Above: Thomas Lawson was one of the most contentious of many contentious personalities to make the America’s Cup what it is today, but he left an enduring legacy including the finest early chronicle of that event that was ever published. Left: two yachts one trophy. The evolution of 1886 Challenger Galatea to the 1901 defence hopeful Independence (and then to the giant 1903 Reliance with her 64 crew) clearly demonstrates why Nathanael Herreshoff felt it incumbent on him to produce the Universal Rule, which later led to the mighty – yet relatively small by the standards of the time – J Class. Below: the comparative lines of Shamrock II, Independence and Columbia. The biggest problem for Independence, other than her lack of robustness, was the difficulty of controlling her in a seaway; even a cursory look at this simple lines drawing suggests a rig pushed forward to match the extended powerful bow while the centre of effort of the keel is left aft. Lee helm depressing that full bow led to her helm struggling to keep her tracking in a breeze – Crowninshield’s attempt to remedy this by extending the leading edge of the keel seems to have been a case of right idea misguided execution
the 1890s. About 25ft long and sailed by two crew, these boats were designed and built to the loose, restricted design rules of the Seawanhaka International Challenge Cup for Small Yachts, the small-boat alter- native to the America’s Cup. Called Half Raters, inexpensive and
easy to build and modify, they were hotbeds of innovation. Starting out as narrow gaff-rigged keel boats, they soon acquired scow-like features, with light displacement, wide beam extending from bow to stern, flat underbodies and very large sail areas. And they were sailed very differently
from the usual racing boats. One of the most successful scow designers, the Cana- dian CH Duggan, described the theory this way: ‘When inclined, the flat section became the canoe-like form with greatly reduced waterline beam, the waterline
42 SEAHORSE
became elongated both forward and aft giving a sailing length considerably greater than the measured waterline, a symmet - rical waterline plane, and altogether very easy lines.’ Today the direct descendants of those pioneer extreme boats are the famous centreboard inland lake scows of the American interior. These small-boat experiments had an
immediate effect on big-boat design. When Crowninshield designed the 140ft LOA, 90ft LWL scow Independence for Thomas W Lawson, he gave her an unusually long and unusually full forward overhang with a flattish bottom, and other innovations that included a smallish keel and a dinghy- style balanced rudder far aft of that fin. On her first sail, in light conditions and
smooth water, everything appeared to be in order. The boat, noted a reporter, ‘is very quick in getting a move on when starting
under sail, and a fast one in a light breeze’. The good news ended there. Once Inde-
pendence ventured out into more wind and sea, gear started to break. First went the rudder, leaving the boat spinning in a chaotic broach. Meanwhile, the hull’s twisting broke structural struts and braces, the bottom plating shifted, which led to a flood of leaks, and the lee helm was so bad that three men were needed on the steering wheel. Crowninshield, realising the power he had unleashed, trimmed 5ft off the mast and attempted to correct her balance by welding a steel plate to the keel’s leading edge. But no matter who was steering her (and how), if the water was at all rough, that long, full bow dug in and took charge. ‘This great leaping, rushing scow’. ‘A
huge unruly beast’. ‘A half-wild horse with the bit in his teeth’. Those were three descriptions of Independence by the
w
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100
