VIII.

EVOLUTION OF THE RACER. HOW TONNAGE AND MEASUREMENT RULES HAVE AFFECTED FORM IN AMERICA AND GREAT BRITAIN.

The growth of the English cutter from its cradle, on the south and east coasts, where the fantail stern was created, is an interesting study. From the _Pearl_, designed by Sainty, the smuggler, for the Marquis of Anglesey, down to the modern yacht of 1899, it is apparent that the evolution of the craft was slow and gradual until about 1880, since when strides of unprecedented length have been taken. Up to 1880 yacht designing advanced sluggishly, both here and abroad, but the progress of the art could be marked by the intelligent student, even as a trained forester can tell the age of an oak from a section of the trunk. The more closely you observe, the more clearly are you convinced that the naval architects of both countries have for some time been converging to a common goal. This goal they now seem to have attained.

In order to give an intelligent summary of the development of the racing yacht of to-day, it is necessary, as we progress, to take note of the measurement or tonnage rule which caused the change in the form of the yacht.

The yacht of the early part of the century was an apple-bowed craft of about three beams to length, ballasted with stone, gravel, or old iron. Competition was restricted to matches between two yachts, the bigger craft, other things being equal, usually winning. The first rule was derived from the mercantile marine, and had been in force since 1794. It was one in which length of keel and fore-rake, and the breadth at broadest place, were the only dimensions that were measured. It did not matter how high or how low the vessel was in the hold, half-breadth was taken to represent the depth, in calculating tonnage. The tendency of this rule was to make vessels high, narrow, and flat-sided, in order to get as large a carrier as possible with the smallest registered tonnage. This was called builder’s tonnage, and was in vogue until 1854 in the mercantile marine. It was applied to yachts simply as a guide for building them or for their purchase and sale. Up to 1854 there was no time allowance whatever. Big and little yachts raced together indiscriminately, and, of course, the larger boats had the advantage. It struck Mr. Holland Ackers as being somewhat of an anomaly, so he proposed a table of time allowances between large and small yachts, the basis being the difference in size, as measured by the merchant-ship tonnage rule, as given above, and the length of the course.

[Illustration:

Photo by J. C. Hemment.

“DEFENDER” IN DRY DOCK. ]

To evade the heavy harbor dues, etc., to which merchant vessels were liable under the 1794 tonnage rule, shipbuilders naturally reduced beam, which was penalized twice over, and increased depth, which was not taxed at all, thus creating a vicious type of vessel. Yacht builders followed suit, gradually increasing draught and decreasing beam. Then came the raking sternpost, introduced about 1850 by Wanhill, of Poole, which gave on a given length of keel a much longer water-line. Outside lead followed.

In 1854 the “Thames Rule” was adopted, by which the length on deck was measured and from this length the whole beam was subtracted.

This system did fairly well till heavy lead keels were introduced. Then builders and owners found that with a lot of length and depth yachts could carry sail enough to make them faster and more powerful vessels than their predecessors, the reason being because they were far larger in reality, carrying about 25 per cent. more sail and ballast, whereas if the actual draught of water had been used as a factor in defining the tonnage no such abortions as this rule encouraged would ever have been built.

The apple bow and barrel-like bottom flourished in England until 1851, when the schooner-yacht _America_ created a revolution in British yacht naval architecture. Then, following the shape of that memorable craft, the long, hollow bow became the fashion.

In 1878 the Yacht Racing Association decided that the length should be measured on the load water-line instead of on deck. This was principally owing to the circumstance that designers, in order to cheat the rule, had adopted such devices as a ram bow and an immersed counter.

[Illustration:

“THISTLE,” NOW “COMÈTE,” EMPEROR OF GERMANY, OWNER. ]

The yachts continued to get longer and narrower and deeper until, in 1882, the Yacht Racing Association adopted a rule a trifle easier on beam; and in 1887 a rule was formulated in which length and sail area alone were penalized, beam being left free from any tax whatever. It is interesting to note that the first yacht built that took advantage of this rule was the _Thistle_, which challenged for the _America’s_ Cup in 1887 and was defeated by _Volunteer_. _Thistle’s_ beam was 20.3 feet, while that of _Genesta_ and _Galatea_ was 15 feet. A comparison of two crack English craft and two smart Yankee yachts of the year 1893 shows how close Mr. Herreshoff and Mr. Watson were coming:

_Length L. W. L. Feet._ _Beam. Feet._ _Britannia_ 87.8 23.66 _Valkyrie II_ 86.8 22.33 _Navahoe_, C. B. 86.93 23.00 _Vigilant_, C. B. 86.19 26.25

[Illustration:

“VOLUNTEER.” ]

Still more significant are the measurements of _Valkyrie III._ and _Defender_, both keel Craft:

_Length L. W. L. Feet._ _Beam. Feet._ _Valkyrie III_ 88.85 26.20 _Defender_ 88.45 22.20

It will be seen that not only did the American designer discard the centerboard, but he gave his craft less beam than the British boat. I remember when both vessels were hauled out in the Erie Basin, Brooklyn, the American yacht was generally mistaken for the English, and vice versa; this, too, by experts looking on from a distance too remote to distinguish the names on their sterns.

