You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Yachts in general (non double-enders)’ category.
Reading the lists of winners of the Sydney Hobart I am amazed to find yacht names of obvious Norwegian heritage: Christina, Solveig, Anitra, Peer Gynt and Freya. And even more astonished to find designers and sailors called Lars, Trygve and Magnus with the family name of Halvorsen.
I guess Australian sailors are less surprised. The Halvorsen story about the immigrant family from outside of Arendal, Norway, leaving bankruptcy behind and becoming a major part of leisure boating, both by motor and wind in New South Wales, is well known in Australia. Among the better sources for this amazing family history is the book “Wooden boats, Iron men. The Halvorsen story, by Randi Svensen, Halstead press, 2004.
5,5 with King Olav
The Halvorsen family made a long list of good looking, fast and very sturdy small double-enders, besides World Champion 5,5’s (one of the brothers became World Champion in one of them, and the Crown Prince of Norway, the late King Olav, sailed a Halvorsen-build 5,5 in World Championships at least twice), and a Dragon …
The Halvorsen’s participated in the Sydney to Hobart race most years from 1946 to 1965 and became Line Honours winner or overall winners at least seven times besides becoming number two or three years they did not made the line or overall first. Anitra for instance won in 1957 and became second in 46, 58 and 1959. And Peer Gynt won the Trans-Tasman race to Auckland (a race of 1,512 nautical miles) in 1948 and 1949, and became third in Sydney to Hobart in 1947. In 49 the yacht was sold to San Francisco where it won the Winter Point Score on San Francisco Bay. (Point is – Trygve and Magnus Halvorsen was magnificent sailors, but other sailors did it well in Halvorsen designs too.)
Freya – 3 time Sydney Hobar winner
The most famous of the Halvorsen double-enders is Freya. She became the overall winner in 1963, 64 and 65. She was thirty-eight feet nine inches long, with a beam of 11 feet. She was planked in Douglas fir with glued spline, upon glued Queensland maple laminated frames. Her deck was fiberglassed plywood, and her spar was a deck stepped aluminium mast. Her rudder tapered to a feather-edge. Australian National Maritime Museum is supposedly holding the line-drawings and specifications of Freya.
Tell me all about it if you know something more.
Randi Svensen quotes Magnus Halvorsen about Freya:
“Her long deadwood gave her the underwater body of a contemporary 50-55 footer. She had that feeling of a much bigger boat at sea. With her large vertical rudder there was perfect control. She responded to the helm at all times. Never did she broach to! Today’s sailors would find that unbelievable. She carried a shy spinnaker longer than any competing yacht. Indeed, a spinnaker could be carried until it was aback, without rounding up. Freya could also carry full sail to windward in 30 knots of wind.”
8+ knots consistent
The conditions of the Sydney Hobart varies from hurricane force winds to no wind at all – but still Freya used 3 days, 10 hours in 1965, 3 days, 5 hours in 64 and 3 days, 6 hours on handicap in 1963. Which is astonishing consistent on a 628 nautical mile long race in all sorts of conditions – and even more amazing, her mean speed was more than 8 knots. The Halvorsens must have pressed Freya above her theoretical speed at all times and in all conditions.
Freyas speed would have made her high up on modern list. She would have won in 2004, 2003, 1993, 1988, 1984, 1981, 1978, 1977, 1976, 1974, 1970, 1968, 1967, and 1966. The last two years the winners have been doing the Sydney Hobart in less than two days. But Freya would still be doing better than most yachts given the same speed as during her three consecutive winning years.
Amazing! What a double ender! And remember all of the Halvorsen race contenders was built both for cruising and racing. The Halvorsen thought of comfort, security and speed. Both Halvorsen brothers disliked modern racing hulls and the very idea of using men as ballast.
The first photo is of Anitra on the Sydney to Hobart race in 1959.
The second is Freya showing her “shy spinnaker.”
In 1945 the double-ender “Rani” finished first and got both the line honour and won the over-all in the very first Sydney-Hobart race. She was the second smallest of the nine participating yachts.
Rani was a short-overhang, double-ended, light-displacement 35-footer (not unlike a well known Kaskelot “Salt”, I’m just mentioned it) – designed by A.C. Barber in Sydney and built by the Steel Brothers of lake Macquarie in New South Wales.
