Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 226 through 240 (of 708 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: The history of 7358 mk1 GRP “Aguamenti” #21376
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    I hadn’t realised that CVDRA accepted GRP boats  …

    A good first step to finding out something of her history would be Hugh Brazier,  the Archivist of the Class Association (contact via the Association Office).   He holds all the records,  and (provided you are a member) should be able to let you have a digital copy of our entire records for the boat which you believe she is (i.e. sail number 7358).   That will either reinforce or completely refute that you have the correct number;  and if apparently correct it may provide other information as to her history.

    It is not unusual for hull numbers of early GRP boats to have disappeared over the intervening years.   They were on a metal plate which was bonded onto the moulding,  but in many cases the glue has failed and the plate is no longer present.

    Stewart Elder has an extensive collection of early Class Handbooks,  so he may be able to trace her in the boat lists there.

     

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: GP14 Slot Gasket Fitting #21274
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    That is a very nicely made Y-piece in hardwood;   I have never seen them in wood previously,  always in metal.   My one concern is that the wood will not take abrasion as kindly as metal will,  but you would want to protect the bottom from abrasion anyway.   This basically comes down to appropriate care in launching,  and beaching,  and recovering the boat onto her launching trolley;   just be aware of this small area of alight vulnerability.

    Given that,  I think I would approach the problem by painting the hull (or varnishing,  if you prefer) before fitting any of the keelband.   That is best practice anyway.   At the same time paint (or varnish) those Y-pieces.

    Then I would lay the slot gasket the full length,  including the full length of the Y-pieces,  preferably tensioning it slightly as you fit it,  as Steve has described.

    Finally trim off the excess from the outside of the Y-pieces (and the outside of the keelband along the slot).

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: GP14 Slot Gasket Fitting #21258
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    The first thing is a check on Class Rules,  from  which the relevant points seem to be:

    Rule 3.5  Metal keel and stem bands shall be of segmental section with a size tolerance of 16 x 3mm to 19 x 5mm.

    Rule 14.1 The following permitted fittings are optional and must not be substantially in excess of their intended function in either weight or size.  …   …   (cc) Centreboard slot flaps

    So,  subject to limits on dimensions of the keel band and the slot flap,  the details of everything that you intend to do are all optional!

     

    Do I assume that this is a refurbishment (or even restoration) of a boat which does not currently have these fittings?    I ask because if you do have existing fittings there is a lot to be said for staying with the same arrangement,  even if the fittings themselves need replacement,  unless you have a specific reason for wanting to alter the arrangement.

    I have found two photos on the GP14 Online Community site,  which were posted for other reasons but which do nonethless show the arrangement on those particular boats.   https://groups.io/g/GP14onlinecommunity/photo/245159/9?p=Created,,,20,1,0,0  and  https://groups.io/g/GP14onlinecommunity/photo/246775/12?p=Created,,,20,1,0,0   You might have to join the Group before you can access them,  but it is free,  and you would be welcome,  and might find us useful.   We are independent of the Class Association but maintain very warm reciprocal relations (and we have from time to time discussed merging our respective operations).

    ———————————————————————————————————————————————

    Now to address your specific queries:

    (1) Normal practice is to have Y-pieces or triangular pieces (shapes differ) in the keelband to make the transition between a single keelband forward and abaft the slot and a twin keelband alongside the slot,  one band each side of the slot.   These should not encroach upon the slot itself,  but should otherwise be as close as possible to the slot.

    The slot gasket (sailcloth or other material) should be sandwiched between the keel and the keelband either side of the slot,  and may extend under the Y-pieces.

     

    (2)  It probably is a good idea to punch out the boles in the gasket where the screws are going to pass;   but I would normally do it in situ,  by means of a bradawl or similar tool.   I don’t think it needs an actual hole punch;  but if you happen to have one and can measure up accurately enough then by all means use it.

     

    (3)  If you grease the fixing screws with Vaseline or similar,  or alternatively put a dab of (non-setting) mastic on them before inserting them you should find that this prevents water ingress via the screws and also helps with future removal.   Avoid brass screws!  (Use either stainless steel or bronze;  the former are readily obtainable from almost any marine chandler (and in a limited range of sizes from a few DIY shops),  bronze are usually available only from specialists,  and I myself use Classic Marine when I need such items.)

