CHAPTER IV

THE EVOLUTION OF THE MODERN RACING YACHT

BY G. L. WATSON

Seven years ago the task of describing the form of racing yachts would have been a much simpler one than it is to-day. Then even the cruising vessels were more or less under the influence of the old tonnage rule, or of its later modification, and big and little were pretty much of a type;--a model of, say, a 'forty,' representing with sufficient accuracy a 'ninety,' or a 'five,' if we supposed the scale changed; and the individual yachts in each class, while presenting differences to the eye of the amateur, were not to be distinguished apart by the general yachting public, except perhaps by the racing flag.

Under the present length and sail-area rule, the variety of type is enormous. Broad, narrow, deep, and shallow; boats with centreboards and boats without; single boats and double boats; plain keel, fin keel, and bulb keel, have all their representatives, and each has had its successes. But few of these types could have been successful under the old tonnage rule, and few of them may be successful under rules yet to come. Any history, therefore, of the development of the form of racing yachts would fail did it not take account of, and run parallel to, the history of the tonnage rule of the time.

[Illustration: 'BRITANNIA'

_R.Y.S. 151-rater. Designed by G. L. Watson, 1893. Winner of R. Victoria Gold Cup, September 1893._]

Throughout the modern story of yachting the tonnage question has been the all-absorbing one. Looking back, through the pages of those sporting papers and periodicals which forty years ago devoted a meagre portion of their space to yachting, one is struck by the same feature that shows prominently in the 'Field' or 'Yachtsman' of to-day. For one letter on any other subject, there are a dozen on the measurement question, and the writers handled their pens in much the same energetic way then as now, in abuse of rival theorists; but, more merciful than the moderns, spared us their elaborate formulæ. These controversies happily have served the useful purpose of preserving for the historian of to-day a good many facts which might otherwise have been lost; for our dear old friend 'Hunt's Magazine,' in his flowery youth, is fonder of treating us to an 'Ode to the Yachtsman's Bride,' or a relation of 'How Miss Delany married an Officer,' than to facts regarding measurement, or time allowances, and these are only to be picked up incidentally as it were from the correspondence of the quarrelsome gentlemen aforesaid. It is to be hoped that the yachting historian of the twentieth century may reap a like benefit from our controversialists of to-day, and that those mathematicians who now brandish their tonnage formulæ to the terror of all quietly disposed yachtsmen will find a reader in the searcher after facts of 1950.

Yachting, then, may be said to have begun with this century; for although, as is shown elsewhere in these volumes, yachts are mentioned long before that date, it was hardly until the century opened, or indeed until after the Crimean War, that yachting as a sport became fairly established in this country.

The yachts of those days were round-headed things, of about three beams in length, in most cases innocent of metal ballast, and kept on their feet by gravel or by iron ore. What little racing there might have been was confined to scratch matches between the owners, and time allowance for tonnage was not thought of, though doubtless the tonnage rule as then used for the merchant shipping of the country was recognised as a useful measure for the purchase and sale of these vessels. Racing became commoner; soon more than two yachts came together to try conclusions, and it was presently discovered by some astute yachtsman that a good big ship, other things being the same, was faster than a good little ship, and therefore, where their purses admitted of it, owners built yachts as large as could be handled. 'Arrow,' 84 tons; 'Lulworth,' 82 tons; 'Alarm,' 193 tons; and 'Louisa,' 180 tons, were the crack cutters on the Solent about forty-five years ago, and, as may be well understood, little boats had a very poor chance with these giants, except perhaps in light and fluky weather. Mr. Holland-Ackers called attention to this fact, and proposed a table of time allowances between large and smaller yachts based on the length of the course and the difference of size between the vessels. The measure of this size was the tonnage, as ascertained by the then tonnage law of the land, which had been in force since 1794, or rather a slight modification of this rule, adapted to the peculiar form of yachts. In this, 'the old 94 rule,' as it was called, only length of keel and breadth were taken into account, the depth being assumed as half the breadth. Breadth was thus penalised twice over in the formula, and perhaps the most extraordinary fact in connection with this rule is, that it was in force for years before it seems to have occurred to our yacht-builders that a success was to be made by increasing those dimensions which were untaxed, or only moderately taxed, and reducing the beam which was taxed twice over. This is all the more remarkable, as builders of the mercantile marine seem to have caught this point much earlier, and were building vessels with enormously increased depth and reduced beam, though it is true the slowness of these ships did not invite imitation, as the American clipper ships, built under a fairer tonnage law, were rapidly sailing them off the seas. Happily, in 1854 the law was changed for the present method of measurement by internal cubic capacity, and the genius of our shipbuilders, thus left unfettered, was equal to the task of regaining our supremacy on the ocean.

But among the yachts the old {L - B × B × (1/2 B)}/94 prevailed, and gradually builders discovered that, by increasing draft and amount of ballast, beam could be pared down, and a boat of nominally the same tonnage made longer and to carry more sail than her predecessor. Lead ballast was slowly introduced, despite all sorts of adverse prophecies from old salts that it would strain the ship and would cause her to plunge so heavily as to go under; and presently, when some unknown genius first put lead outside, and from a timid hundredweight or two this increased to tons, the veterans gave the new type up altogether as past praying for, and left them to their well-merited fate. I have been unable to get any definite information as to the first application of outside ballasts, but in 1834 Messrs. Steele built the 'Wave' for Mr. John Cross Buchanan, and on this vessel a metal keel was fixed. There may, however, have been earlier instances of this in the South. But Providence was on the side of the heavy lead keels, and each year yachts got longer, and deeper, and narrower, and had more and more lead outside, until there was none left inside at all, while they more and more nearly approached Euclid's definition of a line as having length but no breadth. _A propos_ of these proportions, a good, and it may possibly be true, story is told of an enthusiastic cutter-man on the other side of the Atlantic, who, intensely prejudiced against the fine broad ships of America, asked a friend here to buy, and have sent across to him, a typical British 5-ton cutter, stipulating only that she should be fast, and at least as narrow as anything of her class. The little craft was safely brought across and put in the water in New York Bay, and after a trial sail the owner invited one or two friends to come off for a day's pleasuring in the new ship, with the object of showing the advantages of five feet of beam against ten. But, on coming alongside, the first to get out of the dinghy took hold of the runner, and taking a nice wide step, so as to get well into the centre of the boat, stepped clean into the water on the other side.

But long before the advantage of substituting untaxed depth for the heavily taxed beam was discovered, and about 1850 Mr. Wanhill, of Poole, introduced the raking sternpost, thus getting, on a given length of keel, a much longer water-line. But even this device was used in moderation, 50° to 60° being the utmost rake given, with the sternpost showing at the water-line, and such vessels as our modern cutaway fives, tens, twenties, or forties, with the keel a fourth of their over-all length, were as yet unthought of, though the direct inducement to build them was far stronger then than now.

[Illustration: 'Cygnet' cutter, 35 tons. Built by Wanhill, of Poole, in 1846.]

[Illustration: Midship section.]

I may cite an exception to this, however, in a vessel called the 'Problem,' built at Kirkcaldy about 1850 or 1851, and described in 'Hunt's Magazine' of August 1852. The 'Problem' presented a similar profile to that of our fashionable fives or 2-1/2 of three or four years back, the stem and sternpost sloping down and meeting in a point as in the 'Lily,' 2-1/2-rater; 'Natica,' 5-rater; and 'Varuna,' 40-rater. But the vessel was built without any idea of racing, she having three masts, square-rigged on each mast, and whatever advantages she may have possessed seem to have escaped the notice of the regular yacht-builders. A much likelier idea was struck by 'Vanderdecken,' in a letter to 'Bell's Life' in 1852, where he proposes a 'tonnage cheater,' in which he had got the sternpost pretty nearly amidships, with the profile resembling in an exact degree that of our most modern small craft. But though, if properly designed otherwise, the proposed vessel would have been a certain success, the jump was too big a one for our yacht-builders, and 'Vanderdecken's' idea lay on the shelf for many years.

[Illustration: 'VARUNA'

_40-rater (Capt. J. Towers-Clarke). Designed by G. L. Watson, 1892._]

[Illustration: 'Problem,' 1852.]

[Illustration: Deck plan of 'Problem'.]

[Illustration: Profile of the 'Varuna,' 1892.]

