Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 271 through 285 (of 708 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Snapshots of the Beginnings of the Class #20180
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Shroud attachment:

    The original design had the shrouds attached above deck,  usually with either bottlescrews (tubular) or rigging screws (open),  and with the chainplates brought up through the deck.    That was standard practice at that time.

    Indeed when I was returning my vintage GP (Snowgoose,  no. 64,  dating from 1951) to authentic 1951 specification,  this was one of the features which I reinstated.   I was immensely fortunate in being able to acquire a pair of original chainplates complete with the Bell emblem stamped into them.

    A number of Rule changes were made at the end of 1952,  including one to permit shrouds to be brought down through the deck.   However it was to be several years before that arrangement became the norm.   My own first GP,  no. 3239 and built in 1959,   had above-deck attachment,  and this was still absolutely normal at the time.

    Indeed in the late sixties I was  on the permanent staff of a sailing school,  and if memory serves correctly all our various dinghies had the shrouds attached above deck.    Apart from the Fireflies which I sailed at university,  the first boat I ever met with below-deck attachment was my second GP,  no. 4229,  built in 1961 and purchased by myself in 1967,  and at that time I regarded that arrangement as unusual.    And even then,  the shrouds were connected to the chainplates by rigging screws,  and the forestay likewise;   the rig was set up by adjusting these rigging screws,  the headsail was hanked onto the forestay,  and the headsail halliard was used only to pull up the sail.

    The practice of using the genoa halliard to tension the rig came after the introduction of the genoa in 1967,  and Highfield levers were permitted from 1969.    I am not sure when (pre-set) vernier adjusters (or simpler ones) came to generally replace rigging screws.

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Hull colours in the 60’s #20173
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Since we are talking about wood rather than GRP,  as many and as varied as today.   Including,  of course,  white.

    One that I recall seeing in the late sixties,  at a West Lancs 24-hour race,  was dayglo orange,  and emblazoned with the boat’s name in large italic block lettering  –  UZKANOPIT.   Clearly “clever” names are not a new phenomenon.

    One colour scheme amongst the many that greatly attracted me when I bought my second GP (white when I bought her) was navy blue,  with white bottom.   See photo attached.   That was an idea shamelessly borrowed from one or two other boats,  and I thought she looked superb.   See photo attached.

    However the gloss was taken off that idea when I saw an even better one,  on an advertising picture (for sailing clothing;   all white hull except for two stripes of varnish,  the upper one broad and the lower one narrow.   That was so stunning that I lost no time when next convenient in refinishing my then boat to this fresh idea,  using 3″ width for the top varnish stripe,  then 1″ white,  1″ varnish,  and the rest white.    See photo,  albeit that this is half-coloured from a monochrome photo.   I then made that my personal colour scheme for each of my subsequent GPs,  culminating in A Capella.    See photos attached of Strait Laced and A Capella.

     

    Oliver

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    in reply to: Snapshots of the Beginnings of the Class #20154
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Draughting and Building the first GPs:

    Gp. Cap. Haylock,  who commissioned the design,  wrote in 50 Years On The Water (pp. 11-12) that Jack Holt was his fourth choice of designer,  after Charles Nicholson,  Jack Laurent Giles,  and O’Brien Kennedy had successively submitted plans,  all of which failed to please Haylock.   He then approached Jack Holt and “When I gave him my lengthy list of requirements he seemed unperturbed and not in the least put out.  …  Within two days he was back with a set of plans.”

    However Graham Knox,  a past President and also a past Hon. Secretary of the Association,  and a man who has been intimately involved with the Association for probably longer than anyone else still alive,  recently told me that Jack didn’t design the boat,  as such;   he first built the boat,  using whatever suitable timber he had to hand in his workshop,  and only after it was built did he draw the plans.   That is why certain features,  such as the seat knees,  are the shape and size which they are.

    Haylock then goes on to write (ibid. p.12) “A week later Jack telephoned to ask whether I was sailing anywhere … that weekend.   I wasn’t,  so he said that,  if convenient,  he would meet me at Hamble,  my home port,  and rang off.   When I arrived that Friday afternoon there was Jack,  standing beside – guess what – the GP14 prototype,  rigged and ready to launch.”

    On a separate matter,  the original design for the rudder blade (the original spoon blade shape) had it swept back,  as was quite usual for boats of that period,  but in 1963 the rules were changed to allow it to drop to bring the leading edge vertical.   Life Member David Gilbert emailed me on 31/1/19:  “Back in the days when there was a GP Association members’ meeting at the London Boat Show,  there was discussion about a rule change to permit the rudder blade to go down to make the front edge vertical.  Jack (Holt) attended, and after the meeting I recall overhearing Jack saying that this was a nonsense, as the draughtsman who drew the plans (note that Jack did not draw them himself) drew the rudder blade swept back (only) in order to fit it on the drawing!”

