Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 391 through 405 (of 708 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Towing Weight of GP14 and Trailer #17622
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    A quick check online for the necessary data is not wholly conclusive at the first attempt,  but it is at least usefully indicative.

    I am fairly sure that most GP14 combi-trailers use a 250 road base,  but I cannot quickly find any weight data for that size.

    I would allow 214 kg for a fully down-to-racing-weight GP14 complete with mast and launching trolley,  with all removable kit (rudder,  anchor,  oars or paddles etc.) carried in the car.    Minimum hull mass is 133 kg;   minimum mass of a metal mast is not specified in the Class Rules but that for a wooden mast is (at approx. 11 kg),  so allow about the same for a metal mast.    Mass of launching trolley from this manufacturer,  https://boattrailers.co.uk/Product/0000002175/250_Standard_Launching_trailer) appears to be 70 kg.   Hence total 214 kg,  minimum.   Then the mass of the empty roadbase needs to be added to this.

    But if the boat is not down to minimum weight then make your own assessment of how much you are over;   or alternatively check it at your local weighbridge before you commit yourself to the change of car.

    What is easier to find,  at least from this trailer manufacturer,  is the maximum gross mass of the laden trailer.   That is an alternative and very useful guide,  always assuming that your boat is not overloading the trailer of course …

    At https://boattrailers.co.uk/Multicraft_Roadbase they give the gross capacity of their 220 roadbase (slightly too small) as 350 Kg,  and that of their 275 roadbase (slightly larger than I would expect you to use) as 400 kg.    The 250 roadbase which I would expect for a GP14 would presumably be somewhere between these two figures,  but even the higher figure is still (modestly) within the towing capacity for your proposed new car.

    Their stated payload for the 220 roadbase is stated as 200 kg,  which on the basis of the above calculation is just a little too small;  they don’t state the payloads for their larger roadbases.   But 200 kg is only very slightly under-size,  which suggests that the 250 is likely to be the correct one.   Since the 275 roadbase appears to be larger than you need,  and its gross capacity is still within your limit,  it would seem that you should be alright.

    However if you wanted to be doubly certain you could look at the data plate on your own trailer.   Failing that you could check online for the data from your trailer manufacturer,  or alternatively contact them and ask them.   Again this is always assuming,  in either case,  that your particular boat is not overloading your particular trailer.

    The above checks are indicative only,  as to what to expect.    But the only way to physically verify what your particular boat actually weighs when on her trailer is to weigh it,  at your local weighbridge or otherwise.  Let’s just hope that you don’t find that it is over the capacity of your existing trailer …

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Cruising, and Vintage Boats #17608
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    The latest updated information about the UK Cruising Week is now on the Cruising & Vintage Boats page of the website;  http://old.gp14.org/about-the-gp14/cruising/  

    It is a glorious area to explore by boat,  preferably under sail,  and we extend a very warm invitation to any GP14 sailors who can make the event.   We would love to see you there.

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Mast tension MKII GRP and Rodents #17536
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Good point about removing classifieds when they are out of date.

    It is not my personal area of responsibility,  but I suspect the answer is that “we” rely on advertisers telling us when items are sold or withdrawn and the adverts can be removed.

    But perhaps we need a system to flag up when an advert is considered to be “old”.   Then,  of course,  we also need a specific individual tasked with regularly monitoring that,  and removing the old ones;    and almost all of us are volunteers,  and already fairly hard-working!

    I would expect that Chris will also pick up this point,  and perhaps Ann,  and that between us all at least one of us will follow it up.

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Mast tension MKII GRP and Rodents #17535
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Changing to a wire halliard:    not in fact essential,  but it might be beneficial.      Undoubtedly you will need a reasonably low stretch halliard,   so the absolute minimum material is pre-stretched polyester (what used to be called pre-stretched terylene);   dyneema or spectra would be better,  and would be almost as non-stretch as wire.

    When Highfield levers first came in,  in 1969 if memory serves correctly,  rope halliards were fairly commonplace,  and the preferred material (the best one available at the time) was pre-stretched terylene.    This was sufficiently low stretch to work satisfactorily with Highfield levers,  but obviously wire or such newer ropes as dyneema or spectra will be better.

