Another 'what is this?'

MikeD · Post by **MikeD** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 8:51 pm

Moored next to us a few weekends ago...

Rachel · Post by **Rachel** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 12:21 am

I'm curious too - I really like the way it looks.

I think this may be another photo of Spartina, bow on:

Rachel · Post by **Rachel** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 1:11 am

I don't know how the (racing?) sail numbers work, but searching "Spartina" with the sail number in that last photo comes up with the boat type listed as "Custom."

Rats, that's not very satisfying.

Figment · Post by **Figment** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:54 am

So very odd.

Why does the backstay go to that boomkin instead of the transom?
Why does it have running backstays at all? (it looks like the boom doesn't conflict, or at least it almost-doesn't)

Chris Campbell · Post by **Chris Campbell** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:14 am

I'm guessing she's a Chuck Payne design - not that that is clearing anything up, of course...

Bluenose · Post by **Bluenose** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 10:28 am

Figment wrote:So very odd.

Why does the backstay go to that boomkin instead of the transom?
Why does it have running backstays at all? (it looks like the boom doesn't conflict, or at least it almost-doesn't)

I agree. I start seeing parts of this boat that I like and then run into parts that I can't make sense of.

It almost seems like a boat designed by a committee.

But I guess now is a good time to remind myself that my taste are outside the norm.

Chris Campbell · Post by **Chris Campbell** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 10:38 am

Can't see the top of the mast to know if it's fractionally rigged or not - the running backstays could be because it is (forestay tension and proper support for the rig in heavy air).

The boomkin is surprising - but presumably there is some reason, not immediately apparent, for it's existence...

Case · Post by **Case** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:11 am

Perhaps the boomkin is there to enable a mainsail with a monstrous roach. Or its there as an aesthetic choice.

Only reasons I can think of. Otherwise, its pointless.

I actually do like the boat. Its interesting, quite different. From the placement of the mast, I suspect it may be a fractionally rigged sailboat. This also caused me to think the boomkin for aesthetics because normally, you do not need a bowsprit for a fractionally rigged sailboat (not as common like for masthead rigged).

I'm 99.99 % certain its custom. I'm a hopeless boat nut and I have never seen something like this boat so that's really something...

- Case

Case · Post by **Case** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:17 am

Just thought another reason for the boomkin:

Maybe the owner likes to stand right on the cockpit seats at the aft end of the cockpit. Having the backstay at the normal place... lots of head boinking with the backstay. So a boomkin is added to keep the backstay farther away.

A weird though, I know but trying to think of why the boomkin is there.

- Case

keelbolts · Post by **keelbolts** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 10:08 am

I agree w/ case that the boomkin is probably there to keep the backstay off the mainsail's roach. As for the runners, they were typically used on fractionally rigged racers, in addition to the fixed backstay, to help keep the luff of the headsail taut.

LazyGuy · Post by **LazyGuy** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 6:53 pm

There is an inner forestay and judging from the almost parallel topping lift and back stay then this is a TALL rig. So possibly the boom kin is for the roach and the running backs are for the stay sail. Sounds like a lot of clap-trap for a little gain if that is the case.

Rachel · Post by **Rachel** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:30 pm

On the other hand, it looks to me like Spartina has a racing/cruising PHRF rating of 171/180; not too shabby for a boat that looks fairly small.

The same list has the Luders 33 at 204/216

So sure, more to monkey with, but I don't know that I'd call it claptrap, especially if the owner likes to race as well as cruise.

Rachel

LazyGuy · Post by **LazyGuy** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 8:27 pm

Rachael,

So maybe clap-trap was not the proper word to use. To me a boomkin is a compendium of stresses that include compression as well as tensile to fight each other to hold the rig up. I sailed on a sandbagger once with a huge boomkin and an even bigger bowsprit. Sailing that boat was a whole lot of fun feeling like I was living on the edge. In a discussion with the owner, he told me that he had rebuilt the boomkin twice in 20 years and the bowsprit about 5 years earlier. He added that the stresses of the rig was very hard on the boat. Also, running backs are another complication that when operated properly by people that know what they are doing, is poetry in motion. It is also an invitation to disaster for people that do not fully understand the stresses involved and the potential consequences of bad timing. Maybe a better term would have been "complication."

Yes, my Luders 33 does not fit the category of speedster. I enjoy the simplicity. Speed has a cost that I am seldom willing to pay.

Rachel · Post by **Rachel** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 8:37 pm

LazyGuy wrote: Yes, my Luders 33 does not fit the category of speedster. I enjoy the simplicity. Speed has a cost that I am seldom willing to pay.

Nothing wrong with a Luders 33 - I tend to like simple boats too, and I would love to have an L-33 myself. Yet I also think the mystery boat looks neat and would be fun to sail/race.