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Snapshots of the Beginnings of the Class #20152
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Spinnakers:

    Spinnakers were controversial for a very considerable time.

    A proposal at the first AGM,  27 January 1952,  not to allow spinnakers was defeated;   however a second proposal not to allow them that season and not to review again at the next AGM was carried.

    At the second AGM,  on 4th October the same year,  (and,  yes,  we have already spotted that they cannot both be Annual General Meetings when they had two in the same year,  but there you go …)  despite the previous resolution not to review again at the next AGM they nonetheless did so;   however it is not entirely clear whether “not to review” applied only to the decision in respect of the 1952 season,  now passed,  or to the entire question of spinnakers.   The Meeting confirmed the adoption of spinnakers, but not for 1953 Nat. Champs; carried by just one vote, 19:18.   A separate motion for a poll of members, and for Committee to have power to rescind the decision to allow spinnakers in the light of the poll result, was carried unanimously. The subsequent poll was 49:36 against, but Committee decided not to rescind the AGM decision.

    Minutes for 1953 record that Spinnakers were not to be allowed in Championships, and individual clubs were to make a clear ruling on whether to allow them for club racing.

    The 1959 Minutes record a request from Dale YC to clarify the rule on spinnakers, asking that they be either universally allowed or universally banned;   the resulting decision was that they be permitted from January 1961. The Secretary then received a formal request from the required number of Members for a Special General Meeting,  to consider reversing decision to allow spinnakers.   That was resolved by agreement to hold a postal ballot of Members instead.

    The 1960 Minutes record that the spinnaker ballot result was YES (729:551),   they may be used from 1961.

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Snapshots of the Beginnings of the Class #20151
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Plans Discrepancies:

    The 1951 Minutes refer to a discrepancy between the Jack Holt plans and the Yachting World plans for the boat, but do not record the details.

    It is known that at least some early boats were built with 4 frames instead of 5,  and reputedly with thicker plywood.   The minutes make no mention of this,  and it is not clear whether this is the discrepancy between the two sets of plans referred to,   but the Minutes of the AGM record that it was agreed to increase the tolerances sufficiently to accommodate both versions;   this may perhaps suggest that the discrepancy mentioned was only a small dimensional difference,  rather than a major structural disparity in the number (and position) of the frames,  but this is not wholly conclusive.

    The measurement form,  dated 1956 (the year that all existing boats were required to be re-measured),  for my vintage GP14 (no. 64,  dating from 1951) does not have a question asking how many frames she has,  nor is there a question whether the boat has been built in accordance with the plans,  so it is at least conceivable that the question of 4 frames or 5 was not directly checked during measurement,  but that the two alternative methods of construction resulted in slightly different measurements.  Thus the increased tolerance may perhaps have been in order to accommodate both methods of construction.

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Mounting outboard engine options #20109
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    I have just discovered that the file on this site for the paper that I mentioned is an old version,  and I have since updated it.

    The attachment is the current version,  and I will organise updating the one in the Members’ Library.

     

    Oliver

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    in reply to: Mounting outboard engine options #20107
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    First,  have a look at the paper on this topic,  in the Members’ Area of this site.   I think that will answer most of your questions.

    As regards size,  the boat was originally envisaged as taking a Seagull,  which when not in use could be stowed beneath the stern deck.   (Note that the design,  in 1949,  predated the Class requirement for positive reserve buoyancy,  which was not required until 1952;   so the space beneath the stern deck was indeed originally available for carrying a short shaft outboard.)

    A modern 2 or 2.5 h.p. would be a good compromise between power and bulk and weight for many people,  but if you do wish to go for something larger I suggest that the maxima given in that paper are precisely that,  maxima;   most owners would want something smaller.

    The attached photo is for an indication of size only,  and the motor drives the boat very adequately in Poole Harbour.    She is an elderly GP14 belonging to a friend of mine,  and has been converted to harbour launch duties;   you are unlikely to want this method of attachment!

    Hope this is helpful.

     

    Oliver

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    in reply to: Transom flaps #20094
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    By early I presume you mean Series 1,  or GRP prior to the introduction of underfloor buoyancy.

    If you are referring to getting water out of the boat while sailing there are two options,  intended to cope with two different situations.

    Transom scuppers are intended for getting large quantities of water out of the boat after a capsize,  and doing so very rapidly.   To my mind the jury is still out as to how well they work on the early boats,  but I am assured by others that they do indeed work;  however my one experience of attempting to empty a deliberately flooded boat in a test situation suggests that it is absolutely imperative that you have plenty of buoyancy in the bow,  and the bare minimum permitted under the class rules is not enough to enable transom scuppers to work.  I deliberately flooded my then boat,  and tried to sail her dry on a reach,  but all that happened was that when I sheeted in I drove the bow underwater;   so I then replaced the bow buoyancy bag by the largest one which I could fit into the available space,  but I never put the scuppers to the test again.

