1/4 ton 1/2 ton etc please explain

Dave,
Yep, it looks like 1270 to me for that boat. I couldnt find anything about its handicap at all, even with the Clyde club Handicaps. It sure looks like a smart wee yacht tho. Good luck with her. Im up in Wick by the way.

30boat,
My E-Boat is also a great windward sailer. She gets worse the further off the wind you sail. This is a factor of the small main and huge genoa common on the IOR rigs. She really needs the kite to be flown off the wind. Not so easy on an E-Boat when singlehanding!
 
30boat said:
This rule produced boats that were so bad that Olin Stephens actually apologised publicly for his part in it's development.That said I used to own a Douglas Peterson designed 1/2tonner that sailed like a wich to windward and was very god on a reach but obviously preformed not so well on a run.An she wasn't in the least tender.
Click to expand...

We owned an Elizabethan 30, designed by David Thomas later of Sigma fame and who now sails a Liz from choice. She was designed with winning the Half Ton Cup when strong winds and upwind performance in them was reckoned to be needed, actually she was beaten by the Peter Norlin designed Scampi as the predicted conditions didn't happen. Both boats, Liz 30 and Scampi were excellent and still are today, with (Scampi) Olivia Anne IV still in winning ways not too long back. We sailed thousands of miles in our Liz cruising and racing so Olin Stephens should keep his apologies for his own designs!

Doug Peterson (another American) designed our last boat, the Sun Legende 41which also sailed like a witch, in fact a witch on speed, so I'll be first to agree about his designs. The Sun Legende 41 was the Jeanneau production version of 'Legende' a One Ton Cup boat that won SORC down under and was a member of the French Admiral's Cup Team that year. The Sun Legende 41 is a really sweet sailer in light or strong winds and upwind or down, so the usual cry of these ton cup boats being a handful is a myth, if they were so then blame the designer not the rule! We sailed close to 20,000 miles in ours, just two of us and both now pensioners, we just sold her last December and the wall to wall grins are only just starting to fade - slightly.
 
cliffordpope said:
As recently as 1964 my father registered a 30 foot motor cruiser, and was given detailed instructions for having the calculated TM carved on the main beam, together with the "certified chart space". The full meaningless inscription, complete with the 94ths, then had to be traced on paper and sent to Lloyds to confirm that it had been done.
Click to expand...

This is only partially correct. Your measurement system is correct. "Certified chart space" is one of the allowances against Registered Tonnage, along with space for propulsion and accommodation for seamen and apprentices. It is not meaningless as the final figure was the basis for paying light dues (which even yachts had to do before the war - I forget the date it was abandoned). So clearly it was important to minimise this figure by making sure the surveyor who produced it was "on-side". If you find the "Blue Book" for the boat you will find all the details including the equivalent in "Cubic Metres" which is the measurement used today. (I have the original 1963 Blue Book for my boat in front of me).

Nothing to do with Lloyds but for the Registrar of Shipping, which in those days would have been a local office - in my case Plymouth and details completed in best copperplate by the registrar.
 
Its amazing how it has all been forgotten. The only boat I owned that had been designed to the rule was a Trapper 300, developed from Bruce Kirbys Canadian entry for an anticipated light weather year at La Rochelle, of course it blew. The boat was on the tender side but the biggest problem was the pinched in stern which made perching on the coaming when helming to windward for the very long beats involved in racing in those days really uncomfortable.
It was amazing how diverse they were and how many boats were designed to the rules. The Ruffian 23, (the UKs biggest selling 1/4 tonner) Eygthene, Robber, Bolero even the UFO 27 were all claimed to be able to rate 1/4 ton and there were also dozens of half tonners. Nicholsons, Scampis, Hydros, Toledos, Shamrocks Toledos etc were designed specifically to the rule while others like the UFO 31 etc. claimed to be able to get down to the rating. The advent of the OOD34 and the Sigmas marked the beginning of the end as the RORC came under pressure to end the annual arms race which rendered the most competitive boats almost worthless after just one year if they were not considered as suited to the chosen cup venue. Nice to see a revival in the 1/4 tonners again recently.
 
Yes, there were some pretty unusual Quarter tonners, some that come to mind were 'Odd Job' designed and sailed by the late Jack Knights; Eclipse by Ian Proctor that had bilge boards; and the Quartos(David Thomas design?); the one I know of was chined and built in ply, but also in GRP I believe. I think that Phil Morrison also produced one the name escapes me though.
Did not the J24 class aspire to being 1/4 ton qualifiers too?
 
ProDave said:
My boat's not on that list. The magazine review said 127, so perhaps it was a missprint and they meant 1270 ???
Click to expand...

I'm sure you'll kick yourself when you remember but PY numbers used to be (typically) three digits and are now typically high three digits or four. The system changed relatively recently, maybe 15 years or so ago.

So Laser was IIRC 114, now it's IIRC 1080.

Sorry to teach to suck eggs!
 
Thanks guys. All of great interest but I'm still not sure how the actual value was calculated.
Quandary suggests that yachts of up to 30 feet got into the 1/4 ton class.
The thames tonnage I suspect has nothing to do with my original question.
I cant reconcile the barrels of ale ( TUNs) to the rating ( but the idea appeals)
So..... still confused ( but in good company?)
Cheers all
 
Tranona said:
This is only partially correct. Your measurement system is correct. "Certified chart space" is one of the allowances against Registered Tonnage, along with space for propulsion and accommodation for seamen and apprentices. It is not meaningless as the final figure was the basis for paying light dues (which even yachts had to do before the war - I forget the date it was abandoned). So clearly it was important to minimise this figure by making sure the surveyor who produced it was "on-side". If you find the "Blue Book" for the boat you will find all the details including the equivalent in "Cubic Metres" which is the measurement used today. (I have the original 1963 Blue Book for my boat in front of me).

Nothing to do with Lloyds but for the Registrar of Shipping, which in those days would have been a local office - in my case Plymouth and details completed in best copperplate by the registrar.
Click to expand...

I seem to remember a figure stating that 1 Ton = 100 cubic feet, the useful volume of the hold of a ship.
 
http://www.halftonclass-europe.net/index.php
check out the info section and "what is a haf tonner"

http://www.quartertonclass.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

check out the quarter ton class rules which tells you what boats are eigible

IOR rule:
If you search long enough, you will find a copy which explains how to measure a boat, which numbers go into the formulae, and then how a final number (the rating) is produced.

The closest i coud quicky find is an article on the IMS system, which gives you an idea of the level of detail that these measurement systems have to go into.
http://www.orc.org/rules/IMS 2010.pdf

a good expanation of handicapping systems:
http://www.sailtexas.com/imsarticle.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top