Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorThat is a fairly unusual size for this purpose; probably your best bet would be to ask the trailer manufacturer, or alternatively consult a tyre specialist.
The tyres themselves will have a maximum pressure marked on the tyre wall; but that is indeed a maximum, and I would expect that for this relatively modest load you should use rather less pressure.
If all else fails, as a very tentative suggestion you could start with the stated maximum pressure and the corresponding load limit (also marked on the tyre wall), then adjust pro rata for the actual (laden) load. But if you can get advice from either the trailer manufacturer or a tyre specialist then so much the better.
Sorry that I can’t be of more help.
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorLaura,
Congratulations on your purchase, and especially since you say the boat is in beautiful condition, and welcome to the Association.
On the mainsail issue, if you really do mean 80% and if you have an early metal mast (by IYE) in which the falls of the halliards run down the sail groove, Captainkismo’s identification of the problem may well be correct. You may well have that type of mast, as it is commonly found on older GP14s; it was the first metal mast licensed for the class, and many of them still survive.
However I don’t remember ever experiencing that issue when I had a GP14 in the early seventies with an IYE mast, although the mast was brand new at the time, which may well by why I had no problems. This leads me to question whether one or both halliards is too thick; I would suggest 5 mm maximum thickness in each case, and the genoa halliard can be significantly thinner if you use wire rather than rope, as is normal modern practice. (Use 7 x 19 wire, for maximum flexibility.)
If however the problem is only in the last foot or so, perhaps even the last few inches, the problem may be a matter of getting sufficient luff tension, and that is a question of technique. Either raise the gooseneck (if it is the sliding type) first, and only after it has been raised hoist the sail to the upper black band, or alternatively if you have a fixed gooseneck hoist the sail to the upper black band before fitting the boom to the gooseneck. Then cleat off the halliard. Only when the head of the sail is fully hoisted and the halliard is cleated off should you pull the gooseneck down (if the sliding type) or fit the boom to the gooseneck (if the fixed type).
As regards reefing, have a look at the article on Reefing Systems in the Members’ Area of this site; towards the end that describes the original reefing system (square gooseneck roller reefing), and illustrates a selection of reefing strops. However that article also strongly recommends that you upgrade to a modern slab/jiffy reefing system; this is so much quicker and easier (and safer) to use if you need to pull down a reef while out at sea, and it results in a much better and more efficient shape to the reefed sail, and it enables you to still use the kicker. Although fitting a decent roller reefing system to the genoa may be though expensive (depending on your budget), the cost of fitting a modern slab/jiffy reefing system to the main is much more modest.
Re outboards, it might be helpful for you to first read the paper on Fitting An Outboard, also available in the Members’ Area. First decide what exactly you intend to use the outboard for. Then some fundamental choices include YES/NO (i.e. do you fit an outboard or instead relay on sails and oars), and – if you do fit an outboard – petrol or electric. That paper discusses the first of those questions (but says little or nothing about the electric option because I have insufficient experience of them), and also addresses the mechanics of how and where to fit one if you do decide to go for it.
Hope this is helpful,
Oliver
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by
Oliver Shaw.
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by
Oliver Shaw.
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by
Oliver Shaw.
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorThank you for that. So the various documents now uploaded show that no. 10 was called Madame X in 1957, and that the name had been changed to Siskin by 1976 (and quite possibly some time prior to that, perhaps by the late sixties, quite possibly when acquired by Barry Richards).
She was of course not by any means the only boat to undergo a name change.
Thank you also for the information about Gwladys Tri.
Anyone know anything about the original Gwladys? (I presume that there was one.)
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorSimon,
Welcome to the Association.
When you are ready we would certainly welcome you to our cruising events; although if you are looking for sea sailing I do have to say that, exceptionally, for next year’s UK National Cruising Week we are currently thinking provisionally of the Norfolk Broads.
Hope to see you on the water.
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorGraham Knox alerts me that West Mersea Trailers are currently the main supplier. Decades ago they were the headline supplier, and then seemed to go through various reincarnations, but at one point appeared to drop out of the marine market and (if memory serves correctly) sold the design to another company – possibly Dixon Bate – and gave an undertaking not to return to the marine market for 3 years.
