Rob; your description of the design changes certainly explains why there was
such a marked difference in the 1970s era boats and the 1980s boats; I always
thought the "pinched end" looked somehow "yacht-ier" (if that's a term); does
the narrow stern make, or contribute to.. the instability you mentioned?
Thanks!
Richards/v Bushmark4: 1985 C&C 37 CB; Ohio River, Mile 596:
Richard N. Bush Law Offices
2950 Breckenridge Lane, Suite Nine
Louisville, Kentucky 40220-1462
502-584-7255
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Mazza via CnC-List <cnc-list@cnc-list.com>
To: Martin DeYoung <martin.deyo...@outlook.com>
Cc: Stus-List <cnc-list@cnc-list.com>; Robert Mazza <robertlma...@gmail.com>
Sent: Fri, Mar 18, 2022 11:49 am
Subject: Stus-List Re: While we wait now IOR broach issues
Hi Martin,
The C&C designs under the CCA rule such as the 43s and the 35s for instance,
did not rate well under the IOR rule, especially after Peterson's Gambare was
launched in 1973 and defined what the IOR shape was going to be. As you say,
these differences included pinched ends, but also wider beams and reduced
stability. Add to that the left over CCA elements in the Sail Area
calculations that only counted 85% of the fore triangle and accepted 150%
overlaps without penalty. This perpetuated the use of masthead rigs with large
fore triangles and ribbon mains and enormous spinnakers, sometimes with
overlength poles. Large spinnakers combined with reduced stability in high
winds put a lot of load on the rudder and created some white knuckle steering
as you continually "bounced" the rudder off stall! Exciting days!
Rob
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 6:56 PM Martin DeYoung <martin.deyo...@outlook.com>
wrote:
Matt and Rob, It sounds like the design evolution from the 1970 43’s to the
more IOR based 1975/76 42’s the boats lost a bit of reliability downwind. Was
it mostly the IOR rewarding max beam more forward and a pinched in stern, a
increase in sail area with a reduction on ballast (SA/Displ.), or a little of
both? IIRC the 1970 43 hull design included something called a “high prismatic”
ratio. Maybe the swept back keel design makes it more forgiving when pushed
hard off the wind. It also has a fuller hull shape aft compared to later IOR
designs like the C&C 39. So Rob, what I’m asking is for something like a short
study/discussion similar to your “Good Old Boat” magazine Design Comparisons
articles. The current issue’s Design Comparison has some good CCA vs IOR
discussion but it seems the 1970 43s and 1976 42s are all IOR with no CCA
influence. Martin DeYoungCalypso1971 C&C 43Port Ludlow/Seattle From: Robert
Mazza via CnC-List
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2022 12:01 PM
To: Matthew
Cc: Stus-List; Robert Mazza
Subject: Stus-List Re: While we wait for spring So, what you are saying Matt,
since I was the one steering when we went into that broach on Burlington Bay,
that it wasn't my fault! Thank you for that reassurance 40 years after the
fact. ;-) However, all those masthead rigged IOR boats were a handful off the
wind. However, I remember pegging the speedo at 20 knots onMarauder with the #2
hoisted on the pole in over 30 knots of breeze during the middle distance race
in Canada's Cup. The bow wave was breaking at the chainplates. I'd attach a
photo taken of the crew at that point but know how that gets held up for
approval. Rob
Please trim your messages before sending to the list. Thankx
Please trim your messages before sending to the list. Thankx