The evasion of length by this method, however, raised a terrible storm of discussion. 'Bell's Life' and 'Hunt's Magazine' were inundated with indignant letters on the subject, until, in 1854, the Royal London Yacht Club, followed by the Royal Thames, arranged to measure the length on deck, subtracting from this length the whole beam, instead of three-fifths of the beam, so as not to dis-class those vessels with excessive rake already built. This rule, under the name of the 'Thames Rule,' became the recognised method of measuring yachts, and, indeed, still remains the standard measurement for rates for buying, selling, and hiring.

[Illustration: Vanderdecken's tonnage cheater.]

Slowly at first, but steadily, yachts became longer, narrower, and deeper; the crack yacht of one year being displaced the next by something with more length, less beam, and more ballast. Here and there, it is true, an occasional vessel of exceptional excellence held her own for a year or two with the newer ones; but what looked for a little like high water was but the mark of an exceptional wave which in its turn was covered, and the true flood seen to be a bit away yet.

To check the growing tendency towards length and depth at the expense of beam, the New Thames Yacht Club, at a meeting on March 12, 1874, adopted the following rule:--

The length shall be the distance from the fore part of the main stem to the after part of the main sternpost measured in a straight line along the deck.

The breadth shall be the distance between the outsides of the outside planks or wales, measured where that distance is largest.

The depth shall be the distance between the top of the covering board and the bottom of the keel at the middle point of the length.

The product of the length, the breadth, and the depth, divided by 200, shall be taken as the tonnage of the yacht.

But the influence of this rule was not far-reaching, and confined to the New Thames Club, and (in a slightly modified form) to the Queenstown Model Yacht Club; few yachts were built under it, and these were not conspicuously successful. Nor was the reason of this very far to seek. The tax on depth induced builders to cut down freeboard, and, so far as might be, draft, while to make up for this latter deficiency the amidships draft was carried well forward and aft, and only little rake given to the post, with the result that the few boats built under this rule carried an extremely awkward sail-plan, and were abnormally slow in stays.

The great general effect of the 94, or Thames Rule, has been described; but among its minor influences may be mentioned the inducement to have the utmost water-line length on a given deck or measurement length. One obvious manner of attaining this was by keeping the sternpost upright or nearly so; while the writer, in a little cutter called the 'Peg Woffington,' built for himself in 1871, took a farther advantage of the rule by putting a ram bow on her, thus getting the water-line even longer than the measurement on deck. An additional interest attaches to this yacht as being the earliest sailing yacht, so far as I have been able to ascertain, which had all her ballast outside.

[Illustration: Dog-legged sternpost.]

In 1873 Mr. James Reid, of Port Glasgow, just then beginning to make his mark as a yacht designer, devised what was called the 'dog-legged' sternpost, fitting one in the 10-tonner 'Merle.' This, as will be seen from the sketch, retained all the advantages of a raked sternpost, and yet gave as long a water-line length as the length on deck; but the device had but a short life, as in the spring of 1877 the Yacht Racing Association, which had been formed the previous year, decreed that the length should be measured to the fore side of the rudder stock.

This regulation, made so late in the building season, somewhat unjustly threw out three yachts built under the existing rule. Unfortunately, a policy of procrastination seems to have haunted the Yacht Racing Association since its inception, as in most instances where the building rules have been changed, these changes have been decided on so close to the coming season that builders have been unfairly pushed in the designing and getting ready new vessels.

I would venture to suggest to that body, and this in the interests of yacht-owners quite as much as of builders, that no rule affecting the construction of racing yachts should be considered after the end of October.

[Illustration: Immersed counter of 'Quiraing,' 1877.]

In the fall of 1877, in designing 'Quiraing,' and with the same end in view, I got the water-line the same length as the length for measurement by immersing the counter as in the sketch.

[Illustration: 'DORA'

_10-rater, centreboard (R. G. Allan, Esq.) Designed by G. L. Watson, 1891._]

In 1878 the Yacht Racing Association recognised the right of builders to have the same length on load-water-line as that for which they were taxed on deck, and that without forcing them into adopting abnormal shapes, and therefore determined that the length should be measured on the load-water-line. Though it was at once pointed out that this would lead to overhang, so strong was prejudice in favour of the old-fashioned straight stem, that no advantage was taken of this until the advent of the 10-ton 'Buttercup' in 1880, and in her the outreach was extremely moderate. Indeed, it was impossible, with the deep, narrow style of yacht produced by the 94 rule, to use overhang to excess, this device only becoming objectionable when used in combination with a flat, shallow section. 'Buttercup' made a most excellent record; and though this was from causes quite apart from her clipper stem, yet she marks a stage as being the first cutter to reintroduce this adornment. 'Buttercup' was the work of an amateur, Mr. Robert Hewitt, and the following particulars of her may be of interest:--

_'Buttercup,' launched from yard at Barking, September 1880_

L.W.L. 42 ft. 3 in. Extreme beam 7 ft. 4 in. Draught 8 feet Least freeboard 2 ft. 9 in. Displacement 22 tons Lead 14 " Ship and gear 8 " Sail-area 2,580 feet

First match, May 9, 1881; sailed 20 starts in 1881, won 15 firsts, 2 seconds; designed, owned, and sailed by Robert Hewitt, Esq., R.T.Y.C, now commodore.

I may mention that the first design for the 90-ton 'Vanduara' was drawn with a clipper or out-reaching stem; but I had not the heart to disfigure the boat (as I then considered I should be doing) by building her in this fashion. The rising generation of yachtsmen, however, is entirely reconciled to the clipper bow on a cutter-rigged yacht, and may eventually (though this seems improbable) look with complacency on such cutwaters as 'Dora's' or 'Britannia's.'

About this date--1875--builders were becoming more and more impressed with the value of a low centre of gravity got by outside lead, which, in combination with increased displacement, allowed of beam being reduced and length added almost indefinitely. Indeed, Mr. Dixon Kemp, probably the best authority on the subject in this country, declared somewhat later that there was no limit to this process of drawing out; and though I never could quite agree with him on that point, the beginning of the end was approaching, and yachts, more especially in the smaller classes, were getting most uncomfortably narrow. The older men, however, were naturally timid about the introduction of external ballast, and it was left to 'the boys,' with the happy audacity and confidence of youth, to design 100-tonners with 70-ton keels, which, perhaps fortunately, did not get beyond the length of paper. But fives, tens, and twenties were built with nearly all their lead outside, and did not from that fact tear themselves asunder. Mr. James Reid, of Port Glasgow, designer of the beautiful 10-tonner 'Florence' and many other fast boats, closely followed by Mr. John Inglis, of Pointhouse, and later by the writer, put all or nearly all of the ballast outside, and the practice in a few years became general.

[Illustration: 'Britannia,' 1893.

'Thistle,' 1887.

Sketch of cutwaters.]

Length and displacement went merrily on, as will be seen from the following tables and diagrams:--

_Elements of 5-Tonners (94 and 1730 Rules)_

+---------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+----------+--------+ Description | Diamond | Vril | Trident| Olga | Doris | Oona +---------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+----------+--------+ Length on | 25 ft. | 28 ft. | 32 ft. | 33 ft. | 33 ft. | 34 ft. load-line | 3 in. | 4 in. | | | 8 in. | +---------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+----------+--------+ Breadth | 7 ft. | 6 ft. | 6 ft. | 5 ft. | 5 ft. | 5 ft. Extreme |2-1/4 in.| 7 in. | |8-3/4 in.| 7 in. | 6 in. +---------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+----------+--------+ Draught of | 4 ft. | 5 ft. | 6 ft. | 6 ft. | 7 ft. | 8 ft. water extreme| 6 in. | 2 in. | 3 in. | 4 in. | | +---------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+----------+--------+ Displacement |4.92 tons|7.18 tons|8.9 tons|10.4 tons|12.55 tons|12.5 tons +---------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+----------+--------+ Total | 671 | 830 | 912 | 985 | 1,116 | area of | sq. ft. | sq. ft. | sq. ft.| sq. ft. | | lower sail | | | | | | +---------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+----------+--------+ Designer | W. Baden| G. L. | W. E. | W. E. | G. L. | W. E. | Powell | Watson | Paton | Paton | Watson | Paton +---------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+----------+--------+ Date when | 1873 | 1876 | 1879 | 1883 | 1885 | 1886 built | | | | | | +---------------+---------+---------+--------+---------+----------+--------+

[Illustration: Chart.]

[Illustration: Profiles of 5-tonners.]

[Illustration: Sections showing decrease of breadth and increase of depth in 5-tonners--under 94 and 1730 Rules.]

In the autumn of 1881 it was thought a check might be put on this development by adopting a rule somewhat easier on beam than the existing 94 one, and in 1882 it was determined that the tonnage should be reckoned in accordance with the formula:--

((L + B){2} × B) / 1730

[Illustration: Diagram of variation under different rules.]

The incidence of this rule is clearly enough shown by the diagram, where the possible dimensions for a 10-, 20-, 30-, and 40-tonner are plotted under both rules; the two curves crossing at a point where the vessel is about 5-1/4 beams in length. Below this point the new rule was easier on beam, and above it more severe; and it was thought that the extra beam admissible below the five-beam point would have induced builders to avail themselves of this quality; but beam, as we learn by the light of later years, was then altogether undervalued, and length was taken at any price, with the result that the adoption of extreme proportions was hastened rather than averted, till in 1886 a radical change in the rule was demanded, and in the autumn of that year a Committee of the Yacht Racing Association, after taking most exhaustive evidence from the various experts, decided on the adoption of a rule proposed by Mr. Dixon Kemp, based solely on length (which was measured on the load-water-line) and on sail-area.

In this rule, breadth, so sorely taxed by the 94 rule, was left absolutely unfettered; depth as heretofore being also untaxed, so that infinite scope was left for experiment in the way of beam. Simultaneously with this change, the use of the centreboard was permitted; and, as the pessimists declared, the road made clear for all manner of skimming dishes and consequent caprices. I ventured to point out at the time the possible dangers of unlimited beam, and proposed that the rule should be ((L +B) × sail-area) / constant; but this limitation was held to be unnecessary, as, indeed, it appeared to be for a year or two. With the exception of the 'Thistle,' built immediately on the passing of the rule, and built probably more with a view to American racing than performance in home waters, builders were somewhat chary of availing themselves of the advantages of beam, and, in the larger classes at least, successive yachts, though getting broader, only 'slowly broadened down from precedent to precedent.' To Mr. Alfred Payne, of Southampton, is due the credit of showing what could be done with large beam and moderate displacement.

In 1889 he built the 'Humming Bird,' 2-1/2-rater, for Captain Hughes; this boat was 26 feet on water-line, 7.5 feet beam--that is, 3.46 beams in length--and was extremely successful against other and narrower boats, notably 'Thief' and 'Queen Mab', of like rating and designed by the writer.

_Elements of 40-Raters (Length and Sail Area Rule)_

+------------+--------+---------+------+-------+------+-----------+------+--------+ | | | | | |Centreboard| | Description | Mohawk |Deerhound|Creole| Thalia|Varuna| cutter-- | Lais |Vendetta | | | | | | Queen Mab | | +------------+--------+---------+------+-------+------+-----------+------+--------+ Length on } 61.23 | 58.85 |59 ft.| 59.14 |59 ft.| 59 ft. |59.92 | 59.96 load line } ft. | ft. | 6 in.| ft. | | 8 in. | ft. | ft. +------------+--------+---------+------+-------+------+-----------+------+--------+ Breadth | 14.5 | 13 ft. |13 ft.| 13.9 |14 ft.| 16 ft. | | 17.05 extreme | ft. | 5 in. | 2-1/4| ft. | 7 in.| 4 in. |17 ft.| ft. | | | in. | | | | | +------------+--------+---------+------+-------+------+-----------+------+--------+ Draught of } 9.5 | 11 ft. |12 ft.| 12 ft.|13 ft.| 10 ft. | | water } ft. |6-1/2 in.| | 6 in.| 4 in.| 9 in. | -- | -- extreme | | | | | | | | +------------+--------+---------+------+-------+------+-----------+------+--------+ Displacement| 58.8 | 58 tons | 58 | 57 | 55 | 54.8 | -- | -- | tons | | tons | tons | tons | tons | | +------------+--------+---------+------+-------+------+-----------+------+--------+ Designer { C. P. | G. L. |G. L. |W. Fife|G. L. | G. L. |W. Fife| A. E. { Clayton| Watson |Watson| jun. |Watson| Watson | jun. | Payne +------------+--------+---------+------+-------+------+-----------+------+--------+ Date when | 1888 | 1889 | 1890 | 1891 | 1892 | 1892 | 1893 | 1893 built | | | | | | | | +------------+--------+---------+------+-------+------+-----------+------+--------+

In 1890 'Iverna' was built, of practically the same length as, and of less beam than, 'Thistle,' and no great advance was made until the present year (1893) in the adoption of beam in the larger classes; but the progress in this direction may be easily traced in the 'forty' and 'twenty' rating classes, where the growth of beam and decline in displacement are very well marked, as the table and diagram show.

[Illustration: Diagram showing variation of dimensions, &c., with years. 40-raters. L. and S.A. Rule.]

[Illustration: Profiles of 40-raters.]

1893 will be remembered as having produced four notable boats on this side of the Atlantic, and five in America; and in all nine due prominence is certainly given to beam, if, indeed, more breadth has not been taken, in some of these at least, than can be advantageously used.

The dimensions of these boats, so far as they have been obtainable, will be of interest.

[Illustration: 'Deerhound,' 1889 'Thalia,' 1891 'Varuna,' 1892 'Queen Mab,' 1892, C.B.

Midship sections of 40-raters.]

How far under the present rating rule beam may yet be increased with advantage to speed is still matter for debate and experiment. Personally I am inclined to think we have pretty nearly approached the limit. But of this much I am confident, that we have long ago exceeded the limit where beam improves a yacht as a comfortable sea-going craft, and that we should have a much more wholesome and useful vessel for all purposes, except possibly for international racing, with somewhat less beam and somewhat more displacement.

The diagram given _ante_ may serve to give the reader an idea of the influence that the various tonnage or rating rules have had on the proportions and form of yachts.

_British Yachts, 1893_

+-----------+------+-------+-----------+--------+-----+------+ | |Length|Breadth| Y.R.A. |Length | |Y.R.A.| | Name | on | ext. | sail |over all|Draft|rating| | |L.W.L.| | area | | | | +-----------+------+-------+-----------+--------+-----+------+ | | feet | feet |square feet| feet | feet| | |Satanita | 97.7 | 24.7 | 9,923 | 131.0 | 16.5|161.58| |Britannia | 87.8 | 23.66 | 10,328 | 121.5 | 15.0|151.13| |Valkyrie | 86.8 | 22.33 | 10,271 | 117.25 | 16.3|148.58| |Calluna | 82.0 | 24.3 | 10,305 | -- | 15.0|140.83| +-----------+------+-------+-----------+--------+-----+------+

_American Yachts, 1893_

+------------------+------+-------+-----------+--------+-----+------+ | |Length|Breadth| Y.R.A. |Length | |Y.R.A.| | Name | on | ext. | sail |over all|Draft|rating| | |L.W.L.| | area | | | | +------------------+------+-------+-----------+--------+-----+------+ | | feet | feet |square feet| feet | feet| | |Navahoe, C.B. | 86.93| 23.0 | 10,815 | 128 | 13 | 156.7| |Vigilant, C.B. | 86.19| 26.25 | 12,330 | 124 | 14.0| 178 | |Colonia, K. | 85.00| 24.00 | -- | 124 | 14.0| -- | |Jubilee, C.B. and } 84.00| 22.5 | -- | 123 | 16.0| -- | | Fin } | | | | | | |Pilgrim, K. | 85.00| 23.0 | -- | 122 | 22.0| -- | +------------------+------+-------+-----------+--------+-----+------+

But an entirely false impression has been conveyed should it be understood that the only advance made in yacht designing was due to more or less ingenious methods of evading the existing measurement rule; and it will be sufficient if the fact has been impressed, that a designer is as unlikely to make a successful vessel if he ignores the measurement under which the yacht is to race as by failing to recognise those laws of nature which govern the stability of bodies in water and their resistance in passing through it.

What has to be done by the yacht designer, besides getting the very utmost out of the tonnage rule, has never been more happily put than by Lord Dunraven in an article on International Yachting, from which I venture to quote:--

How most successfully to drive a body through the water by the means of the motive power of the wind acting upon the sails, is the question that puzzles men and turns them grey-headed before Nature should have thinned or whitened their locks. The designer has not merely to discover the form of solid body which, at various rates of speed, will excite the smallest degree of resistance in passing through the water, for the body is not solid, it is hollow. It must have buoyancy, and suitable accommodation for all the living and dead freight on board. It must possess stability, real and acquired; that is, natural by means of breadth, and artificial by means of ballast, if the expressions are allowable. It does not proceed on a level keel or at any uniform angle, but at angles varying at every moment, and the contour of the body must be adapted to these various angles. Neither does the wind exert its force upon it from a fixed direction, nor propel it through water uniformly smooth or constantly rough. On the contrary, the propelling power strikes from various angles on the surface of the sails; and the sea, as we all know--and some of us to our cost--has a reprehensible habit of becoming, on the shortest notice, agitated in the most disagreeable manner.

Every point of sailing suggests an appropriate and different form of hull. The shape that is well adapted for one kind of weather is ill adapted for another sort; vessels that move as by magic in light airs may be of little use in a whole sail breeze; one that is by no means a flier in smooth water may be very hard to beat in a sea-way. In short, a vessel must be light enough to be driven easily by a moderate breeze, stiff enough to stand up to her canvas in a hard wind, shallow enough to be docked with ease and to run with speed. She must have depth enough to hold her up to windward, breadth enough to give her stability; she should be long enough to reach well, and short enough to turn well to windward; low in the water so as not to hold too much wind, with plenty of freeboard to keep the sea off her decks. The satisfaction of any one requirement necessitates something antagonistic to some other requirement equally clamorous for satisfaction. Your vessel, to be perfect, must be light, of small displacement, and with the centre of gravity brought very low; she must also have large displacement, and the ballast must not be too low, in order that she may be easy in a sea-way; she must be broad, narrow, long, short, deep, shallow, tender, stiff. She must be self-contradictory in every part. A sailing ship is a bundle of compromises, and the cleverest constructor is he who, out of a mass of hostile parts, succeeds in creating the most harmonious whole. It is not strange that designers pass sleepless nights, and that anything like finality and perfection of type is impossible to conceive. No wonder that yacht designing is a pursuit of absorbing interest.

It has been shown, then, how from the three beam yachts of fifty years ago, the proportions drew out, under the 94 rule, to five, five and a half, and in some instances six beams in length, the 'Evolution' reaching even 7.8 beams; and even more rapidly, under the length and sail-area rule, fell back to something like three again. But the proportions are about all that remain in common to the clippers of 1845 and 1893 and it will be interesting now to trace how form, mode of construction and equipment have developed, as well as proportions.

Prior to 1820, what yachts there were afloat seem to have presented but little individuality of form, and showed, in common with the faster smugglers and fishing vessels of the day, a round barrel-like bottom, full round bow and fairly clean run, the buttock lines and after riband lines being generally fair and easy. These yachts were, one and all, built of timber, were ballasted with stones or gravel, the more advanced possibly with ore, while the sails and equipment were of a piece with the hull, the main rigging being of hemp, and no attempt being made after flatness in the sails.

The original 'Arrow,' of 84 tons, built somewhere about 1823 by Mr. Joseph Weld, seems to have been a fairly representative craft of that time, and raced with considerable success, even against much larger vessels than herself.

This original 'Arrow' was 61 ft. 9-1/2 in. long by 18 ft. 5-1/4 in. beam, with a depth of hold of 8 ft. 8 in.--that is, she had a proportion of length to breadth of 3.35--not very much differing in proportion from our present cutters of 1893: 'Calluna,' the 40-raters 'Lais' and 'Vendetta,' being about 3.4 and 3.5 beams to length, and the American 'Vigilant' about 3.32.

[Illustration: Midship section.

'Leopard.' Built by Linn Ratsey, Cowes, Isle of Wight, 1807. These lines are accurately reproduced from the original by his grandson, Michael E. Ratsey.]

'Arrow' had the usual round barrel-like bottom, and, so far as can be learned, a round, short bow, the run being fair and easy, the small midship section lending itself pleasantly to this.

[Illustration: 'ARROW' CUTTER

_Midship Section_

_113 tons. Length on L.W.L., 79' 2"; beam extreme, 18' 9"; draught extreme, 11' 6"._

[The original 'ARROW,' 84 tons, was built by Mr Joseph Weld about 1823. In 1846 she was bought by Mr. Thomas Chamberlayne and rebuilt; but it was not until 1852 that her bow was lengthened and she appeared as shown above.]]

Racing with the 'Arrow,' but without any very conspicuous success, was the cutter 'Menai,' designed by that famous sportsman, Mr. T. Assheton-Smith, and memorable from being the first vessel in which hollow lines were adopted. But little notice seems to have been taken of this very radical alteration in form, and although Scott Russell in 1840 elaborated a system of construction, based on hollow lines, and the famous 'Mosquito,' built in 1848, and 'Tiara,' built by Simons of Renfrew in 1850, all showed this feature strongly, it was not till the 'America' schooner appeared in 1851 that the old round bow was utterly condemned, and everyone went more or less crazy on the long hollow bow.

Meanwhile the original old 'Arrow' was being sailed with fair success against craft much larger than herself, until in 1827 she was laid aside by her owner in favour of the first 'Lulworth,' of 130 tons, known for little else than that she was of the same name as the famous 'Lulworth' of 80 tons, also built by Mr. Weld in 1857.

Meantime, Mr. Weld built the famous 'Alarm' of 193 tons in 1834, and for a long time this enormous cutter was Queen of the Solent.

But the old 'Arrow' was to begin a second career. Bought in 1846 from a dealer by Mr. Thomas Chamberlayne for a few pounds, that gentleman had her replanked and some alterations made in the bow and run, indeed not very much more than the amidship frame seems to have been preserved. Anyway the resuscitated vessel appeared again in 1847, recommencing a career which has certainly been an extraordinary one.

In 1848 'Mosquito' was built and fairly tackled the older ship, but the 'Arrow' was not yet the boat she now is, or as represented in the plate, as it was not till 1852, and until after the advent of the 'America,' that she appeared with her present long, hollow bow, having been pulled out some 17 feet in the winter of 1851, as indeed was pretty well everything else that aspired to be in the fashion. As is often the case, the pendulum swung too far the other way; bows were built on old boats, and new boats were designed with fore bodies, altogether out-Heroding Herod; and the 'America's' graceful, well-proportioned and moderately hollow bow was caricatured in some instances to a ridiculous extent. The 'America' showed also a decided departure in form of midship section, the bottom being much straighter than in our British-built craft, and the bilge higher and quicker--altogether a fine form for stability. The run, though somewhat short, was very fair, the buttock lines especially (as will be seen by the plate given in the second volume) showing beautifully easy curves.

But the lesson hinted at by 'Menai,' reiterated by 'Mosquito' and 'Tiara,' insisted upon by Scott Russell, but only brought home to us by the American schooner, was not the only one to be gleaned from that graceful vessel. Previous to her advent, our British-made sails were most baggy productions, kept decently flat only by drenching the luffs with water, a process called 'skeating.' This defect could not altogether be laid at the door of our sailmakers, as they did fairly well, considering the material they had to work with; but flax canvas at that date was still made by hand and was little firmer in texture, if indeed as firm, as the unbleached merchant canvas of the present day. The 'America's' sails were of machine-spun cotton, and, farther, were laced to the booms as well as the gaffs and masts, the staysail also being laced to a boom. These flat sails certainly suited the easy form of the 'America'; but here again the reaction was too strong, and it is undoubtedly the fact that for some years afterwards sails were got too flat, at least, for many of the full-bodied boats that they were put over, and the want of flow of the older-fashioned loose-footed sails was sadly missed when there came to be any work off the wind.

For some years then after 1851 (the year of 'America's' _début_ here), sails were probably flat enough for the forms they had to drive; and American sailmakers apparently arrived at this conclusion, as they first of all gave up lacing the head sails, and later cut those rounder and rounder, until now American head-sails are cut much fuller than our own, and their mainsails also somewhat fuller. But while the 'America' was undoubtedly the great epoch-making vessel in yacht designing, the cutter 'Mosquito' possessed quite as many original features, and had she only come from abroad instead of being a home production, would have made a far greater stir than the schooner.

[Illustration: 'Mosquito,' 50 tons, 1848.]

The 'Mosquito' was turned out by the Thames Iron Works Shipbuilding Company. She was designed by that great original genius, Tom Waterman, who had already produced many successful merchant steamers and sailing ships: notably the steamer 'Himalaya,' built originally for the Peninsular and Oriental Company, but afterwards sold to Her Majesty's Government for a troopship, and still a gem of the ocean and mother of the troopers.

[Illustration: Midship section.]

The 'Mosquito,' besides presenting novelties in form, in the way of an easy and hollow bow, large displacement, well-raked post and deep heel, also upset all preconceived notions of what was yacht fashion, by being built of iron. Great was the discussion over this departure; but, among many prophets of evil, a writer in 'Hunt's Magazine,' in 1854, discussing wood _versus_ iron, predicts that 'the "Mosquito" is likely to be well and hearty when the present wooden craft have gone to that "bourne from which no traveller returns."'

This prediction has been exactly fulfilled, as 'Mosquito,' after as long and brilliant a career as has fallen to any yacht, is now, or was a few years ago, doing good work as a pilot boat off Barrow-in-Furness.

In 1852, Mr. William Fife, of Fairlie, in Ayrshire, who, with his father before him, had for some years been turning out fast and weatherly boats, produced 'Cymba,' a notable cutter. His father had made Scotch-built yachts, well known by his 'Gleam,' built in 1832, though only fitted out for racing by Sir Robert Gore Booth in 1837; but 'Cymba' was a marked improvement on this model, having a far longer and easier bow, larger displacement, considerable rake of post, and great drag aft.

The dimensions of 'Cymba' are appended, and it will be seen that she was just under four beams in length.

_'Cymba', built 1852, by Fife_

Length of keel 52 feet Length between perpendiculars 59 " Breadth, extreme 15.3 " Draft aft 10 " Forward 5.6 " Mast from stem 23 " Length of mast 56 " Boom 53 " Bowsprit 32 " Lead outside 3 tons Lead in all 23 to 24 tons

Meanwhile in matters of equipment steady progress was being made. Wire rope was rapidly ousting hemp for all standing rigging. Sailmaking, in the hands of Messrs. Lapthorn and of Charles Ratsey, was rapidly becoming a science. Machine-spun and woven flax canvas was in universal use, even cotton canvas was fitfully tried, and from the first strongly upheld by Charles Ratsey, of Cowes; but prejudice was too strong as yet for this material, and flax held the day for many a year to come. It is gratifying that Mr. Ratsey should have lived to see his favourite material triumphant, and to have looked, as he might have done in 1893, at the finest fleet of racing yachts the world has seen, clothed, from the Prince of Wales's majestic 'Britannia' to the tiny half-rater, entirely with cotton.

[Illustration: 'LETHE'

_163 tons, showing lead keel and construction. Designed by G. L. Watson. Built by Fay & Co., 1889._]

A considerable factor in modifying form was the gradual abolition of shifting ballast; this, though not yet actually illegal, was being more and more looked upon with disfavour, and as the use of outside lead increased, it was found that depth was a more than sufficient substitute for weather ballast, especially as beam was being squeezed down by the tonnage rule, and a long lever in this direction rendered impossible.

Timber was still the favourite material for building ('Mosquito,' 'Torpid,' and one or two others being the sole exceptions to this rule); but about 1860 a new system of construction was tried in which an iron framework was combined with a wooden skin or planking. This system came rapidly into vogue on the Clyde, and was adopted by several firms there in the building of those beautiful creations, the China clipper ships. The annual race home with the season's teas was the subject of discussion in the great Clyde shipyards, and I can well remember the highest ambition of every spirited lad in the drawing office was to live to design a China clipper. The Suez Canal closed for ever this avenue to fame.

Among the most successful builders of these ships were Messrs. Robert Steele & Co., of Greenock, who had, so early as 1807, built yachts for the Excise and for various Scotch owners. Mr. William Steele of that firm being an able designer of yachts as well as of ships, it was natural that this method of construction should be adopted by him in the building of 'Nyanza,' 'Oimara,' 'Garrion,' and the majestic 'Selene,' to-day one of the handsomest schooners afloat; while many of that firm's large steam yachts, notably the 'Wanderer,' 850 tons, the finest auxiliary yacht of her day, were built on this plan.

Dan Hatcher of Southampton carried out this system in building several vessels, commencing with a schooner, the 'Bella Donna,' of 119 tons, in 1867; 'Seabird,' 126 tons, 1868; 'Lizzie,' of 20 tons, 1868; then, in one of his finest craft, 'Muriel,' which he built for Mr. Bridson in 1869; and in the famous 'Norman' he also adopted this construction. But, owing to the steel frame being considerably more expensive than timber, the composite build has never become popular until within the last few years, when the naturally weak shape of the modern yacht, the fact of all the lead being outside, and her enormous stability, have so increased the racking strains on the structure, that a merely wooden frame cannot be got to hold together without making the weight of the hull altogether prohibitive; and the composite racing yacht, for everything except very small vessels, seems likely to push all the others from the field. As illustrating this method of construction, a midship section is given of 'Lethe,' 163-ton yawl, and one of the finest of our cruising yachts. The photograph shows the lead keel, the heaviest ever cast, and also the method of securing the same to the bottom of the ship.

Since 'Mosquito' astonished the yachting world in 1848, until to-day when 'Navahoe' and other American racing yachts have been constructed of metal, iron and steel yachts have been more or less successful; but the difficulty of keeping a smooth and perfectly clean bottom is a considerable source of expense and worry, although the immense strength of the steel shell, and in a large yacht its lightness, will always be a set-off to the trouble of the uncoppered bottom.

[Illustration: 'Lethe,' 163 tons. Built for S. C. Watson, Esq.--Midship section.]

In a lecture on 'Progress in Yachting and Yacht-building,' which I delivered early in 1881, in a fanciful specification of the yacht for the season 2000, I required that the plating below water should be of manganese bronze. Curiously enough, a few years later saw an attempt to combine the strength of steel and the smoothness, anti-fouling, and non-corrosive properties of copper, in the building of a torpedo-boat of this material; while this year the chosen defender of the America Cup has been plated with a similar bronze on a steel frame, the builders claiming, and not without reason, that the additional smoothness of bottom gives her an advantage of five to seven minutes on a forty-mile course. But such a practice seems hardly likely to become general for ordinary racing yachts built for men with a normal depth of pocket, and whilst, as in the old Mississippi steamboat days, it sometimes paid to burn hams, most of us have to try and get along with good coal.

I was going to build the topsides, frames, and beams of my ideal vessel of aluminium, and the other day a small yacht has been built, on the Continent, of this lightest of metals; but the present cost of this material, and, as yet, its unreliability, place it, for the present at least, outside the range of practical material for yacht-building. There seems more hope for some of the very beautiful and immensely strong alloys of aluminium, but they too are expensive, and also heavy. It may be some years before the complete realisation of my design is accomplished, and platinum is substituted for lead as ballast, though when syndicates of millionaires start yacht-building there seems very little limit to extravagance in construction.

In nickel-steel there is promise of a very perfect material. This is an alloy of the ordinary Siemens-Martin steel with nickel, and called by the makers Yolla metal. It can be made to comply with all the ordinary tests applied to ship steel, in the way of ductility under stress, and at the same time have a breaking strength of 40 tons to the square inch as against 27 for ordinary steel. This metal was used by Mr. Fife in 1893 for the frames and beams of the 20-rater 'Dragon' (third), and although the few pounds of weight saved by no means accounted for the phenomenal success of this little ship, yet the gain was all in the right direction.

Wire standing rigging continued to improve in quality, and very rapidly pushed out the old hemp rigging. From being made at first of good charcoal iron wire, it is now manufactured of the very highest class of steel, of such perfect character that the breaking strength of each wire is equal to 130 tons per square inch.

Used at first for standing rigging only, flexible wire rope takes the place of Manilla or hemp for the runners, and runner tackles, topping lifts, bobstay falls, outhauls, topsail and jib-topsail halliards, and latterly even for throat and peak halliards.

Other details were also perfected. Instead of the heavy and clumsy windlass, neat and light capstans are arranged of cast steel and gun metal, made so that the whole thing can be lifted away and stowed below while racing.

Right- and left-handed screws have superseded the old dead-eyes and lanyards, although these held their own desperately for many years. Introduced first in the 10-tonner 'Verve,' in 1877, the chain-plates were torn up in an extra heavy squall; but this occurred from the great stability of the boat and the fastening having been insufficient; the rigging screws, however, were blamed for all the trouble, and were laid aside for ten years or thereabouts, until re-introduced in the 5-tonner 'Doris.' Now no racing boat is without them.

Attention was also given to the lightening of deck fittings, skylights, companions, and the like, these in the racing vessels being kept lower and flatter, and the scantling reduced perhaps rather farther than advisable, as one certainly thinks on getting a stream of water down the neck from a leaky skylight.

Bulwarks have been reduced so as to save weight and windage, until in the smaller yachts they have become a mere ledge or foothold, whilst even in the largest class the rail is less than a foot from the deck.

Below, fittings have been lightened correspondingly. Cedar, yellow pine, and cretonnes or tapestries stretched on frames or light panels, take the place of the good solid oak and mahogany framing of the years gone by. Indeed, in some of the classes under 40-rating, cabin fittings have been dispensed with altogether; although this is not altogether a novelty, as the Marquis of Ailsa, in 'Bloodhound' (built 1874), and 'Sleuthhound' (built 1881), had at first no fittings beyond a seat along each side. 'Thistle' in 1887 was similarly arranged, nor had 'Valkyrie' or 'Vigilant' much more inside than a coat of paint when racing for the America Cup; but these last are of course special cases, where everything was sacrificed so that the uttermost second of speed should be taken out of the yachts. In cruising yachts the cabins are infinitely more elegant and comfortable now than formerly. The good old birdseye maple panelling with rosewood mouldings and gilded 'egg and dart' cornice has given place to tasteful cabinet-work designed in many cases by high-class artists. The main cabin of the 'Lethe,' designed by Mr. T. L. Watson, F.R.I.B.A., is a good example of this, and the 'Thistle,' now called 'Meteor,' the property of the German Emperor, has since been very beautifully fitted up from designs by the same gentleman, the photographs reproduced here giving but an indication of the elegance and richness of the interior.

[Illustration: Profile of 'Valkyrie.' Designed by G. L. Watson.]

[Illustration: Profile of 'Vigilant.' Designed by N. Herreshoff.]

One of the happiest combinations of lightness of structure with taste and comfort is in the Prince of Wales's 'Britannia.' The fittings throughout are of polished yellow pine and mahogany, with tapestries and cretonnes above the polished wood dado, the effect being extremely bright, cosy, and unostentatious.

[Illustration: SALOON OF 'THISTLE' (NOW 'METEOR').]

To return to the story of the evolution of the modern racing yacht, no striking change in form was made for some little time after 'America's' advent, beyond, of course, the steady lengthening and deepening of the model. Dan Hatcher, with the 'Glance' in 1855, entered on the wonderful series of successes which culminated perhaps in 'Norman,' 1872. These were all reasonably long boats with nice bows, fine after ends, and of big mid-area and displacement, but beautifully fair and easy all over, and showing a slight but not inordinate hollow forward. In 1866 Mr. Fife, of Fairlie, built the 'Fiona,' and though Clyde builders had already turned out successful yachts, it was 'Fiona' that put the fame of Scotch builders on a solid footing. This beautiful vessel was a cutter of 80 tons, of great length in proportion to beam (73 ft. 6 in. × 15 ft. 9 in.) and of large displacement for those days (108 tons); but she had singularly long, fair and easy lines, and, sailed in a masterly manner by John Houston, of Largs, more than held her own with the Solent-built craft. However, beyond being exceptionally fair and easy, 'Fiona' presented no striking novelty in form, nor did the big cutters 'Kriemhilda,' 'Vol-au-Vent,' or 'Formosa,' built by M. Ratsey, of Cowes, in 1872, 1875, and 1878 respectively, and it is an outsider and amateur yacht-builder that we have to thank for the daring departure in form that was made in 'Jullanar.'

[Illustration: Cutter yacht 'Britannia'--general arrangement plan.]

Prior to 1870 but little was known of the laws governing the resistance to bodies moving through water. It is true that eighty years before this, towards the close of last century, Colonel Beaufoy had made an elaborate series of experiments in towing bodies through water, beginning first in one of the tanks of his father's brewhouse. These were elaborated in the Greenland Dock near London, and included the determination of the resistance of all manner of shapes, except unhappily shipshape ones, the nearest approach to these being double wedges, and double wedges with a straight amidship piece inserted. But while Colonel Beaufoy also made experiments for the determination of the value of surface friction on planes pulled through the water, no great importance seems to have been attached to these by shipbuilders in general, and the subject of surface friction was more or less lost sight of by them until again brought forward by Maquorn Rankine, first in a series of papers in the 'Mechanic's Magazine,' and more elaborately in his 'Shipbuilding, Theoretical and Practical,' published in 1866. In this Rankine, basing his deductions on Weisbach's experiments on the flow of water through pipes, concluded on mathematical principles that the entire resistance at moderate speeds of a fair and easy formed vessel was due to surface friction--i.e. the rubbing of the water against the sides and bottom of the ship. Rankine showed also that at higher speeds the forming of waves was a material and ever-increasing element in the resistance.

It is fully twenty years ago that the late Mr. William Froude began to give to the world the results of his experiments on the resistance of planes of different lengths, coated with various substances and towed at varying speeds through the water. These experiments were conducted under the most favourable conditions, and with the nicest regard for accuracy, and practically confirmed Maquorn Rankine's deductions, although it was found that Rankine had somewhat overestimated the value attachable to surface friction, and had also overestimated the increase in frictional resistance, due to increased speed. Still the great fact remained that practically the entire resistance to a fairly formed body, moving through water at moderate speeds, is due to friction and to friction alone.

Rankine's reasoning, early in the sixties, had been too subtle for those fathers of shipbuilding at that date engaged in the art. Able, honest, practical men, most of them could have handled an adze, or maul, with the best of their workmen, and were more at home fairing a sheering batten, or directing a launch, than in analysing speed curves, or investigating strength calculations.

But one or two of the younger and brighter minds in the profession, more especially those who had the advantage of Rankine's direct tuition, felt that the old beliefs as to resistance presented such anomalous and unreconcilable results that they could not be founded on any true law of nature. John Inglis, jun., then a mere boy, instituted in Pointhouse Shipyard Rankine's method of estimating the resistance of ships, and for many years was alone in this mode of investigation.

[Illustration: Resistance curves

Model of S.S. 'Merkara.'

SPEED IN FEET PER MINUTE RESISTANCE IN LBS.]

But with Froude's experiments all doubt on the matter vanished. It was no longer a question of 'condemned mathematics.' Froude had the happy knack of writing so that the proverbial schoolboy could understand him; and the schoolboy could see the value of resistance to motion through water weighed out as simply and accurately as a pound of currant bun. These experiments for the determination of the frictional resistance of water, published in 1874, were supplemented presently by experiments on models of actual ships, and also by towing a full-size ship, the 'Greyhound,' her resistance at various speeds being recorded by means of a dynamometer on board the 'Active,' the vessel towing her. The results of the experiments on model and ship were set out in a curve, when it was found, after the necessary corrections were made, that both curves were of precisely similar character. A basis of comparison between model and ship was thus established, the measure of this being set forth in what is known as Froude's law of comparison, which may thus be stated. The equivalent speed of a ship and the model it represents will vary as the square root of their lengths. Thus, in the case of a ship 100 feet long represented by a model 4 feet long, the equivalent speed of the ship would be five times that of the model, and at these equivalent speeds would present similar phenomena connected with resistance as the model does. This fact enormously increased the knowledge of investigators, and it was belief in it that gave the writer absolute confidence in carrying out the design of the 'Vanduara,' though he possessed experience in small boats only. Mr. Froude also split up the several elements of resistance to motion through the water into their component parts, assigning a value to each, and showing what was due to surface friction and eddy-making, and what to wave-making. Scott Russell had already argued for a given length of fore and after body for any given speed, and this was recognised by yacht-builders to some extent by their gradually lengthening out their vessels; but the disadvantages as well as the advantages of length could only be thoroughly realised on investigating Froude's experiments. An example is given of such an experiment in the diagram, which shows the resistance curve of a model of the 'Merkara,' built by Messrs. Denny Bros., at Dumbarton, where the several resistances are shown, each in its place. In this diagram the resistance due to surface friction is indicated by the dotted line, and the total resistance by the full line. Up to a speed of 250 feet per minute (for the model) the resistance is almost entirely due to skin friction, but after that the wave-making becomes more and more serious until at 370 feet per minute the wave-making takes more power than the surface friction.

While surface friction thus plays a very large part in the resistance of all vessels, and more especially in that of ocean-going steamers and ships, which from their large dimensions seldom attain serious wave-making speeds, yet undue importance may be placed upon friction, and, in the smaller yachts, especially, surface may be inordinately cut away. A notable example of this was the 'Thistle,' built in 1889 to compete for the America Cup; here the surface was so cut down that sufficient lateral plane was not left to hold her to windward, and although she sailed the water as fast as the American champion, the 'Volunteer,' she drifted bodily to leeward.

A short history of Mr. Froude's discoveries in resistance was advisable before touching on 'Jullanar,' as this wonderful vessel, whether the result of intuition or of early and immediate appreciation of Froude's investigations, was a remarkable example of the modern theories regarding naval architecture.

The same year that 'Jullanar' was built, I designed my first racing yacht, the 5-ton 'Clotilde,' but whilst I had the advantage, through my friend Mr. John Inglis, jun., of specially early access to Professor Froude's investigations, I cut her away in a somewhat timid fashion, though sufficient for her at that time to be compared to a 'cart-wheel,' with the accompanying prediction that she might 'run on land, but would never sail in salt water.'

Meanwhile, with splendid audacity, and with no timid reverence for precedent, Mr. Bentall built the 'Jullanar.'

An Essex plough and agricultural implement maker, Mr. E. H. Bentall had but little training in naval architecture, but from boyhood had been fond of yachting and of yacht modelling. He fancied he could do something in the way of improving the form of the existing racing yacht. After cutting several half-models, he got one that pleased him, and on a piece of his own property adjoining the Blackwater river in Essex, the famous yawl, afterwards to be known as 'Jullanar,' was laid down.

[Illustration: 'JULLANAR'

_126 tons. Built by E. H. Bentall, Esq., 1875._]

Great length was taken in proportion to beam, as length means capacity for speed, and beam in those days was doubly taxed. Draft was untaxed, and was used boldly to obtain stability and weatherly qualities; but while such proportions would have been impossible with the ordinary form of forefoot and sternpost, as the boat would have been clogged up with wet surface, this was got over by cutting all deadwood clean away both forward and aft, in such daring fashion as was not attempted until 'Thistle' was built, years afterward and I should not have essayed such a form of profile in her had not 'Jullanar's' success given me a precedent. Add to these features the fact that every line in the vessel was easy and fair, and the only wonder is that the famous yawl was not even more phenomenally successful than she was.

[Illustration: 'Jullanar'--midship section.]

Mr. Hunt, publisher of 'Hunt's Yachting Magazine,' has kindly supplied the following measurements of the 'Jullanar,' which were given to him by Mr. Bentall himself, when he would not let anyone else have them. Coming therefore from the fountain-head they are accurate, and should be preserved as a register of detail.

_'Jullanar'[3] 126 tons, yawl_

ft. in. Length over all 110 6 Depth of hold 12 0 Length on load-line 99 0 Beam extreme, one sixth of load-line 16 10 " on water-line 16 5 " on deck 16 8 Depth after under load-line 13 6 " at forefoot load-line 1 6 " at midship 13 6 Height of freeboard aft 6 3 " " forward 7 9 " " midships 3 8 Height of freeboard bulwarks 2 0 Rake of sternpost, upright Distance the greatest transverse section is abaft centre of vessel at load-line 10 6

Distance of centre of gravity of displacement below water-line 3 4 Length of mainmast 75 0 " deck to hounds 53 0 " masthead 9 6 Diameter at deck 1 4 Length of main-topmast, fid to pin 38 6 " main-boom 56 6 Diameter centre of main-boom 1 0 Length of main-gaff 40 0 " bowsprit outboard 24 6 " gaff topsail-yards, No. 1 63 0 " " " No. 2 46 0 " " " No. 3 22 0 " mizzen-mast 51 6 " deck to hounds 36 0 " mizzen-boom 26 0 " mizzen-yard 35 0

[Footnote 3: _Vide_ 'Arabian Nights,' the 'Princess Jullanar of the Sea.']

To my mind the genius, daring, and originality of mind of Mr. Bentall were even more fully displayed in the design of the unsuccessful 'Evolution' than of the successful 'Jullanar.'

[Illustration: 'Jullanar,' yawl, 126 tons, 1875. Designed by E. H. Bentall, Esq.]

The 'Evolution,' as her name implied, was the logical outcome of the then tonnage rule, and of the laws of resistance rediscovered, or at least popularised, by Froude. It seems self-evident now that with a belief in these laws only one type of boat could be the result; but Mr. Froude alone had the courage of his opinions, and built the extraordinary 10-tonner which, if it did nothing else, scared the authorities into changing the tonnage rule. 'Evolution' was by far the longest of the 10-tonners, her dimensions being 51 ft. × 6 ft. 6 in.--indeed about the same water-line length as the twenties. To get moderate wet surface the ends were cut away; but as 'Jullanar' already represented the utmost that could be done in that direction, while preserving a fair line of keel, this was cast aside in 'Evolution,' and the profile was that of a true 'fin' boat. More than this, it was found after a trial sail or two that she was very deficient in stability when the lead slab forming the keel was recast in the form of a bulb on the bottom of the plate, the completed design simply forming one of our modern bulb fin keels, but of course, owing to the 94 rule, with vastly less beam. 'Evolution' was not a success because of her insufficient stability, but with the meagre data in possession of the designer as to the stability of boats of this class, it would have been marvellous had the difficulty been overcome in a first trial. To those able to see the beauties in a design, it matters less whether the ultimate outcome has been successful or not, and while to 'the general' nothing succeeds like success, a few have a kindly sympathy and hearty admiration for those who have laboured, that _we_ may enjoy the increase. Many of the best and kindest thoughts and brightest ideas never reach fruition in this world, and so in the mechanical arts there is often more genius displayed in a failure than in a success, with this difference, that a mechanical idea seldom dies, but, 'blossoming in the dust' of one brain, is plucked and worn by another. 'Evolution' lay dead for fifteen years. She has had a striking resurrection on both sides of the Atlantic.

[Illustration:

FT L.W.L. 50.75' D°. BEAM. 6.395' EXTR. BEAM. 6.50 DRAUGHT 10.00

'Evolution,' October 12, 1880, 10 tons, Y.R.A. Designed by E. H. Bentall, Esq.]

In the autumn of 1886, as has been stated, the tonnage rule was changed to that of rating, the only taxed dimensions being length on water-line and sail-area. This change, though at once affecting dimensions, did not materially affect form, though even in the earlier boats designed under this rule more hollow was given to the sections, this being of course a necessity, as with the added beam abnormal displacement would otherwise have been the result. But displacement was not immediately cut down, and for a given length of load-water-line yachts had quite as much displacement as formerly; 'Thistle,' 120-rating, and 'Mohawk,' 40-rater, the only two large yachts built the first year for the new classification, both being wholesome big-bodied boats, with 130 and 58 tons displacement respectively. Overhang naturally increased somewhat, as it was apparent that this could be more usefully adopted with a shallow-bodied boat than with a narrow one, it being evident that the natural way of forming the stem and counter was to follow the general buttock lines of the fore and after body. This overhang on the fairly deep boats built up till 1890, so far from being objectionable, was a distinct advantage, as it gave a fine, easy, and at the same time lifting, bow in a sea, eased the bow riband lines when the boat lay down and was hard driven reaching, and carried the side fairly out aft in the long counter.

[Illustration: Midship section

Profile of lines of 'Meteor' (late 'Thistle'). Designed by G. L. Watson, 1887.]