     

    >   Iv’e also seen on another dinghy class website that the sailcloth can be cut at an angle to assist drainage of the centreboard box. 

    Sorry,  I can’t help there.   But others may be able to.

    Hope this helps,

     

    Oliver

     

    in reply to: Snapshots of the Beginnings of the Class #21074
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Christopher Godber has now sent me a scan of the Shropshire SC’s printed boat list for 1957 (attached),  which clarifies that Madame X (spelled with an “e”) was indeed boat no. 10.   Since this is documentary evidence from the time,  it would appear at this stage to be conclusive   –   unless contradictory documentary evidence turns up later somewhere else   …   …

    Christopher also points out that “By 1957 some of the original batch of numbers had moved on so for example C Lyth Hudson who had GP 21 originally had bought himself a newer boat.”

     

    Oliver

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    in reply to: Snapshots of the Beginnings of the Class #21069
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Two emails received from Christopher Godber,  who wrote the recent article in Mainsail on THE BELL STORY.

    “Thank you for email

    “You have an interesting series of forum posts on the founding of the GP Association and the background to the Bell symbol.

    You will have also read my BELL STORY article I wrote for the GP Association newsletter last Autumn.

    “Unfortunately I was not sent a copy of my article for proof reading and by the time it was published more research had

    revealed that some of the facts were no longer 100% accurate.

    “The changes are basically as follows:-

    “The number of boats delivered to the Dovey Club was 10 not 12

    “The actual sail numbers of the 12 boats delivered to the Shropshire Sailing Club were 11 to 23 inclusive.

    Madame X owned by G F. Williams a Shropshire Sailing Club Member was No 11.   This boat finished 2nd in the first national Championships in 1952 sailed at SSC at Whitemere,  Shropshire.   It was helmed in the Championships by Janet Fenn-Wiggin a Firefly sailor recruited by Fred Williams as he lacked confidence in his own ability for the big event.

    “Some of these facts you have already reported after information received from John Fenn-Wiggin – the son of Janet.

    “The reason I am now certain on the numbers of the initial SSC 12 boats is that an SSC Member has produced 1952 and 1953 listings of SSC Members Boats and they are listed from No 11 onwards.

    ——————————————————-

    “Herewith the photo. It is a Press Cutting taken from October 1953 and features The Shropshire Sailing Club Open GP Meeting, Unfortunately the copy that has been sent me is very poor quality.

    “It is the SSC Club open meeting twelve months after the 1st GP National Championships.

    “Despite the poor quality you can hopefully make out the sail numbers.

    “GP 11,13 and 21 have no Bell symbols on their sails and all these 3 boats were SSC Members from their 1951 batch of 12 boats.

    “There are two anomalies in that GP 10 and GP 18 do have the Bell symbol on their sails ,  GP 10 and GP 18 were owned by SSC Members from the batch of 12 boats,  so I think we can assume that they had  new sets of sails delivered AFTER the Bell symbol had been formally adopted.”

     

    Many thanks to Christopher for this additional information.

     

     

    Oliver

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 11 months ago by Oliver Shaw.
    • This reply was modified 4 years, 11 months ago by Oliver Shaw. Reason: Correction received from author of the email quoted
    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    in reply to: Snapshots of the Beginnings of the Class #21018
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Thank you for that additional information.

    I therefore wonder about Madame X,  or Madam X,  with or without the French “e”.

    It seems unlikely that a long-term owner would change the name of his boat part way through his ownership;   if one is going to change the name I would expect this to be more or less immediately one acquires the boat.    But Stewart’s records  –  I think taken from the successive published Class Handbooks  –  seem to have no. 10 as Madam X (no “e”),  although John Fenn-Wiggin (qualified by “I think”) identifies her as no. 15.

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Registering my boat. #21002
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    The overwhelming likelihood is that the boat will already have been measured, for her first owner;   so it won’t need to be done again, and re-registering her in your name is a purely administrative task, for a nominal fee.

