throughout, and I am sure your readers will regret that 
Mr. Picterny did not make the whole cruise with 
' Indra. 
In the Cruifse of the Whitecap, Louis S. Tieman takes 
us in an auxiliary from New Rochelle to Cottage City 
and return. His descriptions of harbors are very good. 
• particularly that of Cuttyhunk. Many owners (if 
shoal boats will be glad to know that they can depend 
on getting into the pond when anchoring in Cutty - 
hunk Harbor is too impossible. Has it ever been de 
cided in boats with power, which is the auxiliary, the 
sails or the engine? No photographs v.'ith this story. 
I William P. Morrison sends Bantam's Cruise, and 
gives an excellent description of getting underweigh. 
His chart might have had the course of Bantam jotted 
i, on it, as among the Maine islands it is hard to follow 
a boat without this aid. His remarks on rights of 
tway between large and small vessels should be read by 
all, particularly by those of your subscribers who have 
to do with admiralty courts. 
Co-education on a Yawl is sent by Mrs. Lticius W. 
Hitchcock, and shows that the ladies are taking more and 
more pleasure in j-achting each season. The interest is 
niaintained throughout, and some excellent photograph.^ 
are sent. The combination of captain and skipper on one 
, boat has aided to defeat more than one America's Cup 
challenger, and we congratulate the crew of the 3'awl 
that it worked them no harm. 
The story sent by Mrs. Alfred V. Sayre is one showing 
, a lot of pluck and is interesting. Good photographs ac- 
company this cruise. 
Cruising in Nova Scotia Waters, by Samuel T. Allen, 
is presented without a chart, which is unfortunate, as 
southern Nova Scotia must be a very charming place 
to make a cruise, and next to that to follow a cruise on 
the chart. Mr. Allen gives a very good description of 
* his boat, and tells of frequent use of the lead. His 
I closing remarks about the coast are both" interesting 
' and instructive. 
W. G. Bodamer. of Buffalo, tells a good story in a new 
cruiser, and describes his boat well. The chart presented 
i- very good. 
In A Little Cruise in a Little Boat, by G. F. Maurice, 
Mr. Maurice presents a very interesting story of how 
he came into possession of his "little boat," and gives 
an excellent description of her. He speaks of her as 
if .she were a dear friend. His list of articles necessary 
for such a cruise are specially good. 
.A. Day or Two at Sea, is a cruise on Lake Ontario, 
.'^tnt by Charles Stanton. He does not tell us very much 
about the craft that he made this cruise in and omits 
photographs. 
Reginald Mack sends The Cruise of the Minota, taker, 
on Lake Michigan, and is a very good account of yacht- 
ing on those waters. The pilotage notes are admirable, 
and the photographs sent are an excellent lot. Minota 
is a celebrated boat, and it must be a great pleasure to 
sail her. 
The Captain's Yarn, by F. Chester, is well gotten up 
and the chart a very good one. _ Your readers will cer- 
tainly enjoy this cruise from Philadelphia to Plymouth, 
Mass., and return. 
Theodre C. Zerega. 
Mr. Norman L. Skene has severed his connection 
with Messrs. Burgess and Packard, and has associated 
himself with Mr. Hollis Burgess. Mr. Skene will take 
charge of the designing department of Mr. Burgess' 
business, and he will give great care to the design and 
construction of all classes of yacht and mercantile work. 
Mr. Skene is a graduate of the Massachusetts Insti- 
tute of Technology, and he is also secretary of tl^e 
Cbathani V. G» , 
Notes on Yacht Measurement. 
llditor Forest and Stream: 
I have read the communication of Professor Poor 
in your issue of Nov. 21 with considerable interest. 
H^is contention that exact and scientific methods should 
be introduced into measurement rules is one which 
should commend itself to acceptance wherever and 
whenever practicable, and the form of his argument is, 
I think, not without value in this respect. Llnfortu- 
nately, apart from Froude's law of corresponding 
speeds, there is, so far as I have seen, ver^' little that 
has been given exact form and value, which is appli- 
cable to the purpose; and even the law of correspond- 
ing speeds seems to have only a soinewhat inaccurate 
bearing. We are left to apply the results of observa- 
tion and experience, to obtain as much fairness, and as 
good conditions in racing as are found practicable, 
and assuredly clubs have not moved in the direction 
of improvement with the speed that observed facts 
would seem to require. 
I think, however, that Mr. Poor is under a false im- 
pression in supposing that "the assumption in all 
measurement rules that speed is proportional to the 
fourth root of sail area," has governed the charge for 
it. It also is not wholly true, but only conditionally 
so, that "the amount of motive power (in a yacht) 
varies with the sail area." A full examination of this 
matter would require much to be written, but it may 
suffice to state that sail area is not power, it is one 
and only one of the mediums through which power is 
exerted or conveyed and made effective for propulsion, 
and the power oi3tained through the agency of sails is 
not a constant quantity; it differs widely from that 
of a steam engine. In a light wind the larger sail 
plan has an advantage, but as the wind increases this 
diminishes, and when, of two yachts racing, the wind 
strength equals the needs of the one with smaller rig, 
the other is disadvantaged by her larger spars, higher 
center of effort, and greater weight aloft; and if she 
has to be reefed she suffers the further disadvantage 
of allowing time for sail which is not in use, and 
which is doing harm to her. Sail area cannot be said 
to have, in any practical sense, a constant value, any 
average value that it may have for racing purposes de- 
pends on local conditions and prevailing wind forces. 