    But undoubtedly the transom scuppers work staggeringly well on the Series 2 boats.

    The basic requirement is two large holes in the transom;   that is all,  but for best practice (and to comply with class rules) you also need a means of closing them.   The Class Rules (available in the Members’ Area of this site) specify the position and the maximum size,  and for the early boats they must be circular to comply with the rules.   The most popular means of closing them are flaps of any sheet material,  hinged to the transom at one side (gaffer tape will do for the hinge,  although you may prefer something more sophisticated),  and with a length of shock cord to pull them closed.   An alternative,  rarely seen,  is a pair of conical funnels which seat in the holes,  again held in place by shock cord.

    Be aware that the transom scuppers will not be at the lowest point in the hull when the boat is correctly trimmed.   You will probably also find that when the boat is half full of water you need to sail her fairly broad on the wind to get the scuppers to work.

    Self-bailers are normally fitted in the bottom of the boat,  approximately amidships (just abaft the thwart),  adjacent to the hog;  this will be the bottom of the boat in normal sailing trim.   There are many different types,  but the best are probably the Andersen type,  previously known as the Elvstrom type.  It is worth having one each side,  and going for the largest that you can afford.    Unlike the transom scuppers,  they will remove all the water in the boat,  and they are the primary tool for water taken aboard as spray,  or dare I suggest leakage;    but they will take much longer than the transom scuppers to empty a half-full boat after a capsize.

    Different tools for different jobs,  and you may need both.

    For draining rainwater out of the boat when ashore the old traditional approach is a pair of drain bungs as low in the transom as possible,  and prop the boat with the bows up so that all the water can drain out.    Alternatively chock her level and leave the self-bailers open,  provided that your launching trolley permits them to be open;   with some boats and some launching trolleys the self-bailers are obstructed by the launching trolley cradle.

    Hope this helps,

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Plate on my boat #20077
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Thank you;   we live and learn.     Clicking on the image rather than just looking at what initially appears on the forum displays the whole of it,  and (as you suggest) I had seen only part of it,  without realising that it was only part.   And,  of course,  on a number which is now read as 9946 I concur with all your deductions.

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Plate on my boat #20071
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    No idea on that number,  unfortunately;   unless of course it is the truncated remains of a longer number.   A registered hull number for a Mk 2 boat could conceivably be a 4-digit number starting with 94.    Where is this number situated?

    There are isolated examples of individual fleets  –  particularly at training establishments,  etc.  –  having their own number series,  for internal use only;   but 94 seems much too large a number for that to be the explanation.

    Beyond that I am drawing a blank;   sorry.

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Plate on my boat #20066
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Claire,

    The plate is that of the Ship & Boatbuilders’ National Federation,  which is/was a national trade body.   It became the British Marine Industries Federation in 1986,  then in 2008 it was renamed the British Marine Federation and finally, in 2015, it became British Marine.

    I had not previously been aware that they issued any sort of a number,   and I suspect that the number is either the builder’s registration number with the Federation or an identifier for the boat in a generic register (covering all boats of all types) maintained by them.    Certainly it is not a GP14-specific identifier recognised by the Class Association,  and it is not something which is widely used to identify the particular boat.

    Your photo of the hull identifies her as a Mk. 2 GP14.     The first Mk 2 was built in 1969 with sail number 7930;   that model was followed by the Mk 3,  first produced in 1977 with sail number 11487,  although that may not set an upper limit for the Mk 2 year and sail number because I imagine it is possible that some Mk 2 production continued for a limited period after the introduction of the Mk 3.

    Most Mk 2 boats were built by Bourne Plastics at Nottingham,  with many more built by Thames Marine at Canvey Island,  and about 50 built by McComb Boats in Northern Ireland.

    In passing,  a historical article about Bourne Plastics can be found here;  http://ournottinghamshire.org.uk/page/bourne_plastics_of_netherfield_langar.   They also built hulls for yachts,  including the Shipmate,  the Privateer 19 and the subsequent Privateer 20,  and the Bourne 35.

    Thames Marine built primarily yachts,   some of them very well known,   and the GP14 appears to have been their only dinghy.  https://sailboatdata.com/builder/thames-marine-uk

    The hull number should be visible inside the hull,  engraved on a metal plate glued to the hog aft of the centreboard case,  but don’t hold your breath;   more often than not these plates are now missing.    However if that plate is missing,  if you are lucky you may alternatively find a moulding number,  on a different adhesive plate;   if it is still present I think this will be on the side of the boat,  on the port side,  high up,  underneath the foredeck  –   but this too may have become detached and lost by now.    It has been suggested that the moulding number at this period incorporated the registered hull number,  as a 2-digit year code followed by the hull number,  although on some specific boats the numbers appear not to correspond to that suggested pattern.

