Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorAnd two photos of the same “patent” colour scheme on more recent GP14s:
Oliver
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.Oliver Shaw
ModeratorNathan,
Welcome to the club!
First step is to ask the Association Office if they have any info. If they have no current info, which is entirely possible, then it becomes a matter of detective work.
I am very conscious that I have lost track of my once much loved Tantrum, my erstwhile GP14 no. 4229, (built by R. R. Sills, the Rolls Royce of GP14 builders of the time), which I owned in the late sixties and early seventies when she was a reasonably modern boat, and I confess that I haven’t even started the detective trail for her. I was dismayed to see her, at a distance, after I had sold her, and to see what the new owner had done to obliterate my trademark (and patent?) colour scheme (Photo attached). If anyone has any news …
Oliver
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.Oliver Shaw
Moderator> I am now 68 and don’t bend like I used too so can’t miss that boom.
And I am 76 …
However that boom is one of the higher ones, so far as dinghies are concerned. In a (now rare, for me) GP14 outing last weekend, having “retired” from dinghies in favour of the yacht just a couple of years ago, the boom was no problem.
In all seriousness, familiarity with the boat is the crucial key. I remember 55 or more years ago racing Fireflies as a student. They have a much lower boom, and one of the “in” crazes at the time for thermal headgear was the knitted bobble cap. Mine happened to have lost its bobble. All went well, for an extended period, racing at the highest level, until my mother knitted me a new cap, this time complete with bobble. And for some time thereafter I was forever catching the bobble on the boom. Not my head itself, just the extra height.
Familiarity, particularly familiarity with the individual class of boat, is the crucial key. Hope this is an encouragement; the familiarity will come, with regular sailing.
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorAssuming that this is indeed the hull number, rather than merely the number on the sails (and you do need to check this point), my data indicates that the numbers 10671 to 10904 were issued in 1974.
If you contact the office, and are a Member of the Association, they will be happy to provide a digital copy of our records of the boat. This should include the original measurement form, which will include the names of the builder and the original owner (and I think the owner’s club, if any); and the record will also include anything else which has passed the desk in the intervening years. This may well include a list of previous owners, and their clubs, for at least as long as successive owners have been Members and the boat has been registered. However addresses and phone numbers will be redacted, for reasons of data protection.
Who knows what else may turn up? Championship wins???
Oliver
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 6 months ago by
Oliver Shaw.
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorCentreboard case (or thwart), or side deck, or waterline, or cockpit floor? …
A very good question; which may well be why (if I am understanding them correctly) all three tuning guides on this site do it by measuring a distance from the masthead (or main halliard sheave) to the transom, rather than by using the spirit level and plumb line method.
Doing it that way removes any need to have the boat accurately level.
However the actual dimensions given there are for modern masts and modern rig tensions; with a vintage boat the dimension would be different. My own approach with a vintage boat is to initially set the rake so that two conditions are both met; (1) before you set a headsail and before you secure the forestay, the shrouds are taut with the mast just slightly out of the gate and you need to push the mast forward in order to close the gate, and (2) with jib or genoa set and with your normal rig tension applied the mast is then just inside the gate, without noticeably pressing on it.
And, of course, but easily overlooked, ensure that the mast is not leaning to one side! Use the main halliard, duly cleated off, to verify that the masthead sheave is the same distance from each of the side decks (at any convenient but exactly corresponding measurement points). A few days ago I was assisting a new owner at my club, and we found that the two shrouds (set up by the previous owner) were set in different holes in their respective adjusters …
If you want to be a perfectionist, you could also chock the heel of the mast to prevent it moving around in the step, because the mortise is usually larger than the heel (or heel fitting). Chock it so that it is hard against the front face of the frame (no. 2 frame), and exactly on the centre line.
That will be at least approximately right, but then take her out on the water, see how she behaves, and be prepared to adjust the rake in the light of her handling.
If you find she has undue weather helm, and/or she seems sluggish when off the wind, rake the mast forward a little. If she has any tendency to lee helm, and/or she is disappointing to windward, consider raking the mast a little further aft. Continue to monitor how she handles, and performs, and be prepared to tweak the rake from time to time until you feel you are getting the best out of her. In essence this is doing exactly what generations of top racers did in devising the “standard settings” for modern boats, but it would be a mistake to think that their results on the modern rig are the same that they would have developed using a vintage rig.