Its value and appreciation here is greater than in 
British waters, and in both places it probably has a 
much greater value than it would have in Bermudian 
waters in the spring months. 
I saw an illustration of this a year or two ago. A 
wen-known New York j-achtsman had a small Ameri- 
can }-acht at Hamilton, she had a fairly large rig, which 
counted in her measurem,ent, and raced many times 
against an English boat of smaller rig. The Ameri- 
can boat usually was reefed, and was beaten by a 
large allowance, which had to be made on sail she 
could not use. 
There are matters which concern the equities of 
racing of which Mr. Poor makes no mention, and these, 
perliaps, have not had his attention, though they affect 
the relation of sail in the yachts M. and E., and its 
propuLsive effect in those vessels. M. had, in 1902, and 
before the reduction of her sail plan, 81 square feet 
riorc sail than E., but with this one-thirtieth more sail 
than E., and with a shorter waterline by 2iin., this 
.'•ail had to drive a body of over 4ft. larger area of 
svbmerged MS., and of over one and a half tons 
grca'-cr displacement, and this not necessarily with 
any more stability to make the sail carried effective 
than that possessed by E., since E. made up by draft 
(leverage) for that which, relatively, she lacked in dis- 
placement. The notable thing about this is that as 
iietwcen M. and E. the only rule in use in 1903 in 
these waters, which made any allowance from E. to 
M. for the different relation of their MS to dimen- 
sions, was that of the Larchmont and the Sea- 
wan haka-Corinthian Y. C. The allowance factor was 
1.32. The rule of the Y. R. A. of Long Island Sound 
had ceased to make allowances fo less extreme forms 
than that of E. In other words, the altered rule failed 
to make allowance to a MS of approximately compact 
form. John Hyslof. 
Fdifor Forest and Stream: 
I have made a careful study of Dr. Poor's article in 
your issue of Nov. 21, not only because the subject al- 
ways interests me, but because it is so seldom that 
we are favored with the views of a practical yachts- 
man. For this reason I do not want to offer ungra- 
cious criticism, but one of his suggestions is so revolu- 
tionary that it is fairly open to discussion. He states 
that the assumption that speed is proportional to the 
fourth root of sail area does not seem to be foutided 
on any substantial basis, and after elaborating the 
question, concludes that speed is more nearly propor- 
tional to the square root of sail area. His evidence 
in support of this theory consists of: i. The accepted 
rule in power boat pi-actice that for moderate speeds 
the power will be nearly proportional to the square of 
the speed. 2. The results of two seasons' racing be- 
tween two yachts, the sail of one being reduced for the 
second season. It is admitted, however, that these re- 
sults cannot be regarded as conclusive. It is obvious 
that to secure reliable data the experiment should be 
tried with successive reductions or increases of sail, 
as Dr. Poor suggests it would be better done with a 
one-design class of boats. Aside from this it does not 
appear that the two boats were well matched. Even 
in 1902 there was an average difference of 26 miles 
per hour in their racing speed, and the boat M. was ap- 
parently beaten steadily and conclusively by the boat 
E. Next year M. reduced canvas 4 per cent, (the rea- 
son for which is not stated), and was beaten over half 
a mile an hour on the average. Evidently M. was not 
a fair match for E.. at all events in 1903, and some 
other causes beyond sail area must have been respon- 
sible for the results noted. At the same time Dr. 
Poor is entitled to credit for taking the trouble to 
average the observed data, and it would be well if more 
yacht-smen were on the lookout for such evidence. 
Coming BOW tb^ first proposition, that in pow«r 
boats speed varies as the square root of the power, 
Dr. Poor says that in sailing vessels the power de- 
veloped is proportional to the area of the sails, and on 
this basis compares it with the horse-power of an 
engine. But the two sorts of power, as here expressed, 
are not similar. The horse-power of an engine (prop- 
erly calculated) is a definite force, ready for use. Sail 
area will develop or, let us say, transient power, when 
acted on by wind pressure, which is highly variable in 
itself, and its action on sails is by no means thoroughly 
understood. With a given sail area and a given wind 
pressure, the driving power developed will obviously 
vary with the horizontal and vertical angles of the 
sails. This alone renders difficult any direct compari- 
son with engine power, and to apply the rules of one 
to the practice of the other, is not justifiable. Further- 
more, it is quite possible to increase the driving power 
of a steamer without in any way altering her trim. 