    If changing to a wire halliard you will need to know the required length,  for which you will need to measure up your existing halliard.   It is almost certain that this will not be the same as the “standard” modern wire genoa halliard,  because on the modern mast the genoa halliard exits the mast downward,  from just below the gooseneck,  whereas on your early boat I would expect it to exit upwards via a turning block at the bottom of the mast.   In either case,  the wire halliard will terminate in a large loop (a soft eye splice),  to which a rope tail is spliced on,  and that wire loop is hooked onto the Highfield lever.    I would suggest that you fit your Highfield (or alternative tensioning system if you decide to go with Steve’s advice,  which I concur with provided you limit the tension in the way he suggests),  then hoist and tension the genoa using your rope halliard,   and then mark the halliard where it meets the tensioning device.    Then when you take the halliard off you have a marked length of halliard,  and you can get a new wire halliard made to that length.

    It is possible that you may need to change the sheave at the base of the mast in order to provide sufficient clearance for the Talurit thimble of the eye splice to pass.    But try it with the existing sheave first;   you might get away without changing it.

     

    Oliver

    • This reply was modified 6 years, 10 months ago by Oliver Shaw.
    in reply to: Mast tension MKII GRP and Rodents #17524
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Do be aware that Highfield levers are a bit notorious for finger injury.  …

    The danger arises because the lever goes “over-centre” while under heavy load,  and if you are unprepared it can then take charge,  trapping your fingers between lever and mast.    However there is a safe technique.

    When tensioning the halliard,  once load starts to come onto the lever use the heel of the hand to push the lever fully closed,  keeping fingers well out of the way.   It may help to make a point of keeping the fingers straight,  and then you won’t even be tempted to wrap them around the lever.

    When releasing the halliard the danger is that once the lever goes past “over-centre” it may then fly open with considerable force.    A safe technique here is to use two hands;   one hand (and you will need briefly to use the fingers for this) to initially pull the lever backwards,  away from the mast.   This phase of the operation is accomplished within about the first inch of movement (as at the end of the lever).     While doing that,  use the heel of the other hand on the outward side of the lever to check its movement,  again keeping the fingers of that hand straight,  and very definitely not wrapped around the lever;    once the lever starts to open further of its own accord (after the end of the handle has moved perhaps an inch and a half) release the first hand and use the heel of the second hand to control its motion,  so that you allow it to open smoothly and under control rather than violently.   And in the last resort,  if you do not manage to keep it under control,  at least the fingers (of both hands) will be well out of the way.

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Mast tension MKII GRP and Rodents #17523
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Yes,  that seems to be the same as the one I have in front of me.

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Mast tension MKII GRP and Rodents #17521
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Dave,

    I am not entirely clear what you are referring to when you you say “the T section that slots into the mast”.

    I have a dinghy-size Highfield in front of me as I write,  and although I don’t use it on my vintage GP14 (but only for reasons of historical authenticity) I have just checked that it fits my IYE mast.    Without getting out callipers to check,  I make the securing screws to be 4 mm diameter,  and the backing plate is 15 mm wide.    There is no T-section on this one,  although that does not rule out there having been changes in design more recently..

    Hope this helps,

     

    Oliver

     

    in reply to: Mast tension MKII GRP and Rodents #17515
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Just a check first to ensure that we are talking about the same animal;   sail number 10164 does indeed date from 1972,  and since you say Mk II I read that as the second model of the GRP boat,  which is consistent with that date;   not the Series 2 wooden boat (which is not consistent with either that sail number or that date).     Many owners get Mk 2 (or Mk II) and Series 2 mixed up,  but you seem to have got it right!

    Pity about the rodent damage …

    I am sure that your mast and your boat will safely take a Highfield lever,  but probably not a cascade tackle or muscle box.    That may give you a little more rig tension than your present system,  although if your cleat is at the aft end of the case and you get the halliard as tight as possible before you cleat it off and then tighten it further by the toothed rack there is probably very little in it.    The big difference may be in convenience;    with your present arrangement it is probably quite difficult to actually get enough tension on the halliard before you cleat it off,  because the geometry doesn’t really lend itself to your “sweating the halliard up” on the cleat before making it fast,   and getting that initial tension is absolutely crucial.

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Looking fof a new Laminated Tiller #17510
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Another one found online:  http://www.tonymackillican.co.uk/tillers.htm

    And from the same blog another recommendation:

    Give Edward Dridge a call. Proper craftmanship and decent prices. He’s based at the Hayling Yacht Company. If you can’t track down his number I’m sure HYC will put you through.       No affiliation – just a happy customer”

    Hope this helps,

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Looking fof a new Laminated Tiller #17504
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    I was very pleased with the laminated cranked tiller and extension which Ben Dallimore made for me in 2006 for A Capella.   Boats & Tillers Scotland,  http://www.Boatsntillers.co.uk.    See photos.   However in a check a few minutes ago his website was not operating.

