Introduction and contents

The SailCraft blog was really born years ago, when I realised that no one had tried to tell the story of the racing dinghy and the forces that shaped it.   It’s a complex tale; a web of interaction between factors such as emerging technologies, differences in geography and economies, the physics of wind and water, real estate and liquor laws, the width of an Austin A40 sedan and an English seaside laneway, and changing gender roles. It’s a tale that has spawned many myths, often ones about conservatives stifling development, but where the reality has few such villains and many heroes.*

This is an ideal time to tell this story. The arrival of on-line archives allows us to find information that has been hidden away in ancient newspapers and rare mouldering books. It’s a time when even the shyest dinghy designer can be coaxed into giving priceless nuggets of information over email. Many of the world’s top dinghy creators, including Paul Bieker, Frank and Julian Bethwaite, Ian Bruce, Rob Brown, Steve Clark, Stu Friezer, Mike Jackson, Bruce Kirby, Andrew McDougal, Phil Morrison, Andy Paterson and many more, have been happy to be interviewed for this project.

The same changes in technology have also delayed SailCraft by years. I’ve been waiting for digital publishing to develop to the stage where it can provide images of boat designs and photographs well enough to show intricate details like the hull lines of a Bieker 14, or the workmanship of an Uffa Fox classic. Such technology still isn’t here, and sadly my ability to write well still hasn’t returned, so I have turned to this blog to pass on the information that so many people have helped me to gather.  Many thanks to them and the many other people who have given their time and knowledge in the past, and my apologies for the long delay.

SailCraft comes in three parts. Part 1 is a history of the development of the racing dinghy (and the bigger boats that influenced them) from the 18th century to the present day. Part 2 is an examination of the design principles and philosophies that dinghy designers follow. Part 3 is an examination of individual classes and types and their design and development.

This blog is concentrating on Part 1 at first, starting from the 1700s, when the first racing centreboarders arrived. Part 1 is generally being posted in chronological order, but some out-of-sequence posts will be put up at times. Some sections from Parts 2 and 3 will also be posted out of order at times.

There are still many gaps in the story of the racing dinghy and its design. I would love to hear from anyone who wants to provide any information, comment or corrections.

Chris Thompson

*(and a few heroines, but, sadly, not too many.)


Part 1 – history

1.1  – “The sliding keels that took advantage”: the dawn of the racing centreboarder

1.2 –  “Truly as fast as the wind”: catboats and skimming dishes (minor update 30/9/2016)

1.3 –  “A little too marvelous to be real” – the story of the Una boats

1.4 –  The sandbaggers

1.5- The mysterious history of the sharpie (updated 24/8/16)

1.6 –  The raincoat boat bed and the shoe-shine missionary – the story of the sailing canoes, the first high performance centreboarders

1.7 –  “Skidding over the water” – enter the planing hull

1.8 – “We have written too many obituaries of its victims” – the end of the sandbagger

1.9 – “These little clippers” – from rowing boat to racing dinghy

1.10 – “All built and rigged the same” – the invention of the one design class

1.11 – “Racers in every sense of the word” – the Raters

1.12 – “In every respect a sport suited to our sex” – the women who changed small-boat sailing

1.13- The Seawanhaka Cup 

1.14 – “A radical departure” – the scows

1.15 – Introducing the era of nationalism: dinghy sailing in the early 20th century

1.16 – “Fox hunting”; Uffa, Avenger and the planing dinghy

1.17 – Thunder, Lightning and the Tali Dogang: the classic  racing dinghy and the trapeze.

1.18 – Classic boats through modern eyes.

1.19 – From Kings to bouncing cats – the British development classes

1.20 – the British local classes

1.21- “A great rage for the type” – the first Australian centreboarders

1.22- Painted boats, varnished ships and yellow dogs – the ancestor of the skiffs part 1

1.23 – The skiffs and dinghies of the east coast

1.24 – Fourteens dominant: the early history of southern and Western australian dinghies.

1.26 – Hard chines and one designs.

1.25 – The myths and legends of the 18 Footers

1.26 – “it would be difficult to improve upon them”- the high performance dinghies of the European lakes

1.27 – The sailing scientists of the Renjollen

1.28 – The German one designs

1.29 – Continental drifting – European dinghies to 1945

1.30 – Tuckups and Hikers – the vanished world of the Delaware dinghies

1.31 – “”Of all models and builds”: US one designs 1890-1920

1.32 – “The dinghy centre of the continent”: Canada’s small boats

1.33 – Moths, gangsters and Samuel Pepy’s bathtub – development classes in America

1.34 – the classic US one designs

1.35 – Growing the silver fern: NZ dinghy sailing to 1950

1.36 – A new world of dinghy sailing- the worldwide dinghy explosion (in preparation)

1.37 – Boomtime

1.38 – Boom Boats.

1.39 – Holt and Moore – designing the boom

1.40 “A diabolically ingenious machine” – the Finn

1.41 – Technology, volunteers and the boomtime.

1.42 “This was considered revolutionary” – the Flying Dutchman and the trapeze


1.42 – Southern Lights (under construction)

1.43 – “Now is the time to experiment” – the Contender and the new wave of singlehanders (under construction)

“We just wanted a nice little boat”; the story of the Laser

Laser lines – the shape that launched 200,000 ships


From fizzers to Forty Niner – the production skiff types emerge

 1.50 – What we’re sailing today, 1.0

1.51 – What we’re sailing today, 2.0 – the USA

Part 2 – Design

2.1 – The numbers game

2.2 – Shapes in the liquid: the hull of today’s performance dinghy

Other posts

The real story of Amaryllis and the first racing catamarans


1.43 The 5-Oh

Coronet, the boat that led to one of the world’s great dinghy classes. Coronet carried a large rig, with 16.3sq m (175sq ft) of working sail and a big 18.6sq m (200sq ft) spinnaker.and was often forced to carry an I-14 mainsail and the smaller of her two jibs. There’s often been discussion in the 505s about whether moving the forestay aft (to allow for a spinnaker chute) harms the jib’s efficiency, so it’s interesting to see that Coronet’s larger jib was set from the stem and her smaller jib was originally set 61cm (2ft) back from the bow.

Despite the Flying Dutchman’s selection as the new International two-man dinghy, there were lingering doubts about whether its long, flat shape could handle offshore waves. The IYRU labelled it as an inshore class, and the next year they ran another set of trials at La Baule in France to select a new two-man class for open water sailing.

Once again, the trials attracted a healthy fleet of prototypes and existing classes. Four Canetons and some Caneton developments represented the French. Two FDs represented the Dutch. The British came along with the conventional and overcanvassed but fast 17ft Marianne (designed by Claude Nethercott of Canoe fame), the Osprey, Hornet, the International 14s Thunderbolt and Fleetwing, and Uffa Fox himself on the Jollyboat. An Italian National 18 Footer, carrying two men instead of the normal three and smaller sails, came along as a yardstick. The two FDs in the event ran second and third, proved their seaworthiness, and the “inshore” restriction was removed from the class. But while the FD cemented its international place, the sensation of the contest was a boat called Coronet – the forerunner of the class that remains one of the world’s greatest dinghies.

Coronet was designed by John Westell, a yachting journalist and International 14 designer. Westell was one of those who had input into the FD design, and he sailed the boat while reporting on the first set of trials for Yachts and Yachting magazine. But like many UK sailors, he was a fan of shorter boats and believed that the FD was too stable, long and flat to give the real dinghy “feel”. When the second trials were announced, he decided to create a boat that could appeal to both European fans of long boats, and British fans of small dinghies.

