Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Oliver ShawModerator
The sailmaker may not be outrageously expensive, and it may be worth at least a telephone discussion with your chosen sailmaker.
Jeckells are not desperately far from your area, they have a good reputation, and I gather that they made the original sail.
I obviously can’t commit a sailmaker, but it may be that all that is needed is to replace the luff rope. It might even be possible to do it without disturbing the luff pocket, but I would expect that opening the pocket and then replacing the rope and finally resewing the pocket would be the easiest approach. At the very least it would be worth the enquiry to them. They have done a modest amount of repair work for me over the years, with several different boats, and I have been well pleased with the results and I thought their prices were fair.
However it is sensible to also consider whether the finished job will be worth it; you say that the sails are otherwise in surprisingly good, but check (so fas as possible) that the cloth is not pulled badly out of shape. But if you are confident of that, then a modest expenditure to sort out the luff problem may be sensible.
Oliver
- This reply was modified 10 years, 3 months ago by hugh brazier. Reason: format
Oliver ShawModeratorI am quite sure that you will find that the GP14 is adequately matched to your stature. Although that was an unusual height when the boat was originally designed it is much less unusual today, and I have never heard of any regular dinghy sailor (of any height) finding that the boat is too small for their stature. Indeed my godson is the same height as yourself, and on the odd occasions when he has sailed with me he has never complained about the boat being too small.
If you are intending to go on to racing, you may indeed find your height a positive advantage. A recent past President of the Association, Ian Sinclair, was fond of saying that the GP14 is a very easy boat to sail, but a very difficult and demanding boat to sail really well (in top class competition). It is of course that which makes the boat so rewarding to the racing sailor, and which enables her to attract sailors of the very highest calibre to the class. And as one of our youth sailors recently pointed out in an article in Mainsail, by comparison with other classes racing in a GP14 requires much more technical skill, which all adds to the interest. And when it comes to the sheer physical effort of holding her plumb upright in a good blow, your height and weight will give you an immense advantage.
What can you get for £1200? If you look around, you should be able to find a very good older boat which you can bring up to a seriously good standard – particularly if you are prepared to specifically seek out a boat which is thoroughly sound but which will respond to some TLC, and then put in that TLC . I would suggest that before you buy you invest some time in perusing the adverts, and indeed in going to view a few boats, just to get a feel for what is available at your price; don’t be in a hurry to buy, but if you see an obviously good one then snap her up. Ten years ago I bought a 1979 wooden boat in sound condition and with good sails and cover and trailer, but somewhat tired paint and varnish, for £1000; after some serious TLC over the winter I took her to the biggest event of the calendar the following year, and several people complemented me on the boat and enquired whether she was new. And in racing terms, there have been a handful of cases of major Championships being won in seriously old boats. So age is no barrier, provided the boat is sound, and provided you are prepared to give her some TLC.
One other tip; you will almost inevitably find that you want to spend something on the boat, by way of improvements of one sort or another, within the first few months of ownership; as my chandler once said some years ago (when I had recently acquired that same GP14) when I commented that I seemed to be spending almost as much on chandlery as I paid for the boat, “Welcome to the world of sailing!” So don’t spend the whole of your budget on the initial purchase; if you aim to buy for £1000 that will allow you another £200 on chandlery and personal kit.
I am quite sure that you will find the GP14 an excellent choice, but if you want good racing I would also suggest that you join a club which races them as a class; that is far more satisfactory than handicap racing in a “menagerie” class.
Beyond that; enjoy!
Oliver
Oliver ShawModeratorJust a sideways thought on this, for what it is worth.
The main emphasis will rightly be on correctly allocating both those who compete reasonably regularly, and those who are either new to the sport or who are new to at least the competitive side of the sport.
However whatever system is adopted there needs to be sufficient flexibility to accommodate the occasional sailor who used to race a very long time ago, and perhaps used to race to a very high standard, but who has done other things in more recent times, but nonetheless makes a very occasional return to serious racing. I am one such; it is around 40 years since I retired from racing, but on my very rare and occasional returns to the race circuit I still race with some seriousness. I would guess that on the present system my proper place, should I enter a major event (and with a decent crew), should be silver, but that is really only a guess.
However I am far from being the only one. I know another regular member of the GP14 cruising fleet who hasn’t raced regularly for decades, but who might very occasionally compete – and in his youth he was a serious contender for a place in the Olympic team in FDs.