    In the fairly unlikely event of her having never been measured, or substantially altered since she was measured, then that will have to be done, by an official measurer;   and it is not a straightforward task unless done by someone who has access to the official measuring jigs.   However it is so unlikely that this will be needed that we don’t need to worry about that.

    Enjoy your new boat!

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Registering my boat. #21000
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    If you plan to race at Championship events you undoubtedly need to register the boat;   if racing only at club level,  technically you probably do,  but are very likely to get away with it even if you don’t.   However we would like you to register the boat,  and would recommend that you do so.

    That way the official records are up to date,  and you get a valid Class Certificate;  and although it has no legal status this is also generally accepted as a de facto proof of ownership.

    I presume that you are a member of the Class Association;  if not,  I would warmly commend you to join,  and also indeed ask you to do so.   But on the assumption that you are already a member I will not take up time and space to enumerate the reasons for doing so;   that can be done later if appropriate.   Except that with a new boat you will no doubt want insurance  –  indeed your club will very probably require you to have it  –  and the Association group policy with Craftinsure is very probably the best you can get.    Not necessarily the cheapest,  although I am sure they are competitive,  but undoubtedly excellent for customer service,  and for claims settlement.   And it helps greatly that their Underwriter is himself a sailing man,  as also I think is his assistant.

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Snapshots of the Beginnings of the Class #20970
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Stewart,

    Thank you for that;   our respective recollections (at secondhand,  in my case at least) have a large measure of agreement,  and where there are gaps they complement each other.

    I had also heard (I think from Gareth) that no. 10 was destroyed in a workshop fire at around that time,   and that the workshop was that of Don Marine,  and that their proprietor (not the boat) was known as “Barry the Boat”.     It is many years ago that I heard that,  I would guess somewhere around 2007,  when the news was still comparatively recent.

    Interesting that you have Madam X  as no. 10,  for which it would of course be highly appropriate,  whereas John Fenn-Wiggin tentatively gives Madam X ‘s number as 15  –  but he does qualify that comment with “I think”.   I suspect that you are working from documentary records,  and that coupled with the appropriateness of the name for no. 10 would seem to swing the balance in the detective work!

     

    Oliver

    • This reply was modified 5 years, 1 month ago by Oliver Shaw. Reason: Clarification
    in reply to: Snapshots of the Beginnings of the Class #20956
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    The first 25 boats

    Extract from a further email from Graham Knox today,  forwarding part of an email he had received from John Fenn-Wiggin of Shropshire SC:

    “The relevant part of the news that he received on email (in a very small font!) related to photos reads:

    “No 21 reminds us that the 12 GP14s the Club bought for Members early in 1951 came without any Bell logo on the Sails.

    “SSC had numbers 13 to 25 inclusive.   The first 12 GPs produced went to the Dovey Yacht Club at Aberdovey.

    “In October 1952 SSC hosted the first ever GP National Championships and over 40 boats entered.

    “SSC Member Fred Williams who owned a GP called Madame X (GP no. 15 I think) feared his skill was not up to a National Championship so he recruited Firefly sailor Janet Fenn-Wiggin to helm his boat for this special event.   They upset the form book and finished 2nd overall losing out on the Trophy to C H Acland of Windermere Sailing Club by only % of a point.”

     

    I was aware already that a few of the earliest boats had the letters “GP” in place of the Bell emblem.   Famously this includes Gareth’s South Bank,  and I also have a photo of a handicap class racing at Traeth Bych in about 1960 or ’61,  showing no. 445 similarly adorned.

     

    Oliver

    • This reply was modified 5 years, 1 month ago by Oliver Shaw. Reason: Correction of typos, and adding photo
    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    UPDATE 3rd November.

    The owner tells me he has now received an offer from someone who wishes to restore the boat,  so he is happy.   The boat is to be picked up after the end of lockdown.

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: GP14 Rigging Kicking Strap/Vang/Cunningham #20906
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    What is a suitable ratio for the kicker depends heavily on the age and type of your spars.