Dear fellow double-ender admirers, if anyone have more knowledge and a more detailed description of Rani – feel free to submit a comment. The photo used here is the only one I can get my hands on.
The following is copied from Knockdown, The Harrowing True Account Of A Yacht Race Turned Deadly
By Martin Dugard, Pocket Books.
The following paragraph ran in an Australian yachting magazine in October 1945: “Yacht race to Tasmania: It is expected that an ocean yacht race may take place from Sydney to Hobart, probably starting on December 26, 1945. Yachtsmen desirous of competing should contact Vice-President Mr. P Luke, 62 Castlereagh Street, Sydney, for information. Entries close December 1, 1945.”
Their boats were heavy cruising yachts with deep keels instead of true ocean racers, but nine skippers sailed that first Syd-Hob. One of the nine starters was a fifty-two-footer named, in a moment of midwar patriotism, the Winston Churchill. Huon-pine planking, copper nails, cloth sails. Hauled up from the water two days before to let the hull dry, then a hull polish of Johnson’s floor wax to help her slip through the water faster. Built in 1942 by Tasman shipwright Percy Coverdale, Winston Churchill was considered the finest yacht in all Australia. Legend has it that her namesake even gave his blessing to her moniker on a postwar trip to Australia.
Overlooked in the prerace hoopla was Rani, a thirty-four-footer skippered by John Illingworth of the Royal Navy. Rani was also made of Huon-pine planks, pounded into the frame with copper nails. Her sails were hand-stitched cotton. All ropes were Indian hemp. The mast was Oregon pine, the rigging was cast iron, and the bilge pump was a pair of sailors clutching a tin bucket and frying pan. The crew wore Royal Australian Navy gear, mostly cotton impregnated with wax.
Illingworth was taking the Syd-Hob challenge seriously, having spent the months beforehand visiting Australia’s south coast and speaking with fishermen about the winds and currents of the Bass Strait. He also developed friendships at Sydney’s local weather bureau to learn more about weather patterns over Eastern Australia and Tasmania.
But all that knowledge went missing. The Bass Strait didn’t take kindly to the event, heaving a gale at the fleet. Boats were scattered. Rani went missing. In an era before radios were aboard racing boats, there was no way to inquire about her location or the condition of the crew. All that was clear was that she had left Sydney with the standard issue of navigational aids: paper charts, coastal guides, a compass fosteering, and a sextant for determining position. The CYCA gave her up as lost. It had been a major blunder allowing such a small boat to race across the Bass Strait.
But five days after the storm began, Rani suddenly sailed up the Derwent River into Hobart. This greatly amazed the CYCA welcoming committee at the dock for two reasons: first, Rani had been given up; and second, no one else had yet finished. Little Rani had won the first Syd-Hob in six days, fourteen hours, and twenty-two minutes. It’s still the slowest winning finish in race history, but henceforth, the first boat across the finish line would receive the Illingworth Trophy. Rani also won on handicap that year, the first of only four boats in Syd-Hob history to do so. Winston Churchill finished third.
The 628 nautical mile course is often described as the most gruelling long ocean race in the world, a challenge to everyone who takes part.
From the start in Sydney Harbour, the fleet sails out into the Tasman Sea, down the south-east coast of mainland Australia, across Bass Strait, down the east coast of Tasmania. At Tasman Island the fleet turns right into Storm Bay for the final sail up the Derwent River to the city of Hobart.
It is my plan to continue to make a list of double-enders that either are famous or should be. I am currently researching the Halvorsen brothers who build and sailed a long list of double-enders in Sydney-Hobart races. I want do a story on Suhali, maybe the Tumlare, Colin Archer and so on. Please feel free to give me hints on double-enders I should know about.
“The only reason to have a rounded stern in a boat of modern construction is for the sake of appearance, and so long as attention is paid to sufficient reserve buoyancy aft, that is justification enough”, writes Arthur Beiser in “The proper yacht”.
I’ve always thought that about half of what has been written for and against double enders, pointy sterners, transom sterns, counters, retros and whatnot was mostly irrelevant. There’s wonderful and miserable examples of all shape and form of yacht hulls.
