tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4273883632460433399.post3783900370145185271..comments2024-03-28T02:33:20.668-07:00Comments on Earwigoagin: A Brief History of the Extreme-V Classic MothTweezermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06559514473959503645noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4273883632460433399.post-82712904451647513322019-06-17T05:06:19.503-07:002019-06-17T05:06:19.503-07:00Doug,
Google blogger doesn't allow attachment...Doug,<br /><br />Google blogger doesn't allow attachments in their comments. Post them to the FB group which I monitor.Tweezermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06559514473959503645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4273883632460433399.post-61048995316375963822019-06-14T08:49:58.684-07:002019-06-14T08:49:58.684-07:00By the way, I wouldn't call the Creekmore or I...By the way, I wouldn't call the Creekmore or Irwin designs "deep-V", and they were all molded fiberglass, but the 2 Krippendorf designs that I know about were both plywood.Doug Halseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14115033946543761807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4273883632460433399.post-47886494191641934112019-06-14T08:45:49.941-07:002019-06-14T08:45:49.941-07:00I have a few photos of the Creekmore & Krippen...I have a few photos of the Creekmore & Krippendorf boats, and might be able to find one for an Irwin design, but I don't have any lines drawings.<br /><br />Is there a way to attach them here, or should I just send them to the Classic Moth FB group?Doug Halseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14115033946543761807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4273883632460433399.post-72681438815320153532019-06-14T07:29:57.469-07:002019-06-14T07:29:57.469-07:00Doug,
I would be interested in seeing some photos...Doug,<br /><br />I would be interested in seeing some photos of the Creekmore, Krippendorf and Irwin designs. The plans (or one of their actual Moth hulls) haven't made it to the present day - at least George has never mentioned to me that he had a copy of them in his possession.Tweezermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06559514473959503645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4273883632460433399.post-14385275571988169682019-06-14T07:24:39.167-07:002019-06-14T07:24:39.167-07:00The lines for the Duflos were taken off of a small...The lines for the Duflos were taken off of a small drawing that was on Louis Pillon's French website and then run through a fairing program. I wasn't working from George's plans. The displacement for my waterlines is 130 kg which reflects the heavier adults that are now racing the class. I don't have the Swiss Dunand lines in the computer so I don't know what the displacement they were using. Again the lines for the Swiss Dunand were kicking around the Intenet.Tweezermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06559514473959503645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4273883632460433399.post-57395192876617651022019-06-13T14:18:07.651-07:002019-06-13T14:18:07.651-07:00The lines for the Duflos near the top of this post...The lines for the Duflos near the top of this post show a definite V in the transom section, unlike the smoothly rounded shape in the 1962 plans that I have. Are you showing the 1972 version that George A. mentions above?Doug Halseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14115033946543761807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4273883632460433399.post-91858125609828345952019-06-13T09:21:13.164-07:002019-06-13T09:21:13.164-07:00My first impressions on seeing your numbers for th...My first impressions on seeing your numbers for the waterline beams, was that they were all way too high. But then I realized that we aren't necessarily using the same values for the displacements. I always assumed Disp = 235lbs, allowing 100lbs for hull & rig, plus 135lbs for the skipper (which used to be about right for me). You are probably assuming something higher.<br /><br />The case of the Duflos is the easiest for me to check, since I have a copy of the full-size plans. Measuring directly, I get 754mm waterline beam (even larger than the 700mm you estimated). This is corroborated by a notation on the plan giving the max 1/2 width as 37.7cm. <br /><br />I don't know what displacement that beam corresponds to, but I found some calculations that I apparently did sometime in the 60's, showing that to get Disp = 235lbs, the waterline has to be 1.63" lower than the DWL from the plans, and in that case the waterline beam is only 25.5" (=648mm).<br /><br />The case of the Swiss Dunand design is harder for me to check, since I don't seem to have the plans. But my value of 30" (762mm) for the waterline beam (compared to your value of 800mm) is plausible if I'm assuming a slightly smaller displacement than you are.<br /><br />In the case of the Cates Moth, the 30" waterline beam apparently came from scaling up the small lines-drawing in Yachting magazine. I don't think it's a terribly inaccurate number though, and your value of 900mm still seems too large to me.<br /><br />In any case, 30" is what my Dad used in designing my 1st Moth (#2176 in 1961), and which I used in the subsequent modification (#2775 in 1965). Again, these were assuming Disp = 235lbs.<br /><br />There were a few boats in Florida with narrower waterlines in that same time period. The designs by Ted Irwin were at least a couple of inches narrower, and Lee Creekmore's and King Krippendorf's designs were several inches narrower still. Lee Creekmore won the 1967 Nationals with his, and I won in 1968 using a borrowed Ted Irwin design.Doug Halseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14115033946543761807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4273883632460433399.post-19977158069982135232019-06-12T18:02:24.526-07:002019-06-12T18:02:24.526-07:00Doug,