Subsequently Mersea Trailers, who at one point appeared to be not the same company as West Mersea Trailers (very confusing) I think took over Snipe Trailers.
A search for West Mersea Trailers now defaults to Mersea Trailers, and they do indeed have a GP14 twin cradle combi-unit; https://www.merseatrailers.com/store/GP14-Twin-Cradle-p155321826 and then match this to their 250 roadbase https://www.merseatrailers.com/store/250-Road-Base-8-Wheels-p154470339 or https://www.merseatrailers.com/store/250-Road-Base-10-Wheels-p154470343 depending on your choice of wheel size. The design of the cradles is slightly different from the earlier West Mersea one, and now seems to be a compromise between having side pieces to help in centring the boat while minimising the risk of damage if recovering her ashore in surf; it might work well.
Graham also draws attention to Sovereign Trailers (part of Welsh Harp Boat Centre); and, of course, Indespension (who make the suspension units) is headquartered in Bolton.
Hope this is helpful,
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorFundamental points that I would look for in any combi-unit:
- A proper shaped cradle for the main support, of large surface area, in order to spread the load, and thus be kind to your hull (the best are excellent, but some are extremely basic)
- The main support a little abaft the centre of gravity, and abaft the road wheels axle.
- Choice of 8″ or 10″ wheels; 8″ are fine for run of the mill towing, but 10″ are probably preferable if you regularly tow long distances. However they will make the loading height an inch higher, which may make the unit just slightly harder to load.
The second of these points goes some way to addressing the issue of the long unsupported overhang, which is arguably an unfair stress on the hull. However the GP14 is arguably somewhat over-engineered, and most of us (myself included) are satisfied that a properly designed combi-unit with the support a little abaft the balance point gives an acceptable compromise which will not strain the hull.
Having the support abaft the balance point also gives useful noseweight to the boat and launching trolley as it sits on the roadbase, to discourage the bows from bouncing up and down on the trailer.
This may however result in the boat being somewhat bow-heavy when manoeuvring her ashore on her launching trolley. This is a consequence of proper support and of a suitable noseweight when on the road base; but if this is an issue for handling on her launching trolley there are at least two possible solutions. One is to fit a (removable) jockey wheel, and the other is to simply move the boat a few inches aft on the trolley when not towing by road.
Personally I like modest-sized vertical (padded) end pieces on the cradle, to ensure that the boat is properly centred on the trolley; but that can be a liability if you periodically need to beach the boat in surf. I normally manage to avoid needing to do so, but it is a question of making that choice as appropriate for your particular circumstances.
Many of the dinghy trailer manufacturers that I have known in the past seem to be no longer offering what I would be looking for, but I have today found two that are worth a look:
- https://www.ashtonmarineservices.co.uk/boat-trailers/trailers-combination-dinghy/
- https://www.tridentuk.com/gb/product-gp14-launching-trolley-grp-cradle-trtra145ltgp14sc.html
Note that the second of these is only the launching trolley, so you would then need a suitable roadbase as well.
Plus this one, which I know nothing about, but which is possibly worth further investigation: https://trailers.co.uk/Product/0000002178/275_470_Gunwale_Hung_Launching_Trolly I note that it does claim to be specifically designed for the GP14, but I would check that point with care! Again you would need the roadbase as well.
The attached photo shows a fairly primitive type of chock, which I feel is best avoided; I will not embarrass anyone by identifying the manufacturer!
Paintwork should not normally be damaged by towing by road, but it is vulnerable to road filth being thrown up, and in certain conditions it is potentially vulnerable to small chips being thrown up, either by the tow car or by passing vehicles. Many owners choose to use an under-cover for protection when towing. Most such under-covers require a two-person operation to fit it and again to remove it, but because I am often single-handed I had a modified one made which fits around the main chock rather than passing between the chock and the boat; the protection is not quite as good, but very nearly as good, and I can fit it and remove it single-handed. Get back to me if you want details
Hope this helps,
Oliver
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.Oliver Shaw
ModeratorSail Numbers
I think it is moderately well known that the very first sail numbers were issued in batches to clubs, who then issued them onwards to their members as boats were built. So globally they were not in strict chronological order because, for example, the first two groups were issued to Dovey Yacht Club (its name at that time, now Dovey SC), and to Shropshire SC; so it would have been effectively impossible for the two clubs to keep exactly in step with each other as they issued numbers. Then add in other early clubs, such as Holyhead, Royal Windermere, and Royal Northumberland, and clearly numbers were never going to be issued in strict sequence. I am not certain when that practice changed, so that all sail numbers were issued centrally, but a reasonable guess is that it was before 1956, and probably much earlier.
