Topic : Duplicate boat names?

Rule 20 states that no duplication of names is permitted. However, a quick scan down the 2005 year book names index shows several duplicates.

My Merlin, 3420, is registered with the RYA as 'Hangover', a name I now see it shares with 1463. According to the year books 3420s original 1989 name was 'Fester Bestertester', being changed in 1994/1995.

Can I leave 3420 with the name 'Hangover' or should I register the original (or a new) unique name with the MROA and RYA?

Posted: 31/10/2005 12:59:35
By: Nick3420
Its OK if the other boat has since changed their name. I think the yearbook lists original names in one of the lists, so its hard to guage if that name still applies.

Don't go back to 'Fester Bestertester' though....

Posted: 31/10/2005 13:31:37
By: Mags
I seem to remember that the original Hangover was one of the batch of Adur boats that did not measure and were out of class.  So you should be OK with the name now!

Posted: 31/10/2005 17:53:58
By: JC
1463 Hangover was ruled out of class.

Posted: 01/11/2005 10:16:32
By: Tony Lane
Why were they out of class?

Posted: 01/11/2005 10:55:41
By: curious
It was all over the interpretation of the word 'girth'
Hugh Gawthorp was the SMYC measurer at the time and his and the builder, Adur Boatyards, understanding of the word girth was the distance round the boat. However thhe Merlin Rocket committee of the time thought it was the distance across the boat. Look up the dictonary and see who you think was correct. I dont have an old rule book to look up the old rule but I m sure that someone has one.

Posted: 01/11/2005 11:49:36
By: Barry Dunning
The original Hangover was bought new by a friend and fellow member of the Arun Yacht Club - Francis Boff.  It was the first new Merlin he had ever bought!  It was built by Adur Boatyard who made a batch that did not measure somewhere in the hull, I can't remember where.  Needless to say there was a row but the long and the short of it was that they were declared out of class.  I don't think the owners got any compensation - but I might be wrong.

Posted: 01/11/2005 11:51:56
By: JC
On this subject if nothing else I probably know as much as most.
It was my New Merlin Rocket 1473 (And Adur 6) that was found to be out of class upon measurement by Robin Fowler, frantic telephone calls to Robet Harris who had the next boat off the mould to come, Geoffry Saffery-Cooper and God knows who else, followed by a Saturday morning visit to the Saffery-Coopers to check things and onwards to the Adur Boatyard. Where we were as welcome as influenza! They measured the boat in the incorrect way as girth rather than rise of floor which if measured their way was no control at all! The RYA withdrew the certificates of the existing boats and as it turned out the Adur boats all had very deep keels (Back to BD's ideas!) which if planed down meant that it was (whilst significant) not a major alteration. I had another Design a Surf Scoter built by Nick Truman nd Robert Harris stuck with Adur. I know I did not get my money back from Adur, and I dimly remember that the existing Adurs were replaced by new hulls at a reduced cost by Adur, owners involved were certainly Tom Lance, and Chris Andrews and I think Frank Warren plus others of course. I know that the wisdom of John Stokes and the deep ockets of Adrian Legg and my Father did help but the RYA who had issued the certificates were running scared of their potential liabilities, I have the letters from Nigel Hacking in my archive. It all blew over the new boats were succesful and Adur built quite a few of them. They were strongly built and most that did well had been finished by their owners in some respect!

Posted: 01/11/2005 13:37:58
By: David Child
David is quite right about the rise of floor. The Mark 6's were considerably narrower at the measurement point for the rise of floor. Alan Warren (who was on the committee at the time)and I borrowed Chris Andrews boat and went to Ranalagh to be protested. I do know that Hugh Gawthorp resigned and Adurs never recovered from the financial implications of the debacle.
The rise of floor rule was changed to take out the ambiguity.

Posted: 01/11/2005 14:52:16
By: Barry Dunning

Many thanks for the very interesting history.

You mention the original 'out of class' Adur6 hulls were replaced.
Do you know if 1463's hull was replaced/modified, or is it still out of class?

Posted: 01/11/2005 19:36:42
By: Nick3420
The citificates were withdrawn and the boats were not capable of modification.