It may take you a little time to tweak her to her best performance, but the sailing and the gradual honing of her performance should be fun.
Good luck,
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorA look at our digitised records for boats numbered 6454 and 7002 might illuminate the discrepancy referenced above.
I will ask for a sight of them.
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorThat information from Graham ties in with what I had heard previously, which I had possibly indeed heard from Graham himself, and I concur with the number being on a plate bonded to the inside of the hull, high up, port side, under the foredeck. But in that case the 6454 predates the 7002 quoted in “the GP14 Bible” as being the sail number of the first GRP boat.
Wearing a different sailing hat, as the owner of a Privateer 20 (also moulded by Bourne Plastics) the received wisdom within the Shipmate Owners Association is that the first two digits are the year, but that the remaining digits are the sequential number of the moulding, which until this discussion we had thought was within that year, but perhaps across all mouldings (rather than specific to a particular design or class); however with these boats (built during the seventies) there were only three digits following the year code. Bournes produced a considerable number of different classes of boat, including several other dinghies, the Shipmates, and at least two motor cruisers, and at various times they also produced car bodies (including the first 250-300 bodies for the Lotus Elan 1500, before production was moved in-house two years later).
Combining Graham’s information together with that from my own researches on the Privateers and the information from the Shipmate Owners’ Association it now seems more likely that the digits following the year code may have been sequential numbers to designate the moulding number for that particular moulding design (rather than across all mouldings), but it also now seems that this was more probably irrespective of year. The moulding number of my yacht, for example, is 74 055, and the latest moulding number for a Privateer 20 which we have on record is 76 112; it is fairly unlikely that as many as 112 Privateers were produced in 1976, but remotely possible that that number may have been produced in total.
However we still have two discrepancies unresolved. The first is that hull number 6454 appears to predate the first GRP GP14, stated by Roy Nettleship to be 7002. The second is that my Privateer 20, with a moulding number of 74 055, appears from other evidence to be very possibly the first one produced. These discrepancies remain a puzzle, but it would be a dull world if everything fell into place at once!
For anyone interested, an online article about the history of Bourne Plastics appears here; http://www.ournottinghamshire.org.uk/page/bourne_plastics_of_netherfield_langar
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorThe hull number should have once been affixed to the hull, on some kind of plate, although for GRP boats I am not sure of the details.
But after this distance of time it may well have become detached. You are doing quite well to find any surviving identification number!
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorIn the early days of the GRP boats Bourne Plastics were the primary moulder, and the hulls were then fitted out by a variety of firms, including Bourne Plastics. A small number of composite boats were produced, with GRP hull and varnished plywood decks, which were intended as a compromise for those who enjoyed the beauty of wood but wanted the perceived easier maintenance of GRP.
There is also at least one boat, Boomer II, which was built as a straight GRP boat, and later re-decked as a composite, in a rather splendid conversion by her then owner, Henry Henderson. He also did some work on the cockpit floor, and I vaguely think he installed under-floor buoyancy. Very much a one-off.
The number you have quoted is definitely not the hull number; Bourne went bankrupt in the late seventies, and even today, around 40 years later, hull numbers have still only reached 14,000-and-something; certainly nowhere near 68,000. Almost certainly that number will be Bourne’s moulding number; however that seems to disprove something which I had long understood to be the case – albeit that I have never seen it documented in print – that the moulding number included a year code and also the hull number.
I did therefore wonder whether your number indicated the year 1968 and a hull number 6454; however the latter seems to be seriously inconsistent with other records, although the year would appear to be possible.
According to “the GP14 Bible” (The Basic Boating Book and also 50 Years on the Water, both now available on this site) the GRP boats were first produced in 1967, commencing with sail no. 7002.
