Sea Spray August 1951

Sea Spray August 1951

Leander R Class

The Editor,

Dear Sir,

As a yachtsman who has built three Leander R Class dinghies, designed several more, and sailed these beautiful little craft since 1936, I cannot let Onlooker's letter in your May number go unchallenged.

Firstly may I say that Onlooker is obviously a landlubber, and therefore has scant knowledge of the subject on which he writes. I say obviously, because such cheap sarcasm as he employs, forms no part in the makeup of a yachtsman.

One can only answer his would-be points and accusations with facts. We would welcome Onlooker's imported designs because we are always willing to learn. Whether they would render ours obsolete is open to doubt to say the least. We will spare him the tremendous cost of importing a hull, as the rules clearly state that hulls must be constructed in N.Z.

His reference to spinnakers, tents and finger-tip control, come under the heading of cheap sarcasm, with which I have already dealt.

To the best of my knowledge planing speeds have never been accurately checked, but the writer of the original article being an R Class skipper would, like myself, be in a better position to judge than Onlooker, who knows them not.

Yes, hulls get obsolete. Should progress halt and time stand still? The hull which I raced successfully last season cost me about £15. Since I enjoy designing and building, and class it as part of the sport, I do not count the labour. What better occupation during the winter months. If I can't treble my money invested in that hull, any day of the week I'll be surprised, and I certainly have no intention of joining the ranks of the owners who are losing thousands of pounds each season.

With regard to Onlookers's comparisons between overseas and N.Z. classes, can he not see that in fostering the Leander R Class with its loose restrictions, or rather lack of restrictions, we are making a deliberate attempt to bridge this gap. Can he not see that we Kiwis have been held to one-designs and clumsy restrictions far too long. Our aim is to develop new lines, new gadgets, and efficient sails, and to eliminate anything which lacks speed, always bearing in mind that a boat must stay rightway up to win.

In conclusion, may I thank Sea Spray for bringing the R Class to the notice of the yachtsmen of N.Z. I can assure you it is a class worthy of support.

Christchurch

E Rountree

Sir,

Thank you for sending me a copy of the R Class rules. I agree that a great deal of controversy has arisen because I was not in possession of the complete rules. However, my original remarks were based on such rules as were published in your magazine, and now that I have all the rules, I am even more convinced that my first criticism was justified. I maintain that under these rules the R Class is wide open to development as a fleet of cranks.

First the absence of any restriction on minimum weight is an open invitation to build ultra light hulls which would not be durable, and would obviously be easier to drive than a heavier orthodox construction.

Secondly the lack of control over ballast enables the designer to consider the inclusion of such items as a lead skeg. This could be compensated for by reduction in the total weight of the hull above the waterline. He might also make use of a hollow alloy plate half filled with lead in effect, a keel!

Thirdly, as there does not appear to be any control on gadgets protruding outboard from the hull there is considerable scope for Bowsprits, Bumpkins (with permanent backstays), Trapezes from the hound to assist stacking out and even Outriggers! It is only a question of time before development in this direction produces a Catamaran.

Fourthly, the lax wording of the rule on hull shape does nothing to prevent a type of double hull from appearing in the class, or alternatively, a hull type where the minimum beam is produced as a pair of wings and the actual effective waterline beam is as narrow as the designer wishes. With the addition of a sailing canoe type sliding seat, such a narrow hull could be held up successfully by an agile crew, and would certainly have the edge on her beamier rivals.

Apart from these obvious loopholes in the rules I wish to assure the opposition that there are many more. I submit that it would be wiser to amend the rules now, rather than involve the class in an endless annual chase to keep pace with rule-cheaters that appear each season.

Now for some answers to points raised by my opponents in this interesting debate.

The vexed question of Local Conditions is not so parochial as Peter Mander would have us believe. Wind is wind, and water is water, all the world over. If it were not so, how would international racing classes survive? The one local condition that has a great bearing on yachts, and the one which all my criticism has been in aid of, is the depth of the average yachtsman's pocket.

National classes should be within the reach of a large percentage of the yachting fraternity. This in turn calls for rules that do not permit development at such a rate that Smith's investment in 1951 is almost wiped out by Jones's investment in a faster 1952 model. Furthermore the Smiths and Jones's of yachting do not, as a rule, possess the facilities of the Mander family, for example. The question is, is this a truly national class or is it a class for amateur designer builders with access to materials and funds outside the range of the average yachtsman?

My remarks on the subject of finger-tip steering were apparently misunderstood. I have nothing but praise for a boat with such a fine degree of response to its helm, but the phrase appearing in the text of the original article in conjuction with such high faluting claims as 18 miles per hour, seemed to be, as I said before, more like an American advertisement for a car than a calculated and factual report of a typical boat in the class.

In conclusion, that question of 18 miles per hour. To say the least, I was surprised that the Mander family sustains this claim. I presume it is realised that this speed is nearly four times the maximum speed at which this length of hull can be driven by any amount of canvas, while immersed to its loaded waterline.

The only exception to this natural physical law is when the hull planes. Most international designers are of the opinion that a hull of less than fourteen feet is seldom capable of true planing for any sustained period. Even supposing that the hulls of the R Class have achieved the solution to this world-wide problem, do their designers seriously insist that an R Class boat could be driven through the water, or over it, at eighteen miles per hour - under control? If so, Uffa Fox can retire, Jack Holt take up gardening, Rod Stevens and Knud Reimers can go back to school. As for me .... I will eat my hat, boiled, toasted, or fried!

Onlooker