It is also moderately well known that E. Howard-Davies, a co-founder of the Association and our first President, who on stepping down as President then served as Secretary, was not only allowed sail number 1, but was allowed to retain the number through at least two boats – and I think three.
Less well known is that the Championship-winning Warden Owen brothers managed to arrange a sequence of related sail numbers for their successive boats. David won the 1970 Nationals in Gwladys Too, no. 830; Edward won the 1971 Nationals in Gwladys Fore, no. 8830; then Edward again won the 1974 Nationals in Gwladys V, no. 9830, and the 1976 Nationals in Gwladys VI, no. 10830. (The missing ones in the sequence, the original Gwladys, and Gwladys 3 (however that would have been spelled) are conspicuous by their absence.)
But one cannot (normally) these days have one’s choice of sail number significantly ahead of due sequence. My own much-loved 1961 Sills-built boat which I had for about 10 years from the mid sixties was no. 4229; but when I was ordering A Capella, as a new build from Tim Harper in 2005, and would have liked sail number 14229 I was told I would have to wait many years before it became available!
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorBefore making any such comparison you first need to establish equivalent conditions in the two cases; the same standard of helming and crewing, same crew weights, the same wind conditions, the same wave conditions, etc.
The intention of the Committee in setting design standards and in licensing builders is that in terms of performance there should be absolutely nothing to choose between the two materials. How well (or otherwise) that works in practice is of course what you are trying to ascertain.
Certainly our strong impression is that at Championship-winning level the honours are evenly divided.
And incidentally it is not always the newest boats which win. Think Racey’s Rocket (Mike Senior, the current World Champion, won in 2018 when the boat was over 20 years old), and decades earlier Gwladys Too (David Warden-Owen, UK National Champion in 1970, when the boat was somewhere around 16 years old); both seriously old Championship-winning boats, and incidentally both of them wooden boats.
By far the biggest factors determining the speed of any given boat are the skill levels of helms and crews, their physical fitness, and the degree of preparation of the boat. Whether wood or plastic appears to be irrelevant.
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorThat is at least as good a speculation as my one, and in that case a further speculation might be that the trailing 9 could be the month number.
Although Bourne’s moulding numbers do appear to have been irrespective of design for those boats which had more modest production numbers and had no formal class associations, they may perhaps have had a different regime for GP14s (and perhaps also for Enterprises, Wanderers, etc), where there was a strong class association and where there were such things as registered hull numbers.
And I warmly second the injunction to enjoy your boat!
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorFrom the photo I think that character is indeed an oblique, so 68 / 0559; although I can well see that without having seen any other Bourne moulding numbers you would naturally read it as a “1”, and thus 6810559.
It is very largely judgement, since the orientations and spacing of the other digits are far from precise or uniform!
Regards,
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorCould the third character be an oblique, rather than a numeral; thus 68 / 0559?
This would suggest she was moulded in 1968, and the moulding number was 0559 of that year; and that date indicates that she would be a Mk. 1 boat. (Identification points for confirmation of this are visible alloy tubular frames, and stern buoyancy tank athwartships across the boat underneath the stern deck.)
However that does not give the registered hull number (and correct sail number), which for a 1968 Mk 1 boat should be within the range 7002 to 7929. 7002 was the first Mk 1 boat, built in 1967, and 7930 the first Mk 2, built in 1969; and a significant proportion of the numbers in between were issued to wooden (series 1) boats.
There should separately be a plate bearing the registered hull number, bonded onto the GRP, most probably in the usual place (central, where the hog would be on a wooden boat, abaft the centreboard case and underneath the floorboards); however many of them have long since disappeared.