But the double-ender slips the water better than most?
It’s the exit at the waterline that matters most. Big broad bearings aft, like on modern race-sleds, are great for planing. Most displacement boats are best with nice and mostly symmetrical waterlines, maybe a slightly aft raking center as she heels but nothing too extreme, maybe more displacemental sharpness in bow than stern but still, moderate is to be appreciated.
Anyway – all yachts looks pretty double-ended at the waterline. What you do from there and up has more to do with aesthetics, desired accomodation, and designer’s tradition than any immutable law of the sea.
What about seaworthiness then?
To those who say there is no difference in seaworthiness provided by the double-ended shape, I can only say that I doubt whether they have experienced a full grown North Sea storm, when the waves are vertical, breaking from three directions at once. Then it isn’t just how the vessel is shaped to the waterline, because the effective waterline is often nearer the deck than where is usually is. The double-enders were shaped to live and thrive in such conditions. Other designs often do not. The real reason for the shape is seaworthiness.
Well – lots of sailors will say hoghwash to this argument. Boats in all shapes and forms have crossed the North Sea and endured hurricanes and gails all over the world. Anyone who has experienced real bad weather – and gotten away without to much trouble – feel grateful towards the boat and her constructors. However – I have experienced bad weather in good boats and bad boats – and I certainly prefer my own double-ender.
What about length of waterline?
When the double-ender lists hard the effective waterline will reach from bow to stern with lift (or effective waterline) all along. A non-double-ender will lose the effective waterline at the stern. A longer waterline will in theory give a faster hull for the same weight and rig. Besides, while the double-ender heels hard the hull shape will prevent it from loosing steerage – at least for a longer than most, and at least for realtive narrow double-enders.
I guess classic hulls with long overhangs will achieve the same lift while listing hard – and classic hulls still are double-enders in effect when sailing listless. So – the longer waterline argument is not among the heaviest pro double-ender arguments.
I’ll bet the “real” reason double-enders evolved were not for the sea keeping qualities at all, but mainly because it is an easier hull to make in wood. The fact that they in fact floated and got their Vikings home obviously proliferated the design. You know – if they didn’t get back they wouldn’t have been able to pass the knowledge to the next generation.
What a rotten argument!
But the double-ender has other qualities.
A cruising boat is a home afloat, and volume is a luxury. The broad double-ender, with a sharp, deep underbody – like the Norwegian Colin Archer sailing tugboats, gives the best volume and sailing ability for any hull shape, bare none. None are better for liveaboard quality of life, volumewise, and sailwise if the boat is properly ballasted and rigged, and most are steadier and kinder to the crew in a seaway. One just has to put enough of the right things, like ballast, total displacement, and sail area, in the right places.
I don’t know – it seems that it all ends and starts with Beiser – the only reason to build or own a double-ender is because you like it and it pleases your eyes. That’s good enough for me. Do you have any other reasons – feel free to comment.
I was on the verge of ordering a new Genoa 2 140% from Aker Seil, when I found this second hand Genoa from UK-sails. It looks good, but there are quite a few patches and it is in bad need of a repair from a careful and loving sailmaker. The Carbon-fibre tapedrive Genoa is only used for two seasons. But those two seasons must have been some very hard ones. A few of the carbon-strings are broken, there are patches along the leach and at least two major rips along the foot.
Besides, it is on the small side. My 100% jib is 31,5m2, the 150% Genoa 1 is 47,25m2 – the correct size of a Genoa 2 should be 140% which amounts to 44,1m2 – the second hand carbon dream from UK-sails is closer to 126% which amounts to 39m2. That makes it ready to tackle some very hard winds, which mean I have to wait longer for a sail-shift going from Genoa 1 to Genoa 2 – while I can wait longer before I need to shift down to the 100% Jib.
I Even after I have paid the sailmaker to patch the Carbon-fibre, the leach and the foot – I should be able to save a lot of money, compared to a new sail.
II Besides the sail from Aker Sail would be a Dacron/Pentex Genoa which is OK and affordable, but it is not a carbon-fibre supersail.
III The steps with the UK-Genoa are kind of nice and symmetrical – 8M2 down with the Genoa 2 and another 8m2 less with the jib.