But beam was now steadily increasing, as untaxed dimensions are apt to do, while extreme draught also increased, and these two giving ample stability, displacement was more and more cut down. Length still had to be got somehow, but length ran up wet surface, and in the 'classes' for every foot of length a considerable amount of sail-area had to be given, making, as it were, a direct and indirect tax thereon. With an ordinary form of profile, the longer yachts would have been clogged up with wet surface; so profiles first imitated 'Jullanar' and then 'Evolution,' while displacement was cut down to a minimum, to give an easily driven form, and stability got in another way, by lengthening the righting lever of the ballast, by giving immense draft of water, and in the smaller classes concentrating this ballast in the form of a bulb, as in the altered 'Evolution.' With the shallow body, overhang has of course increased, the flat section carrying out naturally into overhangs forward and aft, which almost double the water-line length of the boat on deck. That such a type of boat sails fast for a given sail-area and water-line length is beyond dispute, but this exhausts almost all that can be said in its favour. For 1/2-raters, 1-raters, and 2-1/2-raters, the type is perhaps suitable enough, as these are only used as day boats, and extended cruising was never contemplated in them. But from 5-up to 40-rating the type is nothing like so good as that of the boats built prior to 1890. Expensive to build, expensive to handle, without head-room, or indeed room of any kind inside, they would thrash themselves to pieces in any sea but for the admirable manner in which they have been put together. A season, or at most two, sees the end of their success as racers; then they must be broken up, or sold for a mere song, as they are quite useless for cruising. So strongly was this felt by the various yacht-builders and designers, that in the autumn of 1891 they, in response to the invitation of the Yacht Racing Association, addressed a joint circular to that body, and, with I think exceptional abnegation of what looked to be their more immediate interests, pointed out the undesirability of the present type of yacht, in the following letter:--

Langham Hotel, London: October 6, 1892.

We (C. P. Clayton, William Fife, jun., Charles Nicholson, Arthur E. Payne, H. W. Ridsdale, Joseph Soper, and G. L. Watson) have met for the consideration of the questions put before us in the circular of the Council of the Yacht Racing Association, dated September 27, 1892.

We have considered that, besides the saving in time to the Council and to ourselves, it would be more satisfactory for many reasons to have such a preliminary meeting for interchange of ideas on the important issues raised in this circular, and we trust that this course of action will be approved of by the Council. We may state that we are practically unanimous in the opinions hereinafter expressed, the only exception being on the one point of taxing overhang, Mr. Ridsdale feeling that he could not go with the majority in this.

We would, then, most respectfully submit to your Council that as designers of racing yachts we have no desire whatever to interfere with the present rating rule. It has the merit of being the existing rule, and is a perfectly fair one for racing yachts together by, as indeed is any rule whatsoever, so far as designers are concerned, provided its conditions are clearly stated beforehand. But as naval architects, and, if we may be permitted to say so, as trustees for the yachting public, we think it our duty to point out any deteriorating tendency in a rule. We cannot help fearing that the present length and sail-area rule has such a tendency, and is leading, if it has not already led, to an unwholesome type of boat.

We take it that the general yachting public require in a yacht: That she shall be safe in all conditions of wind and weather; that she shall combine the maximum of room on deck and below with the minimum of prime cost; and that she shall be driven as fast as may be with the least expenditure of labour--i.e. that she shall have a moderate and workable sail-area. Therefore, as but few men can afford to build for racing, and for racing only, and as the racer of to-day is the cruiser of a few years hence, any rating rule should by its limitations encourage such a wholesome type of vessel.

On the above assumptions we have based our advice, and it is for your Council, as representing the general body of yachtsmen, to determine whether these assumptions are correct or not.

We are all agreed, then, that the present length and sail-area rule is a most admirable one for the classification and regulation of time allowance of racing yachts. But we are also of opinion that the tendency of this rule is such as to induce a vessel of so large dimensions, relative to displacement and internal capacity (i.e. the useful living room on board the ship), that it is advisable to so alter or modify this rule that a type of vessel having more body may be evolved.

We suggest that length and sail-area (as being the leading elements in speed) should be preserved in some form, but modified so as to make it the interest of builders to produce a bigger-bodied boat.

The direct method of doing this would be to introduce displacement or register tonnage in some way as a divisor in the formula, but we foresee so many difficulties in the practical working of this that we are not prepared to advise it.

By taxing breadth and draft or, alternatively, girth, and by reducing the tax on sail, we think this result may be arrived at indirectly. As to the precise value that each element should take in such a formula, we, at this stage, are not prepared to venture an opinion.

[Illustration: 'Florinda,' yawl, 126 tons. Built by Camper and Nicholson, 1873.]

The above on the general principles of the rule.

But we also feel that the details of measurement, &c., require revision.

_On the hull._--The overhang, at least forward, should be taxed, as it may be carried to such an extent as to be a source of danger, but it need not be taxed excessively or to extinction.

The L.W.L. should be marked forward and aft.

Should girth or draft be used in the formula in centreboard vessels, some proportion of the drop of board should be added, and a limit should be placed on the weight of the board.

In the smaller classes, at least, the crews should be limited.

[Illustration: 'Kriemhilda,' 106 tons. Built by Ratsey, 1872.]

_On the sails._--The perpendicular of fore triangle should be measured from top of deck to where the line of luff of sail would cut mast.

That the question of limiting the relative area of mainsail to total sail in the various classes be considered.

Mr. Alexander Richardson, of Liverpool, was unable to be present at this meeting, but this note has been submitted to him, and receives his endorsation:--

The Council of the Yacht Racing Association, however, took the view that what the yacht-owning public want in a racing yacht is speed, and speed at any price, and on the yacht-builders clearly understanding this they withdrew their objections as having been made under a misunderstanding, but asked to be tied down to some extent, in a letter dated November 8, and in the following words:--

'Our opinions, as expressed in that letter of October 6, practically remain unaltered; but so far as we are able to interpret the wishes of yacht-owners, as stated in the public prints, and more especially as expressed by your chairman and the majority of your committee, we now take it that speed, and speed before other good qualities, is what is to be aimed at.

'We consequently withdraw any suggestions made in that letter, as having been made under a misapprehension as to your requirements.

'But while it may be determined to retain a length and sail-area rule, either in its present or in some slightly altered form, we would most respectfully suggest that, at least in the classes above 5-rating (if, indeed, a lower line should not be drawn), the tendency toward abnormal and un-shipshape form should be curbed in some way. The main direction in which we would propose such limitation in form would be in the outline of longitudinal section, and we would suggest that this should be bounded by a fair line, concave, or at least not convex, toward the water-line. That the sternpost should show, say, a quarter of an inch above the water-line aft, and the rudder be hung thereon. That overhang forward and aft should be restricted, as also the extreme forward position of mast; but as we deem it undesirable to absolutely prohibit any form, we would simply propose to tax such variations from this normal one so heavily as to make their adoption unprofitable.'

The Yacht Racing Association, however, thought it undesirable to limit form in any way, and beyond the adoption of the proposed method of measuring the fore triangle, and marking the L.W.L., the rule remained unaltered.

[Illustration: 'Florinda,' yawl.]

1893 therefore saw new boats in the classes, fast, it is true, in fresh breezes, but undesirable from anything but a racing point of view. In the unclassed vessels above 40-rating things were not quite so bad, as with a practically unlimited sail-area a fair amount of body was required to carry it. Besides, men who did not mind spending two or three thousand on a 'machine' hesitated before putting down ten or twelve. In America, however, where money is spent like water when the national honour is at stake, 85-foot machines were built on the off chance of their being successes; but it is gratifying alike to American and British yachtsmen that the Cup should have been defended by such a wholesome type of vessel as 'Vigilant' undoubtedly is.

In a short chapter showing the evolution of the modern racing yacht, many links in the chain of descent must be left unnoticed. I have had to leave almost undescribed Dan Hatcher's wonderful fleet, beginning in 'Glance' and 'Muriel,' and culminating, perhaps, in 'Norman'; Nicholson's famous schooners and yawls ('Florinda' was a standing miracle for years); Michael Ratsey's equally fine ships; Richardson's grand cutters and Clayton's clever 'length classers'; the work accomplished, and still being accomplished, by the famous William Fifes, besides many others whose labours are more fully recorded in other parts of these volumes. But I think no one of all that band who have loved and worked for the sport of yacht racing cares for the type of ship which has been evolved by their own ingenuity and the present Y.R.A. rule, and I am convinced that they would thankfully welcome any legislation which should protect the yachting public against the present extravagant, costly, and by no means seaworthy type of boat.

[Illustration: 'Florinda'--midship section.]

[Illustration: H.M. brig 'Lady Nelson,'[4] 60 tons (1797), to Australia. Three keels, 1798, 1800-1-2.]

[Footnote 4: The first ship to discover that Tasmania was an island.]

##