    Beyond that it is detective work,  and the necessary records and evidence may no longer exist!

     

    Oliver

    • This reply was modified 5 years, 8 months ago by Oliver Shaw.
    in reply to: Plate on my boat #20060
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Congratulations on your acquisition.   Enjoy  –  once the lockdown is eased and you are allowed to do so  …  …

    However that is not a GP14 hull number;    even the very latest boats are still only in the 14000s.

    It may perhaps be a moulding number,   or it is possible that the boat may not be a GP14.

    Can you post some photos,  please?   (The file size needs to be no more than 512 KB,   and since you have tried twice and got an excess file size message this suggests that you will need to re-size your images before you can post them.)

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Spinnaker launch deck holes #20051
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    I suspect that it is a case of the Class Rules specifying what is permitted,  but not specifying a detailed design.   Exactly the same situation applies to transom scuppers,  holes for through-deck sheeting;   and similarly (what is required,  rather than permitted) in the case of floorboards (in boats where they are relevant),  reserve buoyancy (ditto),   etc.

    It is then up to you to decide precisely how to realise these permitted holes if you decide to cut them.   You may of course decide that it is too difficult to realise them,  with adequately sound engineering,  on your particular boat.

    One reason for not producing a specific design is that there are so many different constructional details between the many different models of GP14.   What a current builder has devised,   on a particular current model,  might well not work on an older boat by a different builder.

    However you say that your boat is an SP Boats one,  and they are still building,  so it might be worth an email to them:   info@spboats.co.uk.   I have just looked at their website a few minutes ago,  and there is no mention there of this as a standard retrofit modification,   but if anyone is able to do it at all they are probably the best starting point.

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Old fibreglass boat #20036
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Depending on the construction of your camcleats you may be able to service them.     Some are amenable to DIY servicing,  but others are not.

    The cams normally rotate around a pair of fixed internal pillars,   but different brands and models differ in what prevents the cams from simply riding up these pillars and lifting off.

    If these internal pillars are rivetted over,  so that even when the securing screws are removed the cams cannot be lifted off the base,  give up at this point and replace the complete fitting;   it is unlikely to be worth the hassle of opening it up and then re-rivetting,  even if you could source the parts.

    But if the cams will lift off once the securing screws are removed the entire cleat can be dismantled  –  with care.    If your cleats have ball bearings dismantle with particular care,  preferably over a tray or other receptacle,  so that you don’t lose the ball bearings;   and remember that the spring will be under load,   so ease each cam off and allow the spring to release under control.

    Before doing anything else,  check that the teeth of the cams are in good condition;   if they are badly worn the only solution is to replace them.   Some manufacturers will supply replacement cams.

    If they are merely lightly worn and you cannot obtain replacements,  it may be possible to sharpen them up with a three-square (triangular section) file;   your call whether to attempt this,  or instead replace the fitting.     If there is any discernible wear,  even if only slight,  and replacement cams are available it may be worth replacing them anyway.

    Clean everything up,  and reassemble with a little grease.   If you have loose ball bearings,  the grease will also help to retain them in place.

    Expect a full set of ball loose bearings to be one short of completely filling the available space;    if you have physical space for one more it does not mean that you have lost one  –  they do need room to roll.

    Remember that most of the parts are handed,  so ensure that you put each part on the correct side of the fitting;   it may be physically possible to assemble it reversed,  after a fashion,  but don’t expect it to then work properly!

    It can be a little awkward to get the operating spring to seat correctly when you reassemble.    I can sometimes manage it without any tools or other aids,   but where the simple approach won’t work I have found a very useful workaround.    One end of the spring terminates in a right-angle bend,  to provide a vertical spike which engages in a hole in the base plate.    Enter that spike in its hole first,  with the (circular) spring placed around the central pillar.    The other end of the spring is  bent through 180 degrees to terminate in a hook.    Take a length of very thin whipping twine or stout sewing thread,  and loop it around this hook so that both ends protrude well clear of the base plate.

    Then offer up the cam,   and gently lower it on the central pillar as far as it will go;    it won’t quite reach the base plate because it is obstructed by the spring.

    Now use the two parts of the whipping twine or sewing thread to put a little load on the spring,  to pull it into its recess in the cam,   so that the cam will now sit on the base plate,  with only the very thin twine or thread trapped below it.    The thread can now be removed by pulling just one end only.

    Once both cams have been refitted,   with everything cleaned up and greased,  the fitting can now be re-fitted to the boat.

    Hope this helps,

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Olympians in GP14s #20026
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Thank you.

    Wikipedia gives his club as Ichenor,  at the other end of the country.    But both could nonetheless conceivably be correct.

     

    Oliver

     

Viewing 15 posts - 271 through 285 (of 708 total)