In 1892 the leading yacht designers of Great Britain, realizing the rating rule then in vogue, wrote to the Yacht Racing Association suggesting that the rule be so modified that a type of vessel having more body be evolved. In the same communication they said, defining what the general public requires 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 labor, _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.”

[Illustration:

Photo by J. C. Hemment

“VALKYRIE III.” IN DRY DOCK. ]

The Yacht Racing Association, on the other hand, held the view that what the yacht-owning public want in a racing yacht is speed first, last, and all the time, no matter what the cost. The only change made at that time was in the measurement of the fore triangle and marking the load water-line forward and aft.

[Illustration:

Designed by Watson, 1894.

“ELLEN”—20-RATER. ]

_Thistle_ was the first big English racing cutter with a clipper bow. Her advent caused much critical comment among the experts, whose eyes had become so accustomed to the “cutter stem” that they fairly blinked when they first gazed on the new Clyde craft.

Mr. Watson, writing about the defeat of the _Thistle_ in 1894, says: “Her 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.”

After Mr. Watson had realized the superiority of _Vigilant’s_ model over that of _Valkyrie II._, he designed the 20-rater _Ellen_, which I reproduce from a photograph. It will be noticed that her form is strikingly similar to that of _Vigilant_. Of a verity, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!

With the long overhang forward, the running bowsprit was abolished. The modified cutter rig thus resulting is practically the same in both America and England. Bobstays are now bars of steel or iron, and bowsprits are comparatively short when compared with those that used to project from the bows of the straight-stemmed cutters.

The clipper bow was gradually altered and modified until the present stage was reached.

That sterling old British racing skipper, Captain Tom Jay, talking about the modern cutter, with her cutaway forefoot and raking sternpost, being an awkward craft to handle in a seaway, said: “Believe me, sir, it’s not always so much the craft that’s awkward as the people that’s in her. Of course, being so easy to drive, they reach faster than the old-fashioned vessels, and that makes them drive harder into the seas; but that is mostly a matter of the canvas you set. Of course, the worst time is when you’re sailing a point or two free, because they go their ten knots, and that means that they throw it about a bit.”

[Illustration:

BOW, 1892. ]

In our own country the measurement rules have also had a dominant influence on the form of our racing craft as they appear in 1899.

[Illustration:

STERN, 1892. ]

[Illustration:

MIDSHIP SECTIONS OF FIVE ENGLISH CUTTERS. ]

[Illustration:

THE CUP CONTESTANTS.

The lower lines are approximately those of the English cutters, except in the case of “Valkyrie III.,” which is wider and shallower than “Defender.” ]

Monstrosities with fin-keels now monopolize the races in the larger classes, while scows and ingenious nondescripts, which sailors would never mistake for boats, control all the sport in the smaller classes. How to give the owner of the honest boat a fair show, while at the same time dealing justly with the owner of the racing machine, is a problem that seeks for solution at the hands of constituted yachting authorities. The present fleet of “freaks” is due in the first instance to the want of foresight displayed by the clubs in not legislating against them when they first made their appearance. Naval architects are only human, and they cannot be blamed for taking advantage of any and every ill-considered rule adopted by the clubs. For instance, when beam was taxed in Great Britain the result was the long, deep and narrow craft which so long prevailed across the Atlantic. The tax was taken off beam in 1886, and the consequence was the practical abolition of the narrow British cutter and the adoption of a beamier type of craft. At the present time beam as a factor is utilized in much the same way both in this country and in Great Britain. Until some sage discovers what is absolutely the best type of yacht, we shall continue to go beating about the bush.

