Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 436 through 450 (of 708 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: New to GP 14’s #16834
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Crossed in the post;   I have added a little while you were posting,  so you may like to re-read my reply.

    Good luck,

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: New to GP 14’s #16831
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Welcome to the Class;  you have chosen a boat of superb design.

    According to my records your sail number 10846 was issued towards the end of 1974.   Since you also tell us that she is a fibreglass boat this would seem to place her as a Mark 2.   Major identifying features to look for to check this will be:   the visible vertical framing above the side benches (between side benches and under side of deck) is GRP and of rectangular section,  rather than the exposed metal tubing of the Mark 1 boats;    the side buoyancy tanks (with the wooden seating slats on their top surfaces) extend aft,  under the stern deck,  as far as the transom;  the inside face of the transom is clearly visible and accessible between the side buoyancy tanks,  unlike the Mark 1 which had shorter side buoyancy tanks plus a single stern buoyancy tank right across the transom;   she may have  circular transom scuppers,  although this was optional,  albeit that the facility to have them was the raison d’etre of the Mark 2 design,   and very occasional Mark 2 boats do not have them  –  indeed I saw one such in Norfolk only a couple of weeks ago;   and,  provided it has not been removed (which would be major surgery) she will have a former for a full width mainsheet track across the transom.    The last of these is a discriminator for the mark 2 as against the otherwise almost identical Mark 3 (which had no such former),  together with the sail number and date  –  the first mark 3 was sail no. 11487.  produced in 1977.    Underneath the boat,  the bilge rubbers are now part of the GRP moulding,   whereas on the Mark 1 they were wooden units screwed onto the GRP.

    The definitive first step for your floorboards is the Class Rules,  available in the Members’ Area of this site;   Rule 3.9 refers,  especially with reference to width and thickness and material.    However Rule that does refer to them covering “the area shown on the plans”,  and I am not sure whether any plans as such for the early GRP boats still exist.    But in broad terms they should extend the full length of the cockpit,  and laterally they should extend more or less from the centreboard case to the side buoyancy tanks (subject to the maximum width under Rule 3.9(a) of 380 mm),  with access holes for the self-bailers (if fitted),  and other permitted apertures (Rule 3.9(c))  –  and of course any gap between them abaft the centreboard case must not exceed 25 mm (again Rule 3.9(a)).

    It is important for the structural health of your boat that you do fit floorboards,   properly supported,  rather than stand on the bare skin of the hull.   But for a boat of this age I don’t really think that in practice you need to be too pedantic about getting exactly the original shape and area;   just use the previous paragraph as a broad guide.

    Hope this helps,

     

    Oliver

    • This reply was modified 7 years, 5 months ago by Oliver Shaw.
    in reply to: Horse holes #16811
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    That does seem very likely,  and I can’t think of any alternative explanation.

    I can’t be sure when the full width horse came in,  but most certainly my Sills-built boat did not have one when built (1961,  sail no. 4229),  and my photo record shows that it was somewhere between summer 1968 and summer 1969 when I fitted one.   I very vaguely recall that it was a fairly new innovation then,  and the “GP14 Bible”  –  50 Years On The Water  –  offers no hard information,  although it does note that there was a “Redraft of boat rules” (with no further explanation) in 1963.   Prior to that this boat had the more primitive system with no horse;   the end of the sheet was secured to one side of transom,  then the sheet was led up to boom,  and back down through a block on the other side of transom.   Likewise my previous boat,  amateur-built,  sail no. 3239  (built 1959),  had this primitive system.

    So it would seem that Spark was built at just about the time that this change came in,  and it is entirely reasonable that she may have been built with the earlier type of horse and then later updated.

    Incidentally,  although I am sure that many of the early boats with the bronze horse seemed fairly uniform as regards the spacing of the holes,  which I would guess would have been specified on the plans,  I have also seen a surprising number with different spacings.    So checking the spacing of your holes is not a definitive guide.

     

    Oliver

    • This reply was modified 7 years, 5 months ago by Oliver Shaw.
    • This reply was modified 7 years, 5 months ago by Oliver Shaw.
    in reply to: Northern Bell #16809
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    And yet another spammer,  this time a service for buying ready written theses.

    Duly removed.

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: sail number boat age etc #16774
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    For the second time in just under a week the Forum has been spammed by an organisation trying to market commercial essay-writing services,  this time in this present string.

    I have removed the post concerned,  and Members may rest assured that Moderators will remove all similar posts as soon as they come to our attention.   The Forum is most definitely not intended to be used as a free advertising medium for outside organisations that have no connection with sailing or the Class Association,  and which we do not necessarily wish to endorse!