It has been suggested by highly knowledgeable individuals within the GP14 class that the moulding numbers at this time comprised 2 digits for the year, followed by the registered hull number, but that appears not to tally with this number on this boat.
However I also happen to know that Bourne Plastics built a wide variety of other boats, and also car bodies, and my researches into the Privateer 20, backed up by information relating to the Shipmates (two trailer-sailer yachts which they also moulded) rather suggest that after the year code the moulding number appears to have been a sequence across all their mouldings each year, irrespective of which design. That deduction is because the moulding numbers for some of the Privateers and Shipmates are far too high to correspond to the numbers of those boats produced, but would make sense if the sequence covered their entire production of all hulls (and even more sense if the series covered their car bodies as well).
It is all a bit of a mystery, and unless you come up lucky with some detective work I fear that you may not get to the bottom of her identification.
You may be interested in a bit of history of Bourne Plastics; http://www.ournottinghamshire.org.uk/page/bourne_plastics_of_netherfield_langar
Sorry not to be more helpful,
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorAssuming your transom to be varnished rather than painted the problem in choosing the wood is largely cosmetic, rather than structural; any good marine hardwood would be structurally suitable, but the difficulty is obtaining a good cosmetic match, and since the existing wood is very likely to have faded you will be trying to match new wood to old faded wood. So the best visual match may not necessarily be the same species as the original.
A further complication is that the new wood will fade more rapidly than the continuing further fading of the old wood.
One option would be to consult the catalogues of specialist marine timber suppliers, such as Robbins or Stones or Sykes, and see what looks closest in appearance. https://www.robbins.co.uk , http://www.stonesmarinetimber.com , https://www.sykestimber.co.uk/index.html .
On older GP14s than yours I would expect the timber to be mahogany, which I fully realise is a family of timbers rather than a single species (around 400 of them, if my recollection of my O Level woodwork course well over 60 years ago is correct). For your boat, good starting points might be African or Brazilian mahogany, sapele, or utile; or just possibly iroko, or even meranti. Mahogany and iroko are traditional boatbuilding timbers, and sapele and utile are also sometimes used (but are slightly less durable than the other two); however meranti is not a traditional boatbuilding material, although it is a reasonable quality domestic timber and you might get away with using it if it happens to be the best match visually.
Alternatively, if you know who built your boat (and if the firm are still trading) they might be able to supply you with a suitable offcut of original material.
Hope this is of some help,
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorIt depends on what you want to use it for.
The maximum length of a whisker pole (a.k.a. jibstick) is identical with that of the spinnaker boom, 6-ft including fittings, now metricated to 1829 mm.
If you carry a spinnaker, even if you use it only occasionally, you require a spinnaker boom.
The full length is a fundamental requirement for the spinnaker pole, which also needs to be stronger than is required for only a whisker pole, and it also needs to have fittings which are properly enclosed at both ends (because it can sometimes be under tension rather than compression). The whisker pole can afford to be of lighter construction, and because it is never under tension it can get away with just a spike at the outboard end (rather than a properly enclosed fitting as found on a spinnaker pole).
For booming out the genoa, the spinnaker boom which you require anyway will serve perfectly adequately as a whisker pole, and the full length is just about right. Using the spar that you are carrying anyway saves the need to also carry a separate whisker pole, even though the spinnaker boom is slightly heavier than would be a whisker pole.
If you sail with the original standard jib, or any other smaller headsail, you may then find that the full length pole is too long for poling out the smaller headsail, in which case you will need a correspondingly shorter one, and in that case it won’t double for use as a spinnaker pole, so it might as well be only a whisker pole.
Photo shows a whisker pole in use on my vintage boat, no. 64 no less, setting cotton sails and with the original standard jib.
Hope this helps,
Oliver
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.Oliver Shaw
ModeratorLooks good.
Well done.
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorTwo photos attached showing the split halliard arrangement, albeit not running up the forestay in this boat.
The fixed end of the second part is attached to the spinnaker pole ring on the mast, and the other end is attached to the spinnaker, and is clipped to the shroud to keep it out of the way when not in use. The first part of the halliard terminates in a free-running block, which runs on the second part, thus giving a reversed 2:1 purchase.
Oliver
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files. -
This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts



