The Universal and International Rules

[Wiley Baggins]

Some interesting comments are made on the types of boats that result from the Universal Rule versus the International Rule at this site - http://m-boat.com/index.php?page=3


The two rules produce somewhat different boats. The reason for this is mainly that the way the fullness of the ends is limited is so different. The International Rule uses girths near the ends to accomplish what the Universal Rule does by means of the second length measurement. Because of the way the that the girth length limits were chosen in the International Rule, that rule tends to produce a boat that is finer forward than aft, while the Universal Rule tends to produce a boat with more balance between the ends: perhaps slightly fuller forward, and somewhat finer aft, than a "metre boat". At the same time, it is much harder to fit the sail plan on the boat under the Universal Rule, so that the ends tend to be quite a bit longer.
.
.
.
In any class the various factors that make a great boat have to come together more or less properly, and M-Class was one of those classes, as was the 6-Metre. In these classes the proportions seem to work out just right, and a wonderful kind of boat results, which the other rule can not produce.

I haven't looked at enough meter boats versus lettered class boats to offer an educated opinion on this. Any designers or fans of the classes/rules want to share an opinion? Also, has anyone "squared the circle," for want of better term, by solving across the two rating formulas?

[rbgarr]

Fladlien claims "Ranger was undoubtedly faster than" Reliance. I wonder about that.

[johnw]

I think the displacements are wrong on both Reliance and Ranger, which makes me wonder about his other numbers.

[Wiley Baggins]

Fladlien claims "Ranger was undoubtedly faster than" Reliance. I wonder about that.


I think the displacements are wrong on both Reliance and Ranger, which makes me wonder about his other numbers.

Well, a quick check shows the following regarding displacement -

Ranger
M-Boat: 141 Tons
Official AC Site: 166 Tons
Wiki: 166 Tons

Reliance
M-Boat: 138 Tons
Official AC Site: 175 Tons
Wiki: 189 Tons

A little additional information (all from the Official AC site) -

Ranger
SA/Disp: 4.22 sq. meters/ton
LWL: 27.32 m

Reliance
SA/Disp: 8.58 sq. meters/ton
LWL: 26.51 m

Moving solely back to the original topic, any additional thoughts on the effectiveness of the rules? I will note that an Eight-Meter site also claims the International Rule produces an ideal boat in that size range.

Official AC Site - Reliance: http://www.americascup.org/en/acclopaedia/boatdestiny/index.php?idIndex=0&idContent=1743

Official AC Site - Ranger: http://www.americascup.com/en/acclopaedia/boatdestiny/index.php?idIndex=0&idContent=1799

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliance_(yacht)

[Winsome]

Fladlien claims "Ranger was undoubtedly faster than" Reliance. I wonder about that.

I would probably argue with David on this as well... To Quote Clinton Crane....

"I know that many people have called Ranger the fastest boat that ever sailed (note - writing 1952) for the America's Cup. But my belief is that boat for boat without time allowance even with her old fashioned rig, Reliance would have beaten Ranger to windward. The record of the Cup races shows that the fastest time ever made in a windward-leeward race was made by Reliance"

He goes on to describe one of his most memorable sites of of a race between Columbia and Reliance (Aug 1903) - Reliance loosing the start, coming astern to Columbia, boring away to leeward, passing her, then up across her bow. He doubts any other boat could have done this. It certainly must have been a sight to see....

[rbgarr]

Clinton Crane: no slouch of a yacht designer he.

The question about the 'effectiveness' of a rule is kind of beside the point. Handicap rules are written to create boundaries to be designed within; to limit performance in some ways, not promote 'better' designs, thus designs within each rule can each be 'effective' at maximizing performance for that class in different sailing conditions.

Unlimited design parameters allows for more 'effective' designing for whatever conditions and purposes a yacht must meet.

[Wiley Baggins]

The question about the 'effectiveness' of a rule is kind of beside the point. Handicap rules are written to create boundaries to be designed within; to limit performance in some ways, not promote 'better' designs, thus designs within each rule can each be 'effective' at maximizing performance for that class in different sailing conditions.

I agree with this to a point. Certainly the goal of a rule is to establish criteria within which designers can create competitive craft (among like designs). Having said that, rule makers do/should keep in mind the ultimate wholesomeness of the end results of the rules. I believe one reason rules can/do change is because they result in undesirable boats.


Unlimited design parameters allows for more 'effective' designing for whatever conditions and purposes a yacht must meet.

I agree with this completely. The challenge of having boats built to no rule at all race together competitively is another sort of rule making challenge.

[rbgarr]

From the link in the first post:

A few years later, an International conference was held in Europe for a similar purpose -- to make a better rating rule. For reasons now lost in history, no Americans were present. This is sad, since a lot of common experience could have been used to make improvements to the Universal Rule. Instead a second rule was written, which accomplished the same purposes in some very different ways. This rule was the International Rule, which was put together in 1907.

I believe the implied notion that the International Rule was an attempt to improve the Universal Rule is incorrect. The International Rule was intended to remedy dissatisfaction with the English Yacht Racing Union rules. The Universal Rule was an effort to promote a more desirable type of yacht than the Seawanhaka and other various LWL rules in the US and Canada.

Thus they were near parallel efforts to address different concerns, so a solving of the two rules wasn't such a 'political necessity' as to create an agreed-upon effort to do so. The practical 'solution' was the small boat/big boat split in adopting the International or Universal Rule depending on size, primarily because the English were unable/unwilling/uninterested in building Universal Rule boats to compete in NA waters, except of course for the J class in the AC. NA sailor/owners, perhaps wealthier or for other reasons did commission and campaign International class boats in European waters, and happily so.

[Wiley Baggins]

The International Rule was intended to remedy dissatisfaction with the English Yacht Racing Union rules. The Universal Rule was an effort to promote a more desirable type of yacht than the Seawanhaka and other various LWL rules in the US and Canada.

... solving of the two rules wasn't such a 'political necessity' as to create an agreed-upon effort to do so. The practical 'solution' was the small boat/big boat split in adopting the International or Universal Rule depending on size...

rbgarr, I'm doing a little parsing here to see if we are talking past one another, as I think we may be doing.

I am not arguing that the International Rule was developed to improve upon the Universal Rule. I do think, as parsed above, one of the goals of each rule was improving the boats, rather than just their competitiveness within each system.

I am also not trying to characterize the "solution" as one sought by the two parties, although I can see how my question can be read that way. Rather, I am wondering if anyone has formulated a rule - more of a guideline, that takes the desirable biases built into the two rules and combines them to overcome their respective shortcomings. The great potential failure in my question is it based on the assertions made at the M-Class site that the desirable and undesirable characteristics are as described. The perception, reality, or both may be at odds with that.

[rbgarr]

I am not arguing that the International Rule was developed to improve upon the Universal Rule.

I didn't think you were arguing that. The M-class site seemed to be doing so and as a result it had a slanted argument.

I do think, as parsed above, one of the goals of each rule was improving the boats, rather than just their competitiveness within each system.

That would almost always be the case whenever establishing a new rule wouldn't it, versus improvements or adjustments to a rule as experience with it accrues?

I am also not trying to characterize the "solution" as one sought by the two parties, although I can see how my question can be read that way. Rather, I am wondering if anyone has formulated a rule - more of a guideline, that takes the desirable biases built into the two rules and combines them to overcome their respective shortcomings.

In short, no. No new rule, or attempt to develop one, has arisen. Again, there was only a practical solution attempted, which was to encourage the adoption of classes or regattas serving both rules wherever interest lay.

The great potential failure in my question is it based on the assertions made at the M-Class site that the desirable and undesirable characteristics are as described. The perception, reality, or both may be at odds with that.

There are differences between the rules and there are arguments over the characteristics of different results, but individual designers/owners have always been free to address them within each class structure, or regardless of any rule, and may have done so with individual designs. That pursuit just hasn't generated a lot of widespread interest. So it goes. My opinion anyways.

[johnw]

The displacements from the AC site are the ones I remember, and have seen from different sources.

I think the fastest average speed for covering an America's Cup race was by the schooner Columbia, way back in the 1870s (I'm thinking the second defence, but I might be wrong,) but that was in part because the wind shifted so that the whole race was a reach. I did those calculations back when I was a kid, so there may have been a faster one, such as the catamaran vs. big boat defence.

[tprice]

It's pretty easy to see the differences in the hull shapes. Universal boats being rather flat (and fuller) under the bow as compared to International Rule boats being sharper in section. It would be fun to test in a tow tank but the Universal boats would "grow" their waterlines substantially longer when heeled than the meter boats. In a seaway, the meter boats should have it all over the Universal rule boats. To my eye, the International rule boats are better looking but that's pretty subjective.
The R boats used to race against the 6 meter boats here at Gibson Island Md. and I believe the R's were quicker. A nice old photo of the trials was pictured in Spinsheet last year. The Gibson Island Historical Society has additional photographs of the matches.
On the Chesapeake, we had for many years (up until the 1970s) a Class called "Racing Division" where ex One Design keelboats would all race using somewhat arbitrary Performance handicap ratings. It was great fun and a very popular class having starts in most of the major Bay races. I participated in last decade of the class and had a Columbia Sabre (5.5 meter with a cabin). We subsequently raced a Quincy Adams 17 in the class, followed by an IOD. Talk about some pretty, pretty boats on the start line!
I can recall a NY 30, Dragon, 6m, 8m, 12m, R, Q, S, 30 sq m, Swede 55, IOD, Shields, Atlantic, Lake One Design, Star , Fishers I 23 and other similar boats racing. Handicaps were adjusted yearly at a raucus meeting where sometimes tempers flared and alchohol had to be restrained until after the business was done.
The "hub" of all this activity was on the Magothy River at Gibson Island and the Potapskut Sailing Assn.
Ultimately, as the lovely wood boats aged and were not raced, Rainbows and ultimately, Cal 25s filled in the class but by that time, what was the point? I re wrote the rules specifying a min LOA/ LWL ratio and a LOA/B ratio that tried to formulate "what is a Racing Division" boat but by then it was too late and the class was dropped from CBYRA sanction. The remnants raced on at Chesapeake Appreciation Day and today very few of these boats can be found on the Bay. Still, if you poke hard enough around the fringes of the Boatyards, especially up the rivers and closer to Baltimore, you might still find a long narrow beauty mouldering away under a blue tarp.
I will never forget working on my boat (an IOD, #5) in 1982, at a small Magothy boatyard and hearing a chain saw working hard down by the water. I took a break and wandered down to see a once beautiful 8 meter "Proton" being cut down. In a quick 2 hours, starting from the transom, working forward, that lovely A&R built hull was sectioned with the chain saw, crumpled down by a front end loader and then burned slowly in a smoky low fire for her fastenings. Her massive lead keel was the real bounty and was all that remained of shape at the end of the day. A sad, sad thing to see.
Regards, TP

[Wiley Baggins]

It's pretty easy to see the differences in the hull shapes. Universal boats being rather flat (and fuller) under the bow as compared to International Rule boats being sharper in section.

Thanks, I'll look for that.


On the Chesapeake, we had for many years (up until the 1970s) a Class called "Racing Division"... Talk about some pretty, pretty boats on the start line! I can recall a NY 30, Dragon, 6m, 8m, 12m, R, Q, S, 30 sq m, Swede 55, IOD, Shields, Atlantic, Lake One Design, Star , Fishers I 23 and other similar boats racing.

That must have been a bit of an aesthetic time warp.


...very few of these boats can be found on the Bay. Still, if you poke hard enough around the fringes of the Boatyards, especially up the rivers and closer to Baltimore, you might still find a long narrow beauty mouldering away under a blue tarp.

I remember once seeing such a boat in the Great Lakes region - all overhangs. I never was able to get back and take a look. It may have been about the size of an 8-Meter.


...wandered down to see a once beautiful 8 meter "Proton" being cut down. ..and then burned slowly in a smoky low fire for her fastenings. Her massive lead keel was the real bounty and was all that remained of shape at the end of the day. A sad, sad thing to see.

That may well have been the fate of the boat I saw, stored out in the open and exposed to the seasons.

[tprice]

That must have been a bit of an aesthetic time warp.

Actually, Racing Division started in the 1940s when Delta Class, then later, CCA handicap rules began to fairly match Cruising boats for racing. Originally, the orphan One Design boats seemed to wander down from Long Island Sound and Mass. Bay, where One Design keelboat racing was strong, to the Chesapeake (where it wasn't). The boats were cheap, fun to sail and well built, generally, so folks here purchased them as daysailers - and of course it wasn't long before they began racing them and then formed Racing Division to handicap the various designs. It really was an early "PHRF" as handicaps were established by a crude formula, adjusted by the measurer (a brave man) based on performance results.
An aside. When I was racing in Racing Division, a boat named Audax was champion. She was a Roger McAleer design (he did the Raven) and was just like a big Raven or Thistle. About 34' long, narrow and super light (strip planked I think), she had a long, weighted centerboard that rolled down a big trunk on rollers just like a Thistle's. They would house it downwind. Her deckhouse had a cutout about 4' wide by 10' long that had a raised canopy of tubing and canvas that could be erected after sailing to get standing headroom below.
She had an early aluminum spar and a huge light air masthead genoa, that was really like the modern day Code 0. She was truly fast and I recall her easily beating - boat for boat- a Whitby 45 and an older 12 meter "Phoenix" that sailed on the Bay for a while. Audax was a bit of a Dog upwind in a breeze. And, yes, she would capsize. She is around here somewhere still. There was an article about her in a Spinsheet magazine a few years ago. Very unique for her day or really, any day.
TP

[tprice]

Wow, looks like Audax has been found and has a rebuild in progress. If interested, check out the Audax web site
http://www.geocities.com/audax_sailboat/photos.html
TP

[hm0316]

The 5.5 meter was develeoped after WWII to "solve" supposed problems (notably cost) with the 6 meter class. The 5.5 meter class is still active in Europe as a developmental class (with older boat participation encouraged by the rules). Interestingly, the 6 meter has made a comeback as a classic boat class. Both the Universal and International Rules or for that matter the Square Meter Rule (which I particularly enjoy) have produced some very handsome boats. I doubt that one could create an amalgamation of these rules that would produce an ideal boat any more than the 5.5 meter rule actually "solved" a problem with the 6 meters.

hm0316

[Wiley Baggins]

Wow, looks like Audax has been found and has a rebuild in progress. If interested, check out the Audax web site



Thanks for the link. She brings the Cal 40 to mind for me, but my knowledge of that boat is limited to having seen photos/drawings and hearing a friend wax rhapsodic about the design. I haven't seen a copy of "Spinsheet" in ages.

[Wiley Baggins]

I doubt that one could create an amalgamation of these rules that would produce an ideal boat...
hm0316

That seems to be the consensus (weighing your assessment and that of rbgarr). I don't know that I expected a rule for designing ideal boats. I did wonder if anyone had played around with the equations to see if they could be successfully combined or "averaged," and what sort of boats might have resulted.

[tprice]

Thanks for the link. She brings the Cal 40 to mind for me, but my knowledge of that boat is limited to having seen photos/drawings and hearing a friend wax rhapsodic about the design. I haven't seen a copy of "Spinsheet" in ages.

Like the Cal 40, she's no beauty but beauty is as beauty does. Audax certainly qualifies as ahead of her time and an interesting, unique design.

[tprice]

Check out this 1903 NYTimes link. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9901E3DE1E30E733A25756C1A9659C946297D6CF Intelligent commentary on yacht design formulas in the major media?

Yeah, each Rule was formulated to slay a different Dragon, formulated by it's predecessor. Neither is "right" but the subtleties of the mathematics used, fostered the unique shapes that took advantage of speed producing and retarding factors in the formulas. Making the divisor a simple constant (like the International Rule does) or a function of the cube root of the Disp (Universal Rule), makes a big difference.
It is fascinating how dry mathematical interpretations of speed factors can result in different visible aesthetic forms that the Meter boats or "Letter" boats display.
TP


The 5.5 meter was develeoped after WWII to "solve" supposed problems (notably cost) with the 6 meter class. The 5.5 meter class is still active in Europe as a developmental class (with older boat participation encouraged by the rules). Interestingly, the 6 meter has made a comeback as a classic boat class. Both the Universal and International Rules or for that matter the Square Meter Rule (which I particularly enjoy) have produced some very handsome boats. I doubt that one could create an amalgamation of these rules that would produce an ideal boat any more than the 5.5 meter rule actually "solved" a problem with the 6 meters.

hm0316

[bamamick]

Hey! Leave the Dragons alone!

:)

Mickey Lake

[hm0316]

[quote=tprice;2088420]Check out this 1903 NYTimes link. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9901E3DE1E30E733A25756C1A9659C946297D6CF Intelligent commentary on yacht design formulas in the major media?


Fascinating NYTimes article. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I imagine a catamaran would have done pretty well under the Southern Yacht Club rule.

All of the rules being discussed ended up being "developmental" in that they accomodated changes over time. They also often encouraged the creation of rulebeaters or "freaks" as the NYTimes refers to them. Even the CCA rule, which is generally thought to have produced wholesome boats, ended up producing shallow draft, centerboard hulls that had more to do with the rule than with what one would otherwise choose to go to sea. Nonetheless, all of these rules-- CCA, International, Universal and Square Meter-- ended up prducing some very pretty boats. I think the modern 5.5's even now very handsome. I cannot say the same for the IOR, except for perhaps its first 5 years or so.

hm0316

[tprice]

Mickey,
As you know, your beautiful Dragon evolved from the Skerry Cruiser, sail area limit rules. Now that is a whole different and in some ways more interesting formula! Establish a sail area limit and design the fastest hull that the area can push around. Some basic hull parameters were established but basically, long and skinny is fastest. Therefore, some beautiful slender boats evolved.
A noble variant experiment in this direction was the Bembridge Redwings.
http://www.redwingclub.org/
What a lovely, delicate class of small keelboat! With a limit of only 200 sq' on a One Design hull (a Charles Nicholson design) the sail area could be distributed or shaped in any design. Very high aspect ratio rigs, swing rigs (like a model yacht) and even a propellor rig have been tried. A product of evolution, now frozen into a One Design hull, looking for all the world like a large model yacht. I'd love to sail one of these!


Hey! Leave the Dragons alone!

:)

Mickey Lake

[rbgarr]

Re Audax: The Amphibicon, also designed in the early 50s had that cabin tent arrangement also: http://www.sailboatdata.com/VIEWRECORD.ASP?CLASS_ID=458

[Wiley Baggins]

...the Bembridge Redwings. What a lovely, delicate class of small keelboat! With a limit of only 200 sq' on a One Design hull (a Charles Nicholson design)...

I'd read about these some years ago and the link you provided was a nice opportunity to look at that design again. Thanks, they really are lovely boats, and the rules are quite interesting.