And I also know, and respect, another regular in the cruising fraternity who is active in training youth sailors, and who is one of our very fastest helms. Greatly to my surprise, I found him apparently in the bronze fleet at an event last year; I myself would have placed him firmly in the silver.
Oliver
Oliver ShawModeratorI also can’t see the photo.
Assuming that the hook is on the upper block, it seems from your description that the boat probably has a 3:1 purchase, in traditional nautical terminology known (I think) as a gun tackle rove to advantage; if you google “gun tackle” I would expect that you should find some diagrams. Essentially the tensioning line should be attached to a becket on the upper block, then go down to the lower block, round that, back up to the upper block, then round that, and then down again. Then, crucially, what from your description appears to be missing, the line needs to be taken to a cleat, or (preferably) your choice of jam cleat.
Having said that, a much simpler method of getting adequate tension, and fairly inexpensive, is a Highfield lever. Just ensure that you use it safely, by not allowing the lever to fly open unchecked when you release it, and by keeping fingers well out of the way!
With the older boats it is vitally important that you do not apply modern rig tensions, unless the mast step conversion has been done; the boat was not originally designed for modern tensions, and there is a real risk of serious structural damage. But a Highfield lever gives an acceptable half way house; the maximum tension it can produce is safe for the boat (provided she is in sound condition, but still large enough to be useful.
Oliver
Oliver ShawModeratorI am not a measurer, so cannot give an authoritative reply to that question, but provided the heel of the mast is in the correct place I think it would be a harsh decision to disqualify you for that!
I have not yet looked at the step, but will do so shortly. Am currently just back home (yesterday afternoon) from six weeks away cruising – not in a GP14, but in a small trailer-sailer yacht not all that much larger (20-ft gaff cutter) – and am now busy de-storing the boat and catching up everything at home, so please forgive me if I don’t do this immediately.
Oliver
Oliver ShawModeratorIt would be worth checking the state of the glue that is holding the two parts of the mast together. If it is starting to fail, which it may well be, then you will have to split the mast anyway and reglue. That is your golden opportunity to clean out everything, including the luff groove, and either varnish the interior surfaces and the luff groove or treat them with epoxy.
If the glue is absolutely sound, then cleaning out the luff groove will probably take some ingenuity. I would be inclined to try a “slug” formed by a very short length (a few inches) of sail luff, complete with the luff rope, cut out of a scrap sail, wrapped with sandpaper; just pull it along the groove, backwards and forwards. Another idea for a slug is a short length of wooden dowel, and improvise some means of pulling it or pushing it along the groove.
A potential problem that you may have is the width of the slot not being constant, and if you are too generous with the varnish and the slot is very narrow you may find that once you have varnished it you have difficulty getting the sail to run up it. I have this problem on my small yacht, but in that case she is gaff rigged and the problem is only with the boom and the gaff, so it doesn’t greatly matter if the sails are stiff to slide along the spars because the operation happens only twice a year; they go on at the beginning of the season and come off at the end. With a mast groove, the sail needs to be able to slide up it and down it every time you sail.
Oliver
Oliver ShawModeratorOne of the key advantages of the split tail arrangement is that it effectively takes the sheeting load from the windward quarter; thus when close hauled the horizontal component of the sheeting angle is optimised, with the result that for a given boom position the load on the sheet (and thus the load that you have to hold in) is reduced. No other sheeting arrangement possess this benefit. Coupled with that, if you prefer the sheet led to the centre (and most racers do prefer that) the split tail arrangement is surely the one to go for. I personally happen to prefer transom sheeting for other reasons, but then I very rarely race; as I understand it, both as a sailor and as a physicist, the above is one of the key benefits of the split tail arrangement.
However that considers only the horizontal component of the sheeting angle, and there is also a vertical component. The modern rig, with modern spars and a massive purchase on the kicker, controls the vertical position of the boom entirely with the kicker. That is fine, and modern kickers on modern spars are fully capable of bending the spars (which are specifically designed to accept this), and the kicker can then do a very good job of flattening and depowering the sail in stronger winds.
That option may not be available with older spars such as you have, which were designed to remain straight, and which even when new were probably not as strong as today’s spars, and which are likely by now to have also suffered weakening due to corrosion, plus perhaps multiple holes having been drilled over the years, plus perhaps cracks. So if you apply modern kicker loads to 1970s spars there is a real risk that you may find that you end up breaking the boom, or (perhaps less likely) the mast.