Practically nothing of the sort can be done with a 
racing yacht, except by working backward and re- 
ducing sail, an experiment that would scarcely pay in 
actual racing, assuming that the boat could carry her 
sail effectively in the first place. To take a common 
example, suppose a steamer of 50ft. waterline is regu- 
larly driven at 8 knots and is intended to maintain that 
speed steadily without forcing either engine or boiler. 
It would not be unusual in such a case to have an en- 
gine and boiler capable of driving the boat at 10 knots 
if required. The power developed would therefore 
vary, according to the rule, as the squares of 8 and 
10 or as 64 and 100. 
That is, for a 25 per cent, increase of speed, there 
would be an increase of over 56 per cent, in driving 
power. Now take a 50ft. waterline sailing craft, rnod- 
erately canvassed, and capable of doing 8 knots in a 
fresh, reaching breeze, would any one propose to drive 
her at 10 knots by increasing the sail area 56 per cent, 
without any alterations to the hull? Certainly not, 
and for a reason apparent to any sailor that the boat 
would not carry the added sail. With shifting ballast 
the thing might be done, but not otherwise. A great 
increase of beam and draft might enable the yacht to 
increase her rig 56 per cent., but there would be added 
resistance due to the alterations of form, and the re- 
sult would be problematical. A comparison of yachts 
of various sizes, but similar form, shows that sail area 
varies pretty much as the square of the length, or in 
another form: 
VS = L X constant. 
And the constant will vary from i to 1 5. according !o 
the type of yacht and the amount of sail that may be 
carried under the local conditions of wind and watc". 
This formula is really the basis of the old length and 
sail area rule, VS being used only as a qualifying laci'>.- 
in connection with L. There is no relation between 
sail area and speed, except in connection with lengih, 
and the latter is always the governing factor. 
Finally, I must refer again to the yacht M. used by 
Dr. Poor as an example, and according to his o\v;i 
figures her average speed over racing courses in go-u! 
breezes was some seven miles an hour, with 2.500 .-q. 
ft. of sail. The square root of this is 50, while the 
square root of Reliance's sail area is officially giv-n 
as 127.16. We might, therefore, expect Reliance to 
show an average speed of 17.78 miles, according to the 
theory advanced by Dr. Poor. Needless to say, Re- 
liance never attained any such speed under any circum- 
stances, her best speed in reaching being under 13 
miles. The examples are, perhaps, extreme, but it may 
be worth noting that the fourth roots of the respective 
sail areas are roughly 7 and 11; the latter figure would 
be a high average speed for Reliance even over a tri- 
angular course. It is, therefore, quite evident that in 
practice we are unable to increase speed any faster 
than the fourth root of sail area. 
Wm, Q. Phillips. 
Clinton, Onl., Dfc. 2. 
Toronto, Canada, Dec. 4. — Editor Forest and Stream: 
I have read with much interest ]\Ir. Poor's article on 
measurement and time allowance, and find I cannot agre-: 
with all his conclusions. I can perhaps best set out our 
points of disagreement by taking concrete example^ 
1. Let us take the case of two old-fashioned leid 
mines, one i6ft. on the waterline the other 25ft; in each 
case let the square root of the sail area equal the L.W.I..;, 
then in each case, by the rule [-z^^^' ^'VS.A. ^j^^ racinjr 
length is the same as the L.W.L. and also as ihe VS. A. 
'ihe possibilities of speed would be respectively as the 
VL.W.L., that is, 4:5. But these numbers are also ilu- 
fourth roots of the respective sail areas, therefore in il)<^ 
case of similar vessels it appears that the fourth root-- i 1 
the sail areas may indicate their pcssibiliiics of sp -ed 
with a considerable degree of accuracy. If, however, w^- 
take the case of two vessels of exactly the same size ir.d 
shape, but one carrying more canvas than the other, then 
possibly Mr. Froude's rule would apply. But this is ve' v 
seldom the case; the nde is that each vessel carries all 
she can with due regard to average wind and weather. 
II, then, one boat carries more sail than another of the 
same length, it usually means that the boat with the 
larger sail area has had her form altered to enable her 
to carry the excess of sail, and this change of form alnuist 
invariably detracts from Ihe theoretical advantage dnr ;/■ 
tier increased propelling pozver. 
2. Now take the case of the old and new Cup dc- 
ienders. A typical old boat would be 90ft. L.W.L., 8.10:) 
square feet canvas; a typical modern boat, 90ft. L.W.I.. 
and 15,625 square feet canvas. The square root of 8.]m 
is 90, of 15,625 is 125. Are the new boats faster Ih.T" 
the old in any such proportion? 
The fourth roots are respectively 9.4868 and li 1S03. 
Do not these numbers much more nearly express the rela- 
tive speeds of the two types? 
In steam by quadrupling your power you can double 
your speed in the same hull. With sail you cannot do 
this, because on a given length of hull you cannot pile 
up canvas without changing the form of your hull, and 
this means increase4 resistance to speed every time. 