IV I have so far done OK without the Genoa 2 – so I don’t really know if I need it or how much it is going to be used. Second hand is not free, but it is definitely a less costly way of finding out.
So – should I stay or should I blow?
Anyone out there who feel like giving me some advice? How long will a carbon-fibre sail last? Will it make good in our rather cold New Year Regatta, January 6? Will the sailmaker be able to make a racing sail for Salt out of this? Should I stick to Pentex and let the guys with the money go for the carbon-fibre?
Maybe this is all about wanting a sail I normally could not afford? I wish for it and then I fix all arguments to fit my wishes.
It’s dark, cold and time to think of expensive non-toys for yacht “Salt”. For years I’v wished for a windwane to take charge in hard winds and during long passages. There is no way any known electronic device can keep the boat sailing in anything close to gale conditions in the North Sea. The only reliable solution to endure a two-handed regatta, or a long cruise, seems to be a trustworthy windwane.
More about windvanes – check the page named Equipment – windvane top left
However, on a doubleender like yacht “Salt” its hard to fit a Navik or a Monitor. First they have to be fitted onto a sturdy stainless steel harness bolted to the rear – outside and on top of the existing rudder. That is the exact spot I least want excess weights. Besides none of them will enhance her already strange, but charming, good looks.
If you click the manipulated photo of “Salt” with Cape Horn windvane, you’l get to a large version of the rather crude, but effective manipulation.
So I have sniffed my way to information about the Cape Horn Windwane, or more particular the Jean-du-Sudmodel – which fits “Salt” properly, without further damage to her looks, with a minimum of extra weights and one circumnavigation guaranteed. It is not hard to fit, most of the windwane “plumbing” will be under deck, and what you see will be gleaming stainless steel, teak and the wane. In fact all about the Cape Horn sounds so good it’s hard to understand why Monitor, Navik and all the others are sold at all. It’s simple, made to fit the boat, excellent material, very persuasive engineering, nice people who actually answers the mail – what more can a yachty ask? Yea – it’s even less expensive!
Comparing Monitor and Cape Horn
The above link give you the comparison in Cape Horn manufacurerers own words – be aware of who’s the author.
Anybody out there with real experience with the Cape Horn Windwane that can set me right? I mean – look at all the heavy stuff needed to keep the Monitor happy, in place on top of the rudder and to make sure it holds on during a spell of not-so-nice-weather! (Oil-rig photo – from Monitor)
The silence, or more correct the non conversation, involving the Cape Horn windwane is in fact the only thing that makes me a little sceptic. There are at least two forums on the web discussing windvanes, but all I can find is discussions about the general performance of a wind driven system versus electronics and how to get hold of spare-parts. Nobody, as far as I know says a single word of sailing with the Cape Horn outside of the Cape Horn website. It might of course be because the Cape Horn guys are so happy and content with their windwane that they don’t need to search the web for information or take part in any discussions. They might just be out sailing!
Who knows? Give me a clue… please!
More about windvanes – check the page named Equipment – windvane top left
Particularly not when it comes to electronics and navigation. For a while there I thought I could buy a CSB200 Class B AIS Transponder, combine it with Tiki Navigator through an old laptop and using the existing VHF and GPS antenna. By connecting it all I could get a modern AIS system combined with an up to date navigational system – and use my old laptop.
Too good, of course. I mailed to Dolphin Maritime Software Ltd check out if this would work out nicely. If nothing else, I could at least get the transponder cheaper. However, Dolphin says; “We would advise that the CSB200 really needs both a dedicated VHF antenna and a dedicated GPS antenna.This is because as a Transponder it must synchronise transmissions with other AIS units in the area, using GPS time, so it needs to listen all the time for AIS transmissions.Also you could posibly damage your VHF-radio or your CSB200 if you connect them to the same VHF antenna.”
Besides – Tiki is not AIS ready yet, and the Dolphin Maritime software to get a good AIS picture on the laptop costs extra 140Gbp. The extra cost of a new external GPS and VHF antenna I don’t know yet.