However around 15 years ago there was a table on the then Forum (on Bravenet, for those who remember it), cataloguing dates at which sail numbers were issued, and I copied that data into my ongoing spreadsheet. Unfortunately there is a possible small discrepancy between those two sources, because my records show that sail numbers 7001-8000 were issued in 1966-68; although they also show that numbers 6001-7000 were issued in 1963-66. The apparent discrepancy is resolved if no. 7001 was the last number issued in 1966, fairly late in the year, and 7002 (the first GRP boat) was the first number issued in 1967; but if that is not the case then there is a discrepancy between the two records.
Since, according to my records, hull numbers 6001-700 were issued in 1963-66 (as stated above), this also suggests that 6454 would have probably been issued late 1964, and both sets of records agree that is about 2-3 years before the first GRP boats were produced.
Beyond that it is detective work, unless anyone has authoritative knowledge of how one can deduce the hull number from the moulding number – if indeed that is possible at all.
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorI like the magnet idea.
Do try it out, and let us know how you get on … !
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorI still think it would be worth trying out a GP14, but try asking for a sail in one. I don’t know which club you belong to, but at least some of the West Midlands clubs are strong GP14 clubs.
The only real way to assess the boat is to try one out.
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorIf you are considering the Heron, or for that matter the Mirror 10, also consider where you intend to sail; in particular consider strength of tidal streams.
Both of them are fine little boats, but with the emphasis on little. Easier to manhandle ashore, remarkably good sea boats for their size, eminently sailable single-handed and very capable when two-up. And with the twin benefits for yourself of gunter rig, and of fitting very easily into your garage.
But they would both be seriously small and cramped for sailing with more than two adults aboard; almost a non-starter.
And both would be seriously limited in regions of fast tides. Alright, when my club started (in 1959) we did have racing fleets of both boats, and indeed I sailed a Heron for a few years, but if the wind dropped they had very limited ability to beat the tide.
It comes back to what I said earlier; all boats are compromises. I think the GP14 would probably be an excellent compromise for you, but you would have to actually try one out to be certain.
Incidentally all three boats are from the pen of the same designer, Jack Holt.
One further thought; this proposed purchase doesn’t necessarily need to be for life. You might usefully consider buying a boat to try out initially, while keeping an open mind whether to keep her long term or aim to change the following year. That can be a sensible strategy, provided you resist the temptation to spend the earth on her before you have determined how long you are keeping her, and if you do decide to change the following year (or the year after that) that would be on the basis of a more fully informed choice and of first-hand experience.
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorNigel, you have opened a right can of worms!
What follows combines all plastic boats into a single category; but in reality they started with GRP, then evolved further to FRP, and more recently evolved further to epoxy, and there are important differences between these three methods of plastic construction.
First, in terms of performance there is absolutely nothing to choose between the two construction methods. At the very highest level, GP14 National and World Championship honours are fairly evenly divided between wooden and plastic boats, and I think it fair to say that for as long as plastic boats have been around they always have been.
In terms of personal preference, wooden boats are things of beauty, as well as (also) being functional machines. It is a matter of personal opinion whether the same can be said of plastic boats.
It is often claimed that wooden boats require more maintenance than plastic boats, but if we compare boats of similar ages I am not wholly convinced, although for older boats there is some validity in that. If properly looked after, brand new boats in either material will require little cosmetic or structural maintenance for a considerable number of years from new; and the maintenance of sails and rig is identical for both. Elderly boats, in either material, are likely to require significant hull maintenance; and elderly neglected boats are likely to require significant repair.
Perhaps a fair comparison is that a great many elderly boats in either material have significantly deteriorated, and require significant work to bring them back to top condition. Which is the easier to repair at that stage depends in part on one’s personal skills and facilities. It is probably easier to “bodge” a neglected GRP boat than a similarly neglected wooden boat, but probably a broadly similar expense in terms of both man-hours and materials to do a first class job on either.
However an elderly wooden boat undoubtedly WILL require routine repainting and revarnishing from time to time to keep her in good condition, whereas a plastic boat may get away with neglect for rather longer before the consequences become obvious. New wooden boats, fully epoxied on all surfaces prior to painting and varnishing, should not require frequent repainting and revarnishing, unless damaged in the course of accidents.