There is no doubt that a rating rule can be so framed as to make any particular type come into vogue, and in the end that type is bound to be pushed to extremes. Experience has shown that when this stage arises in an acute form the standard of rating is altered. This has been the case in the United States ever since the sport became established. When the New York Yacht Club was organized in 1844 the yachts were rated according to Custom House tonnage, first-class sloops allowing 35 seconds a ton and second-class sloops allowing 45 seconds a ton to their inferiors. This system was in force for only two years. In 1840 a startling innovation was made. It was neither more nor less than getting the actual weight of the yachts, which was computed by the revolutions of screw-jacks placed under the keel of the boat when in dry dock. Here is an example culled from the club’s archives:

[Illustration:

“VOLUNTEER” AND “THISTLE.” ]

[Illustration:

“VIGILANT” AND “VALKYRIE II.” ]

YACHT “SYREN.” Weight of boat 115,776 lbs. Weight of keel 3,400 lbs. Weight of rudder 219 lbs. ——————— Total 119,395 lbs. Racing measurement, 53 tons 6 cwt. 9 lbs.

From these data the allowances were computed. This queer rule was in vogue until 1852, when a widely different regulation was adopted. Sail area alone was taken into account, the following being the allowance:

First class—Over 3,300 square feet sail area, 1 second per foot.

Second class—Between 2,300 and 3,300 feet, 1¼ seconds per foot.

Third class—Less than 2,300 feet, 1½ seconds per foot.

[Illustration:

“VALKYRIE II.” ]

The natural result of this rule was the adoption of the light-draught boats vulgarly designated as “skimming dishes.” It was found that it took less canvas to drive this type of yacht through the water, and the consequence was the building of many curious craft whose models may now be seen on the walls of the New York Yacht Club. Here is a striking example, which shows how the rule affected the sail area of the yachts. The schooner _Rebecca_, which, before the rule was made, used to carry a sail spread of 3,303 square feet, was cut down to an area of 1,306 square feet. This absurd rule was in force with a few modifications until 1871, when yet another sweeping change was made. This time the elements consisted of the yacht’s displacement in cubic feet and the length of the water-line. In 1873 the rule was changed so as to take into account the cubic contents of the whole hull. In 1883 a plan was adopted taking into account, as a function of the new system, twice the water-line length and once the sail area. In 1890 the present rule was adopted by the New York Yacht Club.

[Illustration:

“VALKYRIE III.” ]

[Illustration:

MODERN TYPE OF FIN. ]

[Illustration:

“DEFENDER” AND “VALKYRIE III.” ]

[Illustration:

Photo by J. C. Hemment

HOISTING “DEFENDER’S” MAINSAIL. ]

Personally, I am opposed to any system that restricts or taxes sail, and I am glad to be able to quote the veteran Scotch yacht designer, Mr. William Fife, Sr., as being on my side of the fence. He wrote, in January, 1895: “I am not a believer in restricting sail; every yacht should get what she can carry. I know this idea has many opponents, although I never saw a valid reason against it; a yacht can be spoiled with excessive spars and sails, and sail area may therefore be left to take care of itself. To satisfy those, however, who fear that, in the absence of any tax on sail area, excessive sail areas might be introduced, a maximum allowance of so many square feet per ton might be specified.”

We are, however, confronted by conditions and not theories, but I could not help putting myself on record as being against the taxation of sail. I am almost alone in this. But to resume. _Madge_, _Clara_ and other imported British cutters had considerable influence, and caused our designers to modify the shallow underwater bodies and beamy tops, the _Puritan_ in 1885 being the first successful compromise vessel built in the United States. _Mayflower_ and _Volunteer_ followed.

Under the British tonnage rule in vogue in 1886, a 90-foot yacht of 26-foot beam would have been an impossibility, but as soon as the penalty was taken off beam the British designers took advantage of the circumstance and followed in the footsteps of the Americans, until, in the days of _Valkyrie III._ and _Defender_, the national types were practically the same, Herreshoff being a trifle in advance of Watson, as the victory of the British craft demonstrated.

Meanwhile, the only way I see out of the difficulty between racing machines and honest boats is to sail them in different classes. The plan is good to draw up tables of scantlings and rules for the construction of all racing yachts to be built in the future. As for the “freaks” unhappily now in existence, it is consolatory to be assured that they will all fall to pieces very soon. It is a great wonder, indeed, that some of them did not succumb at the close of their first season.

The photographs of _Valkyrie III._ and _Defender_, in dry dock, which, through the kindness of my friend Mr. J. C. Hemment, I am able to reproduce in this chapter, show the remarkable similarity that exists between the two yachts. Both were taken as the vessels appeared in the Erie Basin when, on the eve of the first race, they were docked to receive the final touches for the fray.

_Defender’s_ hull is of metal, as I have previously mentioned, and she was subjected to a very thorough polishing-up above and below the water-line. I had an opportunity which I did not allow to escape me of closely examining the hull of the saucy Yankee craft and comparing her lines with those of the British boat. _Defender_, when after a little while you came to appreciate the wondrous symmetry of her underbody, exhibited a fairy-like form when contrasted with the less perfect shape of her rival. I make this criticism while at the same time having the profoundest respect for the genius of Mr. Watson, whose talent as a naval architect nobody admires more than I do.

[Illustration:

Photo by J. C. Hemment

“DEFENDER” UNDER BROOKLYN BRIDGE. ]

But after my visit to the Erie Basin in Brooklyn I formed the opinion that the _America’s_ cup was, barring accidents, perfectly safe for another year. _Defender_ exhibited all the grace of a thoroughbred horse, while _Valkyrie_ was a clumsier but apparently a more powerful creation. _Defender_, in point of fact, was as highly finished a product of the skillful naval architect as was the Scotch cutter _Minerva_ when compared with some of the “brutes” that were built to beat her.

I had plenty of time to examine both vessels, and I need not say that each had a wondrous attraction for me. I saw Captain Cranfield mix his famous black varnish for _Valkyrie’s_ bottom, a compound whose two principal elements are coal tar and “turps,” but which gives a surprising gloss and sleek finish when mingled in correct proportions. I saw this applied to the wooden planking of the English clipper, and thought to myself that something more potent and speed-compelling would be necessary to plaster her with if the cup were to be carried away. My friends on the staff of OUTING remember that on my return to the office from the Erie Basin I told them my views of the rival yachts, and predicted an easy victory for the Yankee craft.

My sympathy was with the British boat. I realized that in the interest of true sport it would be a capital thing for the _America’s_ cup to leave our shores for a while, because it would put our yacht designers on their mettle, and produce something wondrous in the yacht line so far as speed is concerned. But it struck me that _Valkyrie_ was scarcely good enough to accomplish the task for which she was constructed. Now I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I simply relate facts as they occurred. I am convinced also that Mr. Watson, after examining _Defender_ in dock, realized that his work had been in vain, and that _Valkyrie_, admirable as she was and is, was a wee bit inferior to the peerless Bristol flyer.

The photograph of _Defender_ passing under Brooklyn Bridge, which her topmast truck barely cleared at the top of high water, shows the tauntness of her mast, and is a splendid object lesson, worthy of preservation for all time. The spirited photograph of her crew tailing onto the throat halyards of the mainsail shows the light but strong rig forward, the stumpy bowsprit, the batten-like bulwark, and the other modern features of the beau-ideal racing vessel of 1895.

[Illustration:

“DEFENDER” UNDER SAIL. ]

Whatever developments there may be in store for us with regard to hull, rig and sail plan, I know not. But if within the next ten years as great progress is made as has been made during the past decade, the racing machine of that epoch will indeed be a marvelous scientific product. Personally, I am quite willing to endure my earthly burdens for a while longer if only for the pleasure of gratifying my curiosity about the yacht of the future, which has more charms for me than the evolution of the new woman, fascinating as this study doubtless is.

During the many years in which I have been interested in yachting I have seen many eventful changes in the yachts, their rig, their sail plan, and also in the rules that govern their races. Speed has perhaps been developed at the expense of seaworthiness, but yacht sailors have also become more expert at their calling, having progressed with the times. Skippers have learned to handle craft like _Valkyrie_ or _Defender_, with main booms of steel 105 feet long, in half a gale of wind; and there is no doubt that, properly rigged and under capable charge, they are as safe for an ocean voyage as any other kind of craft. I will not say a word about the comfort or the accommodations to be found in one of the big racing cutters; but sailors are accustomed to hardships, even as eels to the knife of the cook that skins them.

Much stress has been laid upon the superior advantages that _Defender_ had over _Valkyrie III._, inasmuch as the challenger was built more strongly and heavily, as she had to cross the ocean to race for the cup. I don’t think that the mere circumstance of a transatlantic voyage would induce a modern yacht designer to add a single superfluous ounce of weight to a racing craft. Luck is depended on to a certain extent, but the bold and skillful skipper is relied on most of all.

I remember reading the other day of a valiant sea captain whose steamer was disabled in a hurricane and lost her funnel. What did this brave fellow do? Give up the ship and take to the boats? Not he; he came from a different breed. He rigged up a jury funnel of timber, barrels and canvas, and by playing the hose on this improvised smokestack and keeping it continually drenched with water managed to keep up a good head of steam and eventually reach port. He came of the great Anglo Saxon race, which has done many heroic deeds afloat and will continue to achieve daring actions just as long as Old Ocean endures. Thus, while I am writing about the evolution of the racer, permit me to pay my humble tribute of praise to the brave seamen who man the racing yachts and have made as much headway in handling the marvelous pieces of mechanism as their designers have done in “creating” them.

[Illustration:

“VALKYRIE III.” ]