Horses for courses, as they say :)

Rachel

MikeD · Post by **MikeD** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:06 am

I agree with Rachel. Rigging questions aside, I really like the looks of the boat aesthetically - except the deadlights. It looks like a comfy and secure cockpit with the wrap around coamings, and I like how the coaming cap is incorporated with the eye brows. With no forecabin trunk, it's got a working foredeck that rivals Bolero's.

It's got a kind of, I don't know, "stout" ruggedness to it, reminiscent to some of the Pacific Seacrafts - but it also has some nice curves too. Put a couple of bronze portals on each side and it would really look sharp. But as they say, opinions... everybody's got one. :)

I wish I'd have seen the owner and rowed over there. I'd love to see what the interior looks like too.

Bluenose · Post by **Bluenose** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:03 am

LazyGuy wrote:...I enjoy the simplicity. Speed has a cost that I am seldom willing to pay...

While I might agree that a boomkin would add some complexity to maintenance and running backstay would add some complexity to sailing. I don't think that speed and simplicity are mutually exclusive. And I don't really think it is about speed at all. I think that it is about having enough sail area to push-pull your sailboat near its hull speed for a wide range of wind conditions.

MikeD wrote:...With no forecabin trunk, it's got a working foredeck that rivals Bolero's...

And to think I thought Bolero was all foredeck. But having sailed on a few other boats this summer, I enjoy a clear foredeck even more.

Edit:

Rachel wrote:On the other hand, it looks to me like Spartina has a racing/cruising PHRF rating of 171/180; not too shabby for a boat that looks fairly small.

And if Rachel's numbers are right (and is she ever wrong), that means that Bolero (Shields) would only owe Spartina 3 seconds per mile (Shields LI Sound PHRF 168) around the race course.

Rachel · Post by **Rachel** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:25 am

I found the numbers when Googling "Spartina" out of curiosity about the design. I came up with what looked like a PHRF rating list. (The Luders 33 was on the same list a few pages back.)

Wouldn't it be fun if you and Bolero could have a boat-to-boat race with her? That would be fun to watch with your ratings being so close :)

Bluenose · Post by **Bluenose** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:47 am

Rachel wrote:Wouldn't it be fun if you and Bolero could have a boat-to-boat race with her? That would be fun to watch with your ratings being so close :)

I guess it depends on your definition of fun. Bolero is probably a bit slower since her conversion and I certainly don't add any racing value. So following this boat around the race course might be a lot of things, but fun?

Cheers, Bill

Rachel · Post by **Rachel** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:20 pm

Okay, I see your point.

I just know how much you love sailing, so I was figuring you'd really enjoy sailing with a boat that was so close in rating to yours. And it's always fun to watch people doing what they enjoy.

But now that I think about it, I realize that you probably just like to sail, and may not care how fast other people are going (that more-or-less sums up my feelings about it, actually).

Rachel

Bluenose · Post by **Bluenose** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:37 pm

Rachel wrote:Okay, I see your point.

I just know how much you love sailing, so I was figuring you'd really enjoy sailing with a boat that was so close in rating to yours. And it's always fun to watch people doing what they enjoy.

But now that I think about it, I realize that you probably just like to sail, and may not care how fast other people are going (that more-or-less sums up my feelings about it, actually).

Rachel

Rachel,

My last post was a bit tongue and cheek. Even though I don't race, I love sailing and try to catch up or keep up with other boats under sail. I often lose well to a couple of Etchells (although we seem close) and a few weeks ago we had a lovely time trying to pace an old Rhodes Evergreen class. She even prompted me to shake out a reef so I could do everything I could to sail alongside and admire her. Her size eventually won out, but we definitely pointed higher.

We also have an International One Design up here that I am dying to see the stern of as I try to catch her.

Cheers, Bill

Figment · Post by **Figment** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:47 pm

Shields vs. IOD? Bring your A-game!

Bluenose · Post by **Bluenose** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 3:26 pm

Figment wrote:Shields vs. IOD? Bring your A-game!

Darn. My best game is a C+. I guess I better bring my monocular so I can still see that beautiful stern for a long way away.

Plastic Classic Forum

Another 'what is this?'

Another 'what is this?'

Re: Another 'what is this?'

Re: Another 'what is this?'

Re: Another 'what is this?'

Re: Another 'what is this?'

Re: Another 'what is this?'

Re: Another 'what is this?'

Re: Another 'what is this?'

Re: Another 'what is this?'

Re: Another 'what is this?'

Re: Another 'what is this?'

Re: Another 'what is this?'

Re: Another 'what is this?'

Re: Another 'what is this?'

Re: Another 'what is this?'

Re: Another 'what is this?'

Re: Another 'what is this?'

Re: Another 'what is this?'

Re: Another 'what is this?'

Re: Another 'what is this?'

Re: Another 'what is this?'

Re: Another 'what is this?'