Beyond that, it is very much a personal preference. Some of us just love wooden boats. Others of us see our boats as primarily efficient racing machines, or to a smaller extent efficient cruising machines, and do not have the same emotional attachment that some of us have to fine wood. That distinction is entirely proper, and which camp you fall into is a very personal choice.
For what it is worth, I myself have chosen wooden boats throughout my life until I bought my present trailer-sailer yacht ten years ago. I happen to be one of those who love wooden boats. But for this latest boat I felt that (at then age 66) I had had enough of the maintenance and upkeep of vintage wooden yachts, and I couldn’t afford a new wooden yacht, so plastic (GRP in this instance) it would have to be. By and large I am very pleased with her, although in some ways I do seriously envy a friend who owns a (fairly new, and very much more expensive) wooden yacht of similar size … …
Hope this helps,
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorThe problem about relying on measurements found online is that although the measurements of the boat are standard, trailers are not standard, and their measurements vary slightly.
Oliver
Oliver Shaw
ModeratorAt age 76, and with also a trailer-sailer yacht in my personal fleet, I have at last retired from regular active dinghy sailing in favour of the yacht – although I still retain a deep interest and involvement in the GP14.
But right up to two years ago, when as a very deliberately planned transfer I passed my modern and highly bespoke cruising GP14 over to my godson, as an advance on his future inheritance, I was regularly sailing her single-handed at least as often as I had the luxury of a crew. Probably more often. It most certainly can be done.
The Wanderer, as the smaller sister-ship of the Wayfarer, has an impressive pedigree, and I would be the first to admit that she is one of the great cruising dinghy designs. I happen to be much more familiar with the GP14, which – for everything except camping aboard – I regard as being at least as good as the Wanderer, and one of possibly the only two world-class cruiser-racer dinghies (the other being the Wayfarer). I don’t include the Wanderer in that particular accolade simply because she seems to be almost unknown as a racing boat; so effectively she is not a cruiser-racer. The GP14 and the Wayfarer are both well established in both areas; the GP14 has the edge for racing, while the Wayfarer has the edge for cruising – but the Wayfarer is a larger and heavier boat, and I suspect that she is not for you because of your back problems. She also has the reputation of being very difficult to right after a capsize if single-handed.
I cannot really comment on the relative merits of the GP14 and the Wanderer because I don’t have the same familiarity with the Wanderer; however a powerful argument in favour of the GP14 is the much larger number of the boats that are in existence and sailed, and the much larger coterie of enthusiastic owners who are ready to offer encouragement and friendship and support. If other things are broadly equal, as indeed they may well be, that point is not to be dismissed lightly.
In terms of load capacity, the GP14 was specifically designed to be suitable for a young family, i.e. two parents and two children, with a jib that was not loo large for “Mum” or for older children to handle, while also being sufficiently exhilarating for “Dad” to race when not taking the family out. (Note the gender stereotyping of 1949; one would never get away with printing that sort of stuff today … …)
Undoubtedly she can be sailed very effectively single-handed, while also being very happy with up to three adults aboard; I rather suspect that four full adults under sail would find that they get in each other’s way, although the boat is amply capable of carrying more than that under oars or outboard motor. I would expect that the Wanderer might well be similar in this respect, although I do not have the same first-hand knowledge of the class.
On the matter of a means of reefing as standard; the GP14 was also designed with a means of reefing as standard, the square-gooseneck roller reefing (of the mainsail) which was ubiquitous at the time the boat was designed, and a jib small enough to not normally require to be reefed. Reefing technology has moved on since then, in dinghies just as much as in yachts, and at the same time the racing fleets have tended to eschew reefing, because with great skill and athleticism and with the benefit of modern sail controls the most skilled and agile racers can just handle the full rig to windward, and they (again the most skilled and agile racers) rejoice in the mind-boggling power of the rig off the wind. But racing and cruising are significantly different, and racing takes no prisoners in the matter of dodgy backs!
In cruising events, where at least two of the participants have been very good racers in disguise and who are no slouches, I have been known to lead the fleet when going to windward while I have been reefed and the “fast boys” have not been, which I think says a lot …
Oliver (Sometimes also known as “He who reefs …”)
-
This reply was modified 6 years, 6 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts



