Lowrider Moth Facebook Page
The previous header photo is of English Moths launching in the early 1970's. (I'm guessing) The International Rule had just been introduced and, in this transition period, you still see a wide variety of hulls and rigs. It wouldn't be long after this that the class started moving inexorably down the path of narrow skiffs with wings pushed out to max beam. On the left foreground you see the production Skol design, in the middle foreground, a scow, and on right foreground, the Duflos. In the background there is the mixture of the low-aspect Circle M rigs mixed in with the high-aspect Australian rig.
While we are on the topic of the European Moths of this period, John Claridge, who would become the premier European builder of Moths through the 1970's and into the early 1990's, sends along his recollections of the epic heavy-air slugfest that was race 3 of the 1968 Moth Worlds. It is an interesting read.
Some photos that have been popping up on the Lowrider Moth Facebook group:
One of the light air starts during the 1968 Worlds. The Swiss and French contingent of Duflos designs with Finn-type rigs, that were to dominate the light air races and in the overall results, have launched out quickly in the left of this photo.
The KM Moth was one of the finishers in race 3. Here returning through the breakwater. From G. Albaugh, "I seem to recall seeing this photo years ago and if memory serves it was captioned as being John Shelley, sailing, at that time, from Malta." John mentions in his article that John Shelley was using a hockey stick mast, which this Moth seems to be using, so G.A.'s ID seems good-to-go.
The following photos are not of race 3 but I think they are from 1968 (maybe the European championship). A heavy air beat in a good sea. All low-rigged Moths.
The "Monaco" boat. I seem to recall seeing this photo years ago and if memory serves it was captioned as being John Shelley, sailing, at that time, from Malta. Of course like John C. and his recollection of yesterday's lunch, I could be quite wrong.
ReplyDeleteThanks George. I put the correction in the main post.
ReplyDelete