Thanks for the comment. I've added it t...Doug,<br /><br />Thanks for the comment. I've added it to the main post. I have a feeling that some of the answers are still around - just have to find the right Europeans who want to talk. Approximate waterline beams as I've calculated. Duflos - 700 mm, Swiss Dunand - 800 mm, Cates - 900 mm. Joe Bousquet also does a V-angle measurement at amidship and the Dunand and Duflos are very similar.Tweezermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06559514473959503645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4273883632460433399.post-13805145531587219162019-06-11T11:22:54.457-07:002019-06-11T11:22:54.457-07:00I also have plans from Benoit Duflos dated 1962, a...I also have plans from Benoit Duflos dated 1962, and a 1966 newspaper article (in French) referring to the 1962 date.<br /><br />Marie-Claude Fauroux sailed the Duflos at the 1966 Worlds in Lausanne and was extremely fast, but inconsistent. She won 3 of the 6 races, but was out of the top 10 in the other 3 and finished 4th in the final standings. (Lots of us, other than Roggo & Ganter, were very inconsistent.)<br /><br />Benoit Duflos & Jacques Fauroux were also there, but were not in the top 10 overall. (I'm not sure if Jacques was sailing a Duflos, or was there for every race though).<br /><br />I have newspaper articles with results of individual races, photos, and longer discussions (in French), and some shorter clips from the London Times, which I will scan and probably post somewhere when I get a chance.Doug Halseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14115033946543761807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4273883632460433399.post-4615325619135365892019-01-30T12:46:01.581-08:002019-01-30T12:46:01.581-08:00I have plans from Benoit Duflos dated 1962. I hav...I have plans from Benoit Duflos dated 1962. I have never seen any of Jacques Fauroux's boats from the early '60s but several French designers beyond Fauroux and Duflos were building their own boats then. One of the unifying aspects of French and Swiss Moths of this era was the love of the free-standing or "Finn rig" mast. Later on, towards the end of the low aspect era, both Jacques and his sister Marie-Claude were racing Duflos Moths. Marie-Claude is one of two women to win the World's out right. <br /><br />As for whether or not Mach One was a deep-vee, narrow water line boat compared to the Mistral, we'd need access to Warren's half model which his son George has, rather than my memory. I think the most dated aspect of the Bailey design would be the small, pinched transom--a feature replicated on the Cates-Florida design. The Mistral would plane sooner.George Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15375041586503979232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4273883632460433399.post-85453792015306447852019-01-30T12:16:51.649-08:002019-01-30T12:16:51.649-08:00George,
I dragged your comments over to the main ...George,<br /><br />I dragged your comments over to the main post as you raise very pertinent points in this history.Tweezermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06559514473959503645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4273883632460433399.post-39958696823177212942019-01-30T10:24:35.311-08:002019-01-30T10:24:35.311-08:00Tweezerman: Several corrections to your "his...Tweezerman: Several corrections to your "history" lesson:<br /><br />1. Warren Bailey's Mach One design (World's winner in 1954) had so much rocker in the keel that the forward panels had to be pulled up "pram" style and then a false pointy glass nose was grafted onto the boat to give the hull a sharp stem look. Mach One had a deep vee that was similar to that of the Mistral/Duflos and may have been deeper than the Swiss design. The Cates-Florida design is a very watered down version of Mach One.<br /><br />2. Duflos' boat was designed in '62 rather than '66. He tweaked the design in '72 to accommodate the the then newly adopted Aussie tall rig.<br /><br />3. The designer of the Mistral--a clever attempt to capture Duflos' elegant but difficult to build shape, using flat ply panels, was Derek Chester, NOT Merv Cook! The Mistral design went through two versions (we use the Mk II version here) and was followed by the Mirage which while mimicking the Mistral shape was much narrower. The Mirage required wings and even so was difficult to sail in a breeze. Few were built as faster narrow winged Moths like the Stockholm Sprite hit the race course at about the same time. The main appeal of the Mirage was that it was so narrow, one could get both hull panels from a single 4 x 12 sheet of ply. George Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15375041586503979232noreply@blogger.com