     

    Oliver

    • This reply was modified 7 years, 5 months ago by Oliver Shaw.
    in reply to: New centre board for mk 1 #16766
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Options include:   eBay (set up a search,  with results emailed to you),  repair the old one (use either a scarf joint or a dovetail joint,  bonded with epoxy in either case,  to attach a new handle),  make a new one,   or ask a boat yard or a boat builder to make one for you.

    The last option is expensive,  but the cost may well be covered by your insurance.   I would expect that any of the builders registered with the Class Association would assist,  but I personally would recommend Tim Harper https://timharperboats.co.uk in the first instance (since he has done excellent work for me),  but I also have the impression that Steve Parker https://www.spboats.co.uk/repairs/ has a very broad based repair business which may well be able to help.   Amongst other boatbuilders more broadly I am sure that any of the leading ones in the Northwest could assist:   David Moss (Skippool Creek,  on the Fylde;  https://www.davidmossboatbuilders.co.uk),  Douglas Boatyard (Freckleton Bank,  near Southport;  http://www.douglas-marine.co.uk),  or Scott Metcalfe (Waterfront Marine,  Port Penrhyn,  Bangor;  http://waterfront-marine.co.uk).

    Repairing your own,  or making a new one,  will require access to suitable wood;   and if making a complete centreboard avoid plywood at all costs   –   whenever I hear of a GP14 centreboard breaking my first question is “Was it a plywood one?”,  and to date the answer has ALWAYS been yes!    Best material for a (wooden) one is strips of hardwood,  all cut from the same long piece,  laminated together side by side,  with alternate strips turned end for end (to prevent warping).    But for replacing just the handle,  if you happen to have a piece of marine ply of the correct size and thickness you would probably get away with it,  although if you need to buy the material I would still recommend going for solid wood.

    Various chandlers routinely offer new centreboards,  which these days are normally for the Series 2 boat,  and I am reasonably sure that this will not fit.   Very obviously the arrangements for the pivot are different,  since they have a capped slot rather than a hole,    but that detail by itself should not prevent you fitting it to the Series 1 boat.    And the underwater part of the two board has to be identical.    However I suspect that the height above the water (and thus the handle) may well be significantly different,  so proceed with very great caution if investigating this route.    I would expect that Technical & Rules personnel may be able to shed more light on this point.

    Hope this helps,

     

    Oliver

    • This reply was modified 7 years, 5 months ago by Oliver Shaw.
    • This reply was modified 7 years, 5 months ago by Oliver Shaw.
    • This reply was modified 7 years, 5 months ago by Oliver Shaw.
    in reply to: Stripping Spark #16765
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Replacement screws:    assess the condition of the old holes with care.    If not too bad,  and if you don’t mind oversize screws being a bit unsightly,  fitting oversize screws is the simplest option.   But you most certainly don’t want to find that even those are insecure.

    More secure,  but also rather more laborious (and modestly more expensive) is to drill out the holes and plug them with hardwood plugs (and that does mean plugs,  not dowels,  i.e. with the grain going across the longitudinal axis rather than along it) bonded in with epoxy.   The job is not onerous,  and for a single screw hole it is comparatively trivial;   but it becomes the more laborious option if you have a great many to do.

    You can cut your own wood plugs from hardwood (ideally mahogany) board if you buy a plug cutter,  or you can (in the UK) buy ready made teak plugs from many yacht chandlers;    I can’t confirm that they are available in USA but I would fully expect them to be.    As a minor bonus,  the finished job will be using the correct size of screw rather than oversize,  which will look better.

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Composite GP #16760
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Interesting to see that the concept has come back onto the market.

    And with the benefits of epoxy sheathing and of 2-part varnishes the burden of maintenance of the brightwork is of course much reduced.

     

    Oliver

    • This reply was modified 7 years, 5 months ago by Oliver Shaw.
    in reply to: screws #16758
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    I concur with Norman’s recollection.   My impression is that 3/4″ 6 gauge screws were the usual standard at that time (for securing the plywood to the framework),  but nowadays that size seems rather large,  and I would naturally think that 5/8″ 6 is a better size.    That is not necessarily passing comment on the choices made by the builders of that era;   I don’t think 5/8″ screws were readily available then,  but I think they are now.

    That is always provided that either the screw holes of the frames and stringers are in good condition or alternatively that you are drilling and plugging them to give a good new substrate.

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Composite GP #16743
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Yes;  I think both Mk 1 and Mk 2,  and with a question mark over Mark 3.   And very nice they looked.

    However my purely personal view is that the primary reason for anyone preferring GRP is the reduction in the burden of maintenance,  and that from that standpoint the concept was arguably unsuccessful;   the main burden of maintenance with a wooden boat is surely the varnish work.    For whatever reason the production of composite boats was comparatively short lived.

    There is an excellent history of the GP14 hull published (for at least the second time) in 50 Years On The Wter;   there is a scanned copy on this site.