The good news is
that the total price of the CSB200 Class B AIS Transponder delivered in Norway by Dolphin will be 560Gbp, which amounts to 6720Kr. + vat 25%, a total of 8400Kr. which is still below what I have to pay at Skagerak Maritime.
So much for making it easy!
Would you believe it? An AIS Class B transponder from Skagerak Marine Electronics AS (Comar Systems in English)costs close to 12.000 kroners ( a little less than 2000 dlrs.) including antenna! That is more or less what I have to pay for a complete small radar.
Why do everybody have to overcharge so much?
A small transponder can’t cost that much to manufacture – not even in Norway.
And what is AIS? AIS is short for Automatic identification systems, which are designed to provide information to other ships with receivers/transponders and to the coast guard – and you if you have one. In short – at sea you can check your chart-plotter or PC and find the name, destination, size, speed, course and other interesting stuff of all larger ships around.
If I have to pay a few more kroners for a complete radar, as far as I understand – a radar still has to be a much better deal. The radar is able to warn me of ships coming close, as does the AIS. The radar can’t tell me the name of the ship, but I don’t need to know that to avoid it. Besides, I can use the radar in fog and darkness to feel my way back home.
To compete AIS transponders should be relatively cheap and easy to combine with a computer and chart program. At least they should not cost more than 4-times the price of the best Norwegian chart-program for yachts, complete with GPS antenna and charts.
AIS in Norway
If you are as ignorant of AIS-technology as I am – check out this AIS showcase-connection. It will show you AIS in realtime from Stavanger. You can check out ships with transponders as far a way as south of Eigersund, you can check the ships in Oslofjord and as far north as Haugesund and Kårstø. That is really something!
Yeah – and if you insists on checking out your homeport – check this zite – but it might cost you money after a while.
I you are still thirsty for inforamtion – her’s facts about the AIS from the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
Help me out
Does anybody have any experience with AIS transponders?
I’d like to combine an AIS transponder with a PC-chart software – any experience with that?
Come on – help me out! Give me a clue!
Down at the dock the spray form the fjord was washing over boats 200 feet away. No night to be at sea – but it worked out to be nice night to be in the cabin. At least as long as the boat is securely roped to the dockside. I don’t understand why anyone would wish to live close to a sailboat marina. The howling of the wind and the clatter of halyards hitting the aluminum masts must be annoying – to say the least.
Not so nice
On any given day this would have been one of the no-so-nice trips to check out the boat in the middle of a gale. But a few days ago I installed a new diesel oven. And the change is formidable. I have kept it burning just to check that everything is working fine. So during the gale I went below and just savoured the heat and dryness. The yacht has never been among the very wet ones, but she always get damp, cold and uninviting during winter. Everything start to smell a littel stale and all my equipment seems cold and damp.
What a change! Why on earth did it take me five years to get rid of the old diesel-electric heater? It never did work right – and when it worked it made noise and ate through my batteries. It finally sign it’s own death-penalty when it quit during a two-hand race from Bergen to Stavanger and back. At best this is a long race. When hit by cold strong headwinds and no heat below – it was unendurable. When my first-mate turned blue and her upper lip started quivering I knew it was time for some fast reaching towards the island Utsira.
Well – the real reason for dragging my feet for so long, was that I had to cut through the teak-deck for the exhaust-pipe. And I hate making holes – I hate it even more than I hate cutting rope. Sailors who buy expensive ropes, and make sure it is long enough by overdoing it by two meters, know what I mean. Anyhow – I finally did summon courage enough to drill a large hole in the cabin roof, and it was no big deal. Nothing to stay awake and think dark and sorrowful thoughts about leakage and rot.
Now it is so nice that I want to go x-mas sailing. At least I want to go out to see if there is cod to be had for 2.day x-mas. That is the best cod ever. Coming up from the cold fjord, hard and white in the meat and snarled by bait a cold and snowy day. Served with small potatoes, lots of boiled carrots and melted butter with cream and parsley…. And I want to cruise the fjords towards Sjernarøy for a two day lecture in university ped.
I have sailed the Bahamas and Florida – and the truth is that cold wind sailing with a nice glow below is much to prefer to hot wind sailing all day and even hotter nights.
If I get to the x-mas sailing and the cod fishing – I will blogg you all about it. Be my guest!