The 225 was the first of Hunt’s famous long, slim boxy designs and immediately proved a success outsailing the popular 6 Metres of the time – not surprising with an all-up displacement of 2,450lb on a length of 35ft and a ballast ratio of 53 per cent…
to a 26 per cent lower centre of gravity and much lower displacement/length ratio. Their heel angles were similar in all conditions. Close-hauled – The 12 Metre is consid-
erably better up to 15kt of breeze. Above that, both have similar speed. Just for fun (Briggs was footing the
bill…) a reduced scaling of the 1010 to about 6,000lb, comparable to a 6 Metre of 10,000lb displacement (with subsequent scaled sail area reductions), shows the small 1010 to be superior both beating and running… in all wind strengths. The 1010 was never built but what an
interesting vessel it would have been, with very light displacement yet low centre of gravity, narrow beam, a separate skeg and rudder with a flat bottom and chines. A true ULDB… in 1940. Briggs Cunningham never built the
Rule. A number of NYYC members and active members of the Royal Yacht Squadron were in favour of a challenge in a large offshore racer with a waterline greater than 65ft. But thoughts of reviving the Cup in any type of vessel soon became moot as in 1939 Britain turned her resources toward survival. In 1955 repre- sentatives from the NYYC made overtures to keep the Cup alive and ultimately peti- tioned the Supreme Court of New York to change two essential stumbling blocks to a renewed competition – the minimum waterline length was lowered to 44ft and no longer did the vessel have to cross the Atlantic on her own bottom. With that the 12 Metre was chosen as a worthy representative for the Cup’s resumption. Back to pre-war (for the USA) yachting
in 1940. Briggs Cunningham, being a sporting fellow, had Ray Hunt draw up a ‘ten’-style sharpie yacht with the stated brief of having comparable speed to the best 12 Metres of the time. The yacht pro- posed would be configured for both cruis- ing and racing (as much as the 12s were) but easier to buy, crew, sail and own. After his previous summer of racing the Twelve Nyala, Cunningham may have been look- ing for a lighter, more nimble vessel, similar in concept to the 225 he owned but with the speed and capability of a Twelve. Briggs and Hunt brought several 3ft-
long versions of the 1010 model to the Stevens Institute in Hoboken NY, which had the finest yacht dynamometry for small model testing of sailing yachts at angles of heel and leeway. The 1010 was proposed to be 55ft in length (Twelves are
65-70ft), 50ft waterline (vs about 45ft for a Twelve), and only 24,000lb displace- ment compared to the 60,000lb 12 Metre. She had nearly plumb ends like the 225, 1,000ft2 of sail (vs the 12 Metre’s 1,800ft2), a raked, L-shaped cast fin similar to the 225. And she had a mere 8ft beam (vs about 12ft for the 12 Metre). Obviously, she would never reasonably
measure in as a 12 Metre, given the penal- ties that would be applied, but the investi- gation was supposedly to determine if this type could be competitive against the com- pletely different hull form and sail area of the conventional Twelve. Yes, apples and oranges but it was
interesting enough to attract the interest of a young Olin Stephens (Ray and Olin were now both emerging as successful designers), who contributed a model of his 12 Metre Nyala for comparison purposes. Olin also suggested a model of his 6 Metre Jill be tested and the 1010 be scaled to 6 Metre size for another comparison. The models were tested at four different
heel angles and a range of speeds. One odd and perhaps typical Hunt blue sky varia- tion was the test where they reversed the keel and tested one of the double-ended models stern first. A discussion of the results is interesting and not entirely as you might intuit. Running – 1010 models were inferior in
light airs to the 12 Metre by about 5 per cent due to their small sail area. Above 15kt of breeze the 1010 became increas- ingly better than the much heavier Twelve. Stability – the 1010 had greater stability per ton, 30 per cent higher than Nyala due
1010 and went on to both fund and skipper the 12 Metre Columbia in the 1958 America’s Cup. After the 1958 Cup races, anticipating another challenge or simply revisiting the concept of a faster 12 Metre-sized yacht, he tested the 1010 again, 18 years after the initial testing. But this time, when tested in an upright condi- tion, the model showed excessive leeway. The programme was shelved with these
disappointing results – until later Ken Davidson at Ray Hunt’s urging took another look at the data and found that due to her chines, if tested heeled, she may well have beaten the 12 Metre. Whether this shows the fallacy of small model test- ing or a breakthrough that never happened is anyone’s guess. Ray Hunt went on to himself design the
beautiful 12 Metre Easterner, which has no characteristics at all of the Ten series! But she is an interesting boat with a some- what unknown potential. She was the finest 12 forward, and despite being too heavily built and after being measured found to have given away waterline length, was occasionally very fast. Olin Stephens considered her poten-
tially the fastest of that year’s crop of 12s but she was hobbled by a crew who weren’t up to the increasing standard of competence and, for reasons unclear, not skippered by her brilliant designer. Hunt was also chosen as the designer for the Nefertiti syndicate several years later but was muscled out by Ted Hood who under- cut the Hunt design with a unique, broad- beamed 12 Metre concept. Many sailors through the ages enjoy the
long and slender type of vessel for the way they swim through the water. The Ten series of yachts took that concept and made it affordable at a time when yachting needed a boost and after the war when returning sailors needed to find joy wherever they could.
SEAHORSE 47
q
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 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110
