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.
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.
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!
1463 Hangover was ruled out of class.
Why were they out of class?
It was all over the interpretation of the word 'girth'
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.
On this subject if nothing else I probably know as much as most.
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The citificates were withdrawn and the boats were not capable of modification.
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.
The boats put out of class because of this measurement misunderstanding were:
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.
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:
I an indebted to Tony for the correction on the beam though after 40+ and without notes not bad! Seems pretty clear to me.
very young at the time
Thanks for a fascinating insight into a problem that I heard talked about at the time but never really understood
also too young at the time
I can remember Tom lance grumbing about it at the time, but slso didn't really understand
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.
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!
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.
Jez.... could this be the boat referred to in my earlier posting?
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.
As David has written my Adur 6 was being built when David's boat was declared out of class.
Presumably the incorrect measurement was simply measuring the length of the steel tape rather than taking the beam measurement from it?
I believe that's correct.
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.
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.
Former Whitstable Pro
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 .
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.
Yes of course because I bought 1888 in 1966/7. She was an Adur 8 and sadly not as quick as my Adur 7
So 1385 could well still be in existance and class legal then. What about 1475? Any ideas?
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.
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.