     

    Oliver

    • This reply was modified 7 years, 5 months ago by Oliver Shaw. Reason: Typo
    in reply to: Buying advice. #16737
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    According to my records the sail number was issued in 1974.

    You will get some useful information on model and builder from the article “A Brief History of the GP14 Hull” which was published (for the second time,  at least) in “50 Years On The Water”;   scanned copy on this site.

    Hope this helps,

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: Road base? #16711
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Sorry,  but you have not given us enough information yet.

    The road base has to match the launching trolley,  not directly match the boat.   So the first step is to identify the launching trolley,  and then find a road base to suit.

    The West Mersea is an excellent design,  and has spawned a number of near clones,  including (I think) both Mersea (a separate firm) and Dixon Bate,  and most certainly including Chris Brown (cbcoverstore).    Some of these,  perhaps most,  are interchangeable;   but some others (e.g. Snipe) appear to be dramatically different.

    Assuming that the appropriate West Mersea base is suitable,  I think (and I cannot conveniently check the point at the moment,  as I am away and struggling with only a mobile device) that you need the 250 rather than the 220 road base.   But check this point,  via the details published on the manufacturer’s website or otherwise.

    Hope this is helpful,  although I realise it is a necessarily incomplete reply.

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: genoa or working jib? #16692
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Quite possibly.

    A Capella,  as a very modern boat,  had the benefit of through deck sheeting,  but although that provides some degree of adjustment we limited this in order to minimise the holes in the deck.   I also found that it was awkward to alter the adjustment,  so having got it correctly set for full genoa I preferred to then leave it alone.

    You may have more latitude on Spark,  although I found on A Capella that with the standard full genoa I wanted the sheeting brought at least as far forward as the shrouds when reefed,  and I am not sure whether moving it that far that is viable on Spark.    But even if you can’t get it all the way forward,  you may well be able to get it further forward than I could.

    Now that you mention it,  I don’t remember any problem reefing the genoa on Strait Laced,  which had the same type of on-deck sheeting as you have..

     

    Oliver

    in reply to: genoa or working jib? #16678
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Since you already have a roller furling arrangement I would advise going for the genoa;    but if your arrangement is a purely furling system (i.e. with no luff spar) you do really need to convert it to a full reefing arrangement by adding a luff spar.   So the total difference in cost will be more than the £40 you state.

    Either sail will suffice,  but the genoa will offer more flexibility.    First,  in light winds you will be very glad of the full sail area.    And if the wind is so light that it becomes a choice between maximum sail area or having to row home there is no substitute for having the full sail area available.

    Second,  with a full genoa reefing system you can always reduce the genoa area on demand,  to whatever area you want.   It will primarily be in stronger winds that you want to reduce it,  but the ability to vary the area also adds a useful additional degree of control for docking manoeuvres;  particularly if you are approaching well off the wind and you drop the main first,  you can use the reefing line rather like the accelerator on a car,  to slow down very largely as you require.

    Third,  the GP14 will sail satisfactorily under genoa alone,  on any point of sailing,  including to windward.    This can periodically be very useful,  and not only as one option if you are caught out in gale force winds;    it can also be useful if you drop the main prior to coming in to a lee shore,  and then for whatever reason (e.g. unexpected congestion on the slipway,  or having to stand off to give way to another boat coming in) you find that you need to go back out and make a fresh approach.   The boat will most certainly do it under genoa alone,  but I don’t know whether she will under working jib alone (I confess that I have never tried it),  and I am not convinced that she will.

    However there is one important detail;  with the full genoa you may find that when reefed the sheeting angle becomes too flat.   There are two possible solutions to this,  both easily arranged,  but the second is best done by the sailmaker at the time of building the sail.    Either fit an additional control line,  as per the photos,  or ask Jon to cut the clew a bit higher than standard so that the sheeting angle remains more or less the same when the sail is reefed.    Either will work;    I used the first system on A Capella when I first had her,  using sails borrowed from Strait Laced,  and then the second system when I ordered new sails from Jon;   both systems worked well,  but the additional control line was an added complication which ideally needed to be released and reset every time I tacked and which also took up a bit of space across the front of the cockpit..

    Hope this helps,

     

    Oliver

    • This reply was modified 7 years, 5 months ago by Oliver Shaw.
    • This reply was modified 7 years, 5 months ago by Oliver Shaw.
    • This reply was modified 7 years, 5 months ago by Oliver Shaw.
    • This reply was modified 7 years, 5 months ago by Oliver Shaw.
    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    in reply to: beginner #16672
    Oliver Shaw
    Moderator

    Weldon,

    Do I gather from the link that you quoted that you live in Australia?    If so,  and I appreciate that it is an enormous continent,  if you are in the right part of Australia you may find that the Western Australia Branch of the Class Association may be of help to you.   http://www.gp14.iinet.net.au

     

    Oliver

Viewing 15 posts - 436 through 450 (of 708 total)