Before the days of modern 16:1 or 18:1 kickers and bendy spars, kickers typically had just 2:1 or 3:1 purchase; 4:1 was unusual. Kickers were intended primarily to prevent the boom lifting when off the wind, rather than as a means of flattening the sail even when going to windward. Sails were flattened in stronger winds by (in part) applying mainsheet tension vertically downwards to the leeward quarter. The full width horse was developed to facilitate this; a traveller rode on the horse, with its travel being limited by (adjustable) control lines. In lighter winds the traveller was kept in the centre, but in a real blow it was allowed right out, so that the sheet could then pull down vertically and so help to flatten the sail even while spilling wind.
I suggest that you need to consider your sheeting arrangements and your kicker purchase together, and consider also the age of your spars. If I were preparing this particular boat for serious racing I think I would probably either go for modern spars (even if they are borrowed for the occasion) with modern kicker and split tail mainsheet, or alternatively go for your present spars, with a 3:1 or possibly 4:1 kicker, and transom sheeting with full width (rigid) horse and control lines. Avoid the rope horse; “neither fish nor foul nor good red herring”, and amongst its several shortcomings is that it allows the lower block to bash the deck.
Yes to a ratchet block.
Hope this helps,
Oliver
Oliver ShawModeratorChris Brown Trailers, at http://www.cbcoverstore.co.uk, produces a combi trailer which appears very similar to the West Mersea ones. When I collected GP14 no. 3 (no less) for eventual restoration I bought one of his launching trolleys, on his assurance that it would fit my West Mersea roadbase, which it duly did.
My experience of it is limited, as it has been used thus far only to transport the boat home and to store her pending work, but it appears to be well made and to be dimensionally fully compatible with the West Mersea product.
At least it would be worth your while enquiring from them.
Oliver
Oliver ShawModeratorDon’t you just love computers!!! …. I have just typed a reply, and lost the lot during the final stages of typing!
Short answer, for your particular situation and boat; I suggest that you consider Toplac, by International Paints. The equivalent conventional paint by Epifanes or Hempel/Blakes may well be equally good, but I have no first-hand experience of them, whereas I do have first-hand experience of Toplac, and it is very readily available from most larger marine chandlers and also a fair proportion of smaller ones. I have used it with outstanding success on a Series 1 (i.e. wooden) GP14, and a friend has used it with similar success on the restoration of a Mk 2 (i.e. GRP) GP14.
If you intend stripping and repainting anyway there in no need to obtain an exact match of colour; this is the time to consider whether you wish to stay with (approximately) the same colour or alternatively change the colour scheme.
Avoid two-pot paints; marvellous though they are, you <span style=”text-decoration: underline;”>must not</span> apply them on top of existing one-pot finishes. So unless you know <span style=”text-decoration: underline;”>beyond doubt</span> that your existing paint is two-pot, which is unlikely in the circumstances, you can’t safely use two-pot paints unless you are prepared to remove every last bit of the existing paint.
One-pot polyurethanes do exist, and indeed are made by the major yacht paint manufacturers, but back in the sixties and seventies I tried them and was disappointed. I have not tried them since, but my reading of International Paints’ own website – and they make the stuff – tends only to reinforce my opinion (or bigotry, call it what you will) that they are an unfortunate half-way house; they do not offer the spectacular durability and gloss and hardness of two-pot products, not the flexibility and gloss of the best conventional paints.
Oliver
Oliver ShawModeratorI have just come back to this, and checked a bit more on Robbins’ prices. As you rightly say, a 2500 x 1220 sheet of 4 mm (3-ply) bog standard Elite marine ply is £32.24 plus VAT. The equivalent in 5 mm (5-ply) is £46.90 plus VAT. The difference is not large, and pales into insignificance by comparison with the total cost of the project, and by comparison with teh value of your time; the important thing is to make the right decision.
It would be well worth considering carefully which of the two to go for; if your the expected use of the boat the 5 mm is preferable it would then be a pity to spoil the ship for a ha’p’worth of tar. The class rules specify 4 mm minimum, but a great many boats are built with 5 mm decks. I think that the “right” thickness depends on how you expect the boat to be used.
I understand – very much at secondhand!) – that top racers are likely to prefer 4mm because it is lighter. However their boats are lovingly caressed, except when driving hard during a race, and in terms of ensuring that the boats never suffer abuse they probably have an easy life.
For a boat used for cruising, or training, there may well be more risk of higher localised loads on the deck (e.g. someone standing on it, rather than sitting, or carelessly plonking something heavy down on the deck). For a boat that may suffer that sot of treatment from time to time, even if only occasionally, it is probably worth going for 5 mm. When I had a new series 2 boat professionally built for me in 2005/6 specifically as a cruising boat the builder (Tim Harper) opted for 5 mm as standard, and the boat still came out marginally under weight, so carries corrector weights; and I have absolutely no worries about her strength.
Oliver
Oliver ShawModeratorOver to some of our Scottish members to now pick this up; do you know of any local firms who may be able to help?
Oliver
Oliver ShawModeratorI don’t know whether they are still doing them, but Fyne Boats used to sell kits of parts for the GP14, and have been known in the past to supply individual panels on request. http://www.fyneboatkits.co.uk
Local wood joiners, or even boatbuilders (if any in your area) for the limited assistance you suggest would also be worth considering.
Where are you based?
Oliver
Oliver ShawModeratorIf you are joining pieces of ply for the side decks a scarf joint (a.k.a. scarph joint) is neater than just a butt joint. I appreciate your comment that you are no joiner, but I wonder whether you have a contact who could make that joint for you? It is not technically difficult, but it does require a modicum of skill, and the use of a workbench (or other good sturdy flat surface) as well as a plane and other basic hand tools.
Oliver
Oliver ShawModeratorA handful of other details:
It seems that you are intending to remove the rubbing strakes, and replace them once the work on the decks is finished. Good. In that case, cut the outside edge of your new decks to slightly proud of the hull, and plane / surform / sand it flush once they are fitted and glued down. Then of course coat the newly exposed edges with epoxy, preferably doing this as you glue the rubbing strakes back on.
Epoxy the underside of the ply as well as the top, particularly if you are using non-marine ply. If you use genuine marine ply you would get away with not epoxying the underside, although best practice for the best long term job would still be to epoxy both sides.
5 coats of varnish is rather pushing your luck; that is just about the absolute minimum. I would normally expect to be just starting to get an acceptable finish, and a coating that will last reasonably well, at six coats, and I normally aim for about nine. That is not of course nine times the thickness of a single coat, because I sand down alternate coats moderately heavily; it is possibly – and I am guessing – about six times the thickness of a single coat once all the sanding is taken into account.
Oliver
Oliver ShawModeratorDeck ply; you will find that 6 mm thickness of the proper stuff, i.e. marine ply – which I appreciate you can’t afford – is far heavier than the boat normally needs, and would make the boat unduly heavy. The minimum is 4 mm, but for heavy duty use (including training, and cruising) many people prefer 5 mm. 6 mm would be somewhat over the top.
Since you are having to use an intrinsically less strong type of plywood, you may in fact need the extra thickness, but that is something for you to assess in the light of this information.
A few other points about exterior grade non-marine ply:
I used it once for a very temporary and experimental rudder blade on the big boat, when I wanted to try out a new profile before making a good one with the proper materials. I was horrified to find that top veneer of the brand new ply was starting to delaminate even in my workshop, before being exposed to any weather, as soon as I started to cut it, and I also found breaks in the interior laminations. So if you have to use exterior grade, treat it with caution, be very selective in whom you buy it from, and also be very selective in checking the individual sheets before purchase.
<span style=”line-height: 1.5em;”>When I made my experimental rudder blade I coated the finished blade with epoxy, and then three layers of woven glass mat. The result was that it was a little too good – so it stayed in service longer than I originally intended; but it was nonetheless still not good enough, and snapped off in moderate swell off the Farne Islands, with around 20 miles still to go to make port at Amble. So be warned …</span>
I think that if I were doing the job in non -marine ply I would at the very least coat both sides of the ply in epoxy, and all the edges. Some of that is best done during construction, rather than beforehand; mark out where the joints are going to go, and leave those uncoated, so that when you assemble and glue up you can do so with wet epoxy direct onto bare wood. If you coat everything first, you will find considerable difficulty in getting neat joints because of the thickness of cured epoxy getting in the way of the joint you are trying to make.
Finally, given that you are thinking of a greater thickness than you would need for the proper material, and the possibly greater expenditure on epoxy, it might be worth doing two costings before you start; one using 5 mm or 6 mm exterior ply, and one using 4 mm marine ply. Make sure that you include <b>all </b>the materials in the costing, not just the wood, and the marine ply doesn’t have to be the very swish stripey sapele; basic marine ply may well be a less expensive choice and should be perfectly adequate. Only when you have the total costings for both routes can you decide whether the cheese-paring approach is justified; if the saving is going to be very modest and the end result is likely to be much inferior it may well be a false economy.
That is before you even start to consider the value of your time …
Hope this helps,
Oliver
-
AuthorPosts