    I have also seen a superb one-off laminated tiller made for a yacht by Douglas Boatyard,  Hesketh Bank,  Lancs.,  http://www.douglas-marine.co.uk

    In either case they will make to your pattern,  and that includes cranked if you so wish.

    Hope this helps,

     

    Oliver

     

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    in reply to: THICKNESS OF RIGGING #17493
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Through deck shrouds:   yes,  but there are some details which are not obvious.

    The first GP14 which I had with through deck shrouds was built by Sills,  who at the time were regarded as the Rolls Royce of builders.    They had not only the chainplate mounted below the deck,  in much the same place as I presume your chainplates on Spark are mounted,  on that vertical piece of timber,   but they also had just slightly below the deck a second fitting which mounted a horizontal pin;   the shrouds were then passed outboard of this pin,  and that kept them centred in the hole in the deck,  so that they never touched the bush.

    Excellent engineering,  but not proof against the momentarily careless owner.   On at least one occasion I was careless,  and failed to pass the shrouds behind the pins when I rigged the boat,  so instead of the shroud passing through the centre of the bush without touching it,  it bore on the edge of the bush.     The plastic bush was not designed for such treatment,  and it was secured in place by only very small screws,  so in due course it popped out,  leaving the shroud bearing on the plywood;   and the shroud then proceeded to slowly cut its way through the plywood.    Thankfully I noticed in time to prevent serious damage;   thereafter I made very sure of rigging the boat correctly,  and the damage to the deck was small enough to hide under the flange of the bush when I refitted it.

    With my modern Series 2 boat,  by a different (and current) builder,  also very highly respected,  the shrouds go direct to the chainplates (with adjusters,  of course),  and bear against the bushes as standard.   But those bushes are lined with stainless steel,  and I am reasonably sure that the deck is also reinforced in way of the holes  and the bushes are secured by larger screws than on the earlier boat,  so that the bushes won’t just pop out.   However I cannot easily check that detail,  because I no longer own the boat.

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: THICKNESS OF RIGGING #17489
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    These two photos show the modern system of through-deck shrouds and also through-deck sheeting.

    The unexpected additional control line and block on the second photo is rather like a barber-hauler,  intended to improve the sheeting angle when the genoa is reefed.   If the genoa is specially cut,  with a slightly higher clew,  this becomes unnecessary.

    Through-deck shrouds are undoubtedly a considerable improvement in terms of neatness and comfort;   and there is no risk of ripping your foul weather gear on the rigging screws.  The only disadvantage that I can think of is that the shroud attachment and adjustment is slightly less accessible;   but that is a small price to pay for greater neatness and convenience.   However owners with seriously early vintage boats may feel that historical authenticity trumps all other considerations.

    Through-deck sheeting is a mixed blessing.   Undoubtedly it is neater,  and because it gives a smooth deck to sit on it is that much more comfortable when sitting out.    But it can easily have slightly more friction than on-deck sheeting,  in which case one may need either to positively clear the old sheet when tacking,  or alternatively use thinner rope for the headsail sheets than is really comfortable.     It may be that the best of through-deck sheeting systems,  using three roller bearing blocks of large diameter,  adequately address the issue of friction;    I have seen such an arrangement,  but have no experience of using it.

     

    Oliver

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    in reply to: THICKNESS OF RIGGING #17483
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    You shouldn’t need spreaders on a wooden mast.

    But except in the very lightest of winds I would have the shrouds tight;   on the photo they appear to be so slack that they are visibly sagging  –  although that is not entirely conclusive,  as it could possibly be no more than lens distortion.

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: THICKNESS OF RIGGING #17479
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Lambros,

    Yes,  as I indicated above,  I think that 3 mm of 1 x 19 is appropriate for everything except the most strenuous conditions.    Just don’t drive the boat seriously hard in gales.

    I see from the photo that you have the chainplates above deck,  so your shrouds will be shorter than the usual modern length;   and the required length will also depend on the length of your adjusters  –  rigging screws or whatever.   You will need to measure up,  either from your boat or from your old shrouds.

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: THICKNESS OF RIGGING #17473
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    I take it that you are fully familiar with the modern system,  of shrouds brought down through bushes in the decks to chainplates below decks.   The attached photo shows the original arrangement,  with chainplates extending to above the deck,  and rigging screws then securing the shrouds to the chainplates and providing adjustment.

    This was pretty much the standard arrangement for any half-decked sailing dinghy at the time the boat was designed.

    On this particular boat the original chainplates were something of a find;  second-hand,  made from heavy gauge brass strip,  and they even have the class insignia stamped into them.

     

    Oliver

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
Viewing 15 posts - 391 through 405 (of 708 total)