Posted: 02/11/2005 08:35:49
By: David Child
I was the original owner of 1463 Hangover,as everybody says it was the rise in floor measurement.As you can imagine to a poor young man it was more than quite a shock, Adur built me a new hull 1548 and I transfered all the fittings across. There was no compensation and as I remember the new hull although marginally cheaper than the orignal was not that much cheaper. Adur never recovered but somebody at SMYC probably knows the exact facts.The hull of 1463 lay in my father's garage for a year or so and then his gardener bid me £5 for it and away it went.Sounds a silly price now but it  bought a reasonable amount of beer in those days.I did hear a couple of years later that it was back in class and sailing but no proof.
If any knows the whereabouts of 1548 love to hear.
Francis Boff

Posted: 02/11/2005 09:23:17
By: hangover
The boats put out of class because of this measurement misunderstanding were:
1342 Sundowner, 1362 High Society, 1384 Tomfoolery, 1385 Paddy Wack, 1404 Quaver,
1463 Hangover, 1473 Success Or, 1475, 1481 Shindig, and 1494.

Posted: 02/11/2005 11:16:46
By: Tony Lane
The real problem that everyone wrestled with (And thus conciences.) was that the rule actualy said how the measurement was to be taken 1/2 of length ie mid way, 9" down 3'11" beam and the tape was merely to even ot the effects of a clinker hull, this by the by was why the Hoare Proctor 9 was narrower because Bob ensured a land was where the measurement was taken! Didn't seem to make it any faster though.

Posted: 02/11/2005 13:00:26
By: David Child
If it will help to avoid any further argument over a 43 year old misunderstanding, I can confirm that, at the time the Adur 6 design boats were built, extracts from the measurement and construction rules said:
1 Hull
(b) Beam is to be measured to the outside of the skin:
(1) At widest point it is not to be less than 4 feet 8 inches.
(11) At mid-length 9 inches above bottom of keel band it is not to be less than 3 feet 10 inches. In measuring this, the skin girth is to be used. A thin steel tape is to be stretched over the plank edges on the outside, and measurements taken to this tape.
(d) Depth at mid-length is to be not less than 1 foot 9 inches measured vertically from sheer line to inside of planking 6 inches from the fore and aft centre line of boat. The depth of the transom vertically from sheer line to garboard seam is to be not less than 11 inches. Sheer line is to be taken as the top of the deck or gunwhale at side. However, provided that the the side decks are nowhere less than 9 inches in horizontal or plan width, the above depth measurement may be reduced to 1 foot 8 inches and 10 inches respectively.

Posted: 03/11/2005 15:55:43
By: Tony Lane
I an indebted to Tony for the correction on the beam though after 40+ and without notes not bad! Seems pretty clear to me.

Posted: 04/11/2005 12:04:45
By: David Child
Thanks for a fascinating insight into a problem that I heard talked about at the time but never really understood

Posted: 04/11/2005 13:32:16
By: very young at the time
I can remember Tom lance grumbing about it at the time, but slso didn't really understand

Posted: 23/01/2013 01:14:08
By: also too young at the time
Only just found this thread - very interesting. On checking 2012 Year Book 1385 & 1475 are still listed and are not in the "out of class" section.

Posted: 23/01/2013 08:28:44
By: Mike Liggett
Knowing that this was one of the great 'hot potatoes' of the class, I've spent a long time researching it and I hope now that the definitive 'version' will appear in the MR book.  One of the boats declared out of class had an interesting future! As the story was recounted to me, an impoverished MR sailor got hold of one of the 'new' but out of class hulls, took it to the beach and filled it full of best sussex shingle. The boat spent a winter, just sat on the beach and 'topped' up, the following spring the shingle and stones wre shovelled out, the boat turned over and hey presto, it measured and sailed again!
Sadly, this is one of the stories that has at this point only one source so will not be 'in' - unless someone can corroberate (or deny) that this happened!

Pure Magic, 70 years of the Merlin Rocket

Posted: 23/01/2013 09:08:50
By: David Henshall
Interestingly 1385 is now called 'Just-In' and as Mike says has not been removed from the list of boats. This suggests to me that, at some point, the boat was modified to fit within the class rules and remeasured.