    At the time of the Mk 1 GRP boats ,  and probably through to Mk 2 at least,  it was normal to have comparatively modest purchase,  typically in the range 2:1 to 4:1,  with 3:1 perhaps the most popular.  The kicker was used primarily to stop the boom lifting when off the wind,  not to depower the rig by bending the spars in order to flatten the sail.  Sail twist when well off the wind was controlled by the mainsheet,  not the kicker,  which is why the full width sheet horse was developed,  and this was a feature of the Mk 1 and Mk 2 GRP boats;   however it had fallen out of favour by the time of the Mk 3 boats,  and that may possibly indicate that more powerful kickers were then in use by then.

    With modern spars,  the kicker is used to actually bend the spars,  in order to flatten the sail in stronger winds,  and to control twist.  Typical kicker purchase on the modern rig is 16:1 or 18:1.

    For what it is worth,  15 years ago I had a modern powerful kicker on a Series 1 (wooden) boat from 1979 (sail no. 11930),  and both boat and rig were well able to handle the loads.   However I would counsel against using such a powerful kicker on a boat with early spars,  e.g. the IYE ones,  contemporaneous with the early GRP boats;   such spars were not designed for those loads in the first place,  and many of them are no longer anything like as strong as they were when new,  because of deterioration (cracks,  corrosion,  and extra holes drilled,  just for starters) in the several decades since they were made.

    Hope this helps,

     

    Oliver

    • This reply was modified 5 years, 2 months ago by Oliver Shaw. Reason: Highlighting
    in reply to: Sailing Spark #20873
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Arthur,

    Good to hear that you do lock them,  but the lower nut on the starboard rigging screw nonetheless seems to have worked loose while you sailed,  and to have become progressively looser the longer you sailed.   There is a visible gap between locknut and barrel at 1:03 to 1:24,  and the gap has become significantly greater by 1:30 (which I would guess is a significantly later shot?).   Perhaps this illustrates the value of also using seizing wire.

    Can’t comment on either port side or forestay,  since neither of these are ever in shot of the camera.

    And full marks for choosing rigging screws which incorporate toggles,  for proper articulation where they connect to the chainplates;  I wholeheartedly approve!

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Sailing Spark #20871
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Well done;   she is looking good,  although it seems to have been a somewhat grey day for you.

    You yourself mention the loose forestay (or did you mean jib halliard?),  so I won’t comment on that.    But do please tighten the locknuts on your rigging screws,  otherwise there is a real risk that one of them may work itself completely undone.    That has been known to happen,  and when it does it has been known to result in breaking the mast!    You might even like to go for belt and braces  –  as well as tightening the locknuts,  seize the rigging screws with monel seizing wire.    I confess that the latter is rarely done on dinghies,  but it is absolutely standard on yachts,  and for very good reason.

     

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Wooden boat 4450 – new deck, etc #20859
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Chris,

    New deck:     I am very surprised if you old deck was indeed as thin as 2 mm, but it may well be thinner than 5 mm.   It is therefore very likely that the surface of that part of the kingplank between the two sheets of ply will be lower than the face of the ply.   There are initially two options,  with the second then splitting into three further options.

    Option 1,  if you wish to preserve the original cosmetic feature of a visible (part of) the kingplank you will need to built it up to the required thickness.  That might be done by preparing an accurately flat surface,  and then glueing on one or more layers of veneer,  or alternatively by planing the wood down,  possibly to flush with the rest of the kingplank,  before then glueing on a fillet of hardwood 5 mm thick (or fractionally thicker if you are then prepared to very carefully plane it back once the deck is on so that it becomes absolutely flush with the plywood.

    Option  2 is to dispense with that visible part of the kingplank,  and just plane it flush with the rest of the kingplank.   From this point you then have three alternative ways forward;   either (1) bring both sides of the deck right up to the centreline,  leaving a ply joint as the centreline,  or (2) use a single piece of ply (with no centreline joint) for the entire foredeck,  or (3) as a variant on the first option incorporate a decorative inlay as per the attached photos.

     

    Oliver

    • This reply was modified 5 years, 3 months ago by Oliver Shaw.
    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
Viewing 15 posts - 226 through 240 (of 708 total)