Does anyone know anything about this?

Posted: 23/01/2013 09:44:30
By: Jez3719
Jez.... could this be the boat referred to in my earlier posting?


Posted: 23/01/2013 09:51:39
By: David Henshall
It could well be David. There is another one which has not been removed but that does not have such a compelling name. 1475 - Flimsy.

I have asked the RYA for certificates to see if anything comes back.

Posted: 23/01/2013 10:27:51
By: Jez3719
As David has written my Adur 6 was being built when David's boat was declared out of class. 

I remember arguing with Stewart Morris and ex-champion Jimmy Ledwith at the CCPR Dinghy Show that the reference to a thin steel tape in the old rule was potentially misleading. Nobody agreed with me but nevertheless the rule was amended.

Unlike David my outcome with Adur was good, they invited me down to Shoreham and showed me the Adur 6 hull, and a hull built to the amended rule. I chose that one one which became the first of the successful Adur 7s

I do wonder many other boats might have been measured the same way as the the Adur 6s before the rule was changed..

Posted: 23/01/2013 15:08:24
By: Robert Harris
Presumably the incorrect measurement was simply measuring the length of the steel tape rather than taking the beam measurement from it?

Posted: 23/01/2013 15:40:30
By: Andrew M
I believe that's correct.

Posted: 23/01/2013 17:44:45
By: Robert Harris
That was certainly the way The Adur Boatyard demonstrated their way of measuring the rise of floor, when we took the boat to them on the Saturday, my father took some pictures of them doing it, which I guess I could find as he never threw negatives away. If that is of any interest, after so long and an unhappy period in the life of the class.

Posted: 23/01/2013 17:51:35
By: David Child
The class measurer, Huw Gawthorp was the real victim of this debacle. He interpreted the original 'rise of floor' rules correctly in many peoples opinion. The MR Committee changed the rules to cover the developement that Adur boatyard were exploiting. Hugh resigned, his health declined and he sadly passed away two years later. Adur Boatyard never made a profit again and closed down the next year. All very sad.

Posted: 24/01/2013 09:43:35
By: Barry Dunning
1385 was owned by Paddy Wilcocks of Lancing sailing club and during the winter he had the boat in his garage to split the land at the illegal point on both sides . He then forced the hull out by , I think ,putting the boat on it's side and , using a 4x2 to support it ,pushed the land out and then re-glued it .It measured although there was a suspicion that the hull was slightly asymetrical .

Barry Dunning was young at the time and he is not quite correct to say that Adur boat-yard closed because of the controversy . I bought 1934 , an Adur 7.5 ( half way between the 8 and the 7 )in 1966 . The real reason for the closure was the death , suddenly , of Neville Brookes . George Deadman , his partner found it impossible to build boats single -handed !

Posted: 24/01/2013 11:34:10
By: Former Whitstable Pro
Your quite right Alan, I was young in 1966 but my facts about Huw and the measuring are accurate. Adur certainly did not recover from the cost of the measurement problem and with Nevilles's demise that was the end. 1385 certainly went faster on one tack than the other. Good to hear from you.

Posted: 24/01/2013 11:56:02
By: Barry Dunning
Yes of course because I bought 1888 in 1966/7. She was an Adur 8 and sadly not as quick as my Adur 7

Posted: 24/01/2013 12:48:39
By: Robert Harris
So 1385 could well still be in existance and class legal then. What about 1475? Any ideas?

Posted: 24/01/2013 16:04:47
By: Jez3719
Re 1475 Since 1473 was the boat found out of class, I wonder if she ever had a certificate? I know the RYA flatly refused to let me keep the sail number.

Posted: 24/01/2013 16:52:06
By: David Child
You may all be interested to know that the RYA do have certificates for 1385 and 1475 so they were clearly measured within the rules at some point. I have requested copies to see if I can find anything more out about them.

Posted: 14/02/2013 10:21:56
By: Jez3719


To Reply, please join/renew membership.

Owners Association

Developed & Supported by YorkSoft Ltd


Merlin Rocket Owners Association