Westell kept the overall length of his new design down to 5.5m (18ft), the shortest length that he felt the Europeans would accept. Instead of trying to create the longest practical waterline, as most designers would do, Westell drew overhangs on the bow and stern to keep the waterline down to 4.7m (15ft 6in) so that “in drifting conditions, the wetted area would be low and permit good speed without an enormous spread of sail.”[1]

Westell’s design was not just lighter, shorter and potentially cheaper than the FD. She was also a different concept. While the FD melded contemporary European and British ideas, the Coronet looked to the future; “convention had been spurned in pursuit of speed and nothing had been allowed to stand in its way” noted Yachting World magazine.  Where the FD was designed for cruisers as well as experts, the Coronet was aimed directly at the ever-increasing ranks of expert sailors spawned by the dinghy boom; “the gap between the top notch crew and the good-but-not-quite-the-best crew is apt to be very marked indeed in this boat” he noted at the time.

Westell also kept the future and the dinghy boom in mind when he drew the 505’s deck layout. He realized that the growth in dinghy sailing meant that rescue facilities were becoming inadequate. At a time when some “senior” classes purposely penalized capsizes by restricting buoyancy, he gave the new design unusually large tanks and transom flaps so she could be righted quickly easily.  While the FD initially used the Tornado sailplan, Westell drew a big and advanced rig with a long spinnaker pole, a complex rotating mast and deep section boom.

Westell’s design also took a leap into the future with its distinctive flared gunwales. Flares were making news in dinghy design around this time. Designers like Uffa Fox and Proctor had always objected to wide gunwales on the grounds of windage and drag. Then in 1948, Canadian I-14 sailor Paul MacLaughlin borrowed the old Uffa Fox 14 “Joyful” for the Prince of Wales Cup and “found that her bow wave threatened to swamp her when it was blowing hard”. MacLaughlin got around the problem by fitting “a pair of what looked like cherub’s wings sprouting from either bow, just below the gunwale; they were about 6 in. wide at the stem and tapered off to about 1’, 2ft from the bow. They were made of plywood and appeared rather flimsy”.

MacLaughlin’s “spray deflectors” were a classic piece of improvisation, and when he performed well people started thinking. Ian Proctor “grudgingly” put wide gunwale strips on 14s after 1952 (he was, he admitted later, wrong to be so reluctant) and in 1953, the innovative Austin Farrar launched the International 14 “Thunderbolt”. She reversed the long trend towards narrow beam by featuring widely-flared gunwales that made her 43cm (17in) wider than her near-sisters. In theory, the flare would keep the boat drier and make hiking easier and more effective. In practice, it didn’t quite work out that way. The leeward flare scooped green water over the leeward rail and into the open cockpit, the windward flare caused windage, and the extra stability tore gear apart. Although Thunderbolt now seems to be an ancestor of all the winged and flared hulls we see in so many classes, in her day she attracted as much criticism as praise.

Thunderbolt, the International 14 that inspired the 505’s flare.

I interviewed Farrar before shortly before he died in 2004, aged 91. Sadly, his memory for his many innovations had faded. He could not recall whether Westell was inspired by Thunderbolt or whether he was just working along parallel lines, but (given the timing and the publicity Thunderbolt attracted), it seemed probable that the 505’s flare was partly inspired by Thunderbolt. (NOTE – since this was written, historian/journalist David Henshall has confirmed that Westell was inspired by Thunderbolt’s flare and given permission to adopt it). But wherever the idea for Coronet’s flare came from, Westell was quite explicit about the reasoning behind the feature; “the deck was built out horizontally beyond the topsides to give an extreme beam of a little more than 6 ft, this giving the crew a long righting lever on a slim hull” he wrote.  The power of the flare allowed Westell to keep the Coronet’s waterline beam down a slender 4ft without destroying her ability to carry sail.

Coronet’s flare was flat-bottomed and angular, lacking the graceful curves of Westell’s later designs.  Some of the first published plans show the reason – under each gunwale was a “hiking seat” which would pivot out to give extra leverage when needed, or swivel back 90 degrees and sit under the flared section when not in use. By the time the trials arrived, the hiking seats had been discarded in favour of the trapeze but the thin flares, reminiscent of the 49er’s solid wings, remained.

A sketch of the Coronet’s sections. From the small-scale fuzzy plans available it appears to have slightly more Veed sections than the 505, but the main difference lies in the flat-bottomed wing-like flare sections. The plans also indicate that the earlier concept included a hiking seat that rotated out from under the flares.

Westell took another step into the future when he drew the Coronet’s lower hull sections. The turn of the bilge was hard by the standards of the day. Then, as the sections reached the waterline and flowed inboard, they gradually straightened out. From BMAX aft, there was a hint of a flat section along the keel line, instead of the distinct Vee that contemporary designs showed along the keel.  The Coronet’s hull did not have the distinctive flat of many modern designs – just a region where the gentle curves of the hull sections arced towards the horizontal (with a minimum deadrise of about 4 degrees), and the keel line almost faded away – but the semi-elliptical sections that Westell drew reduced wetted surface and increased planing lift. It’s a shape that is seen on most modern performance boats, but when Coronet was designed it was almost unknown.  Every earlier dinghy that I can find (apart from scows and sharpies) had a distinct vee section along the keel line; probably a legacy of the limitations of wooden construction, or maybe just an example of designers following an unconscious tradition. There had been a gradual movement towards flatter keel sections in some classes like Int 14s, but even the best 14 of the day (Farrar’s “Windsprite” design, the basis for “Thunderbolt”) still had a deadrise of about 15 degrees. Even the FD, which generally has flatter sections than Coronet, carried more Vee along the keel line than Westell’s design.

Free of the length and mid-beam restrictions of the Int 14 rules, Westell was able to give the Coronet a longer, finer bow with a half angle of around 15 degrees, compared to the 20 degrees of Int 14s of the time. The widest point also moved back lightly, to about 65% aft, in another step towards modern shapes.

It’s been said that Westell gave the Coronet the same stern shape that he’d developed in the 14s. In plan, the stern shows few surprises; just a long run into a transom about three-quarters as wide as the maximum beam. It was a conservative exit by more modern standards, and not too dissimilar to that of a boat like Windsprite, but Coronet’s extra length allowed the buttock lines to be drawn out to a gentler, faster slope. But there was nothing traditional about the rest of the Coronet’s rocker.  Where other boats of her time, like Int 14s and the FD, had deep bows and long flat sterns, Westell’s design had a shallower bow and more curve in the buttocks. This was no accident; “when planing started the rockered keel caused a long length of bow to lift, so once again reducing wetted area and skin friction” Westell wrote.

The trials at La Baule proved that Coronet’s performance was as advanced as her design.  She was almost as fast as the two FDs upwind, and ran away from them on the square runs. The three boats dominated the trials and raced closely together.  Although history sometimes records the trials as a crushing victory for Coronet, the facts disagree. By Westell’s own reckoning, allowing for issues like retirements, Coronet was a mere 69 seconds faster than the best of the FDs in nine hours of racing. “Had speed been the sole consideration” he wrote, “the (selection) Committee would probably not have felt that Coronet’s margin over the Flying Dutchman was great enough to justify recommending another new class.”

Coronet’s obvious quality attracted the members of France’s “Caneton” development class. Seven Canetons and Caneton developments had turned up for the trials. Some had done well, but none of them were in the same class as the FD and Coronet. Like Westell himself, the Caneton sailors came from development backgrounds but were looking to the one design concept as a cure to obsolescence and rising costs, so they asked Westell to modify the Coronet into a one design that would fit within the Caneton class dimensions. Westell was only too happy; “They felt, and I entirely agreed, that 16 ft 6 in (5.05m) was quite long enough for a two-person dinghy” he wrote. “The performance could be at least as good, if not better, than that of a longer boat, while the price must be lower and the general convenience both in and out of the water would be far better”. And so was born the International 505, a boat that many still regard as one of the ultimate racing dinghies.

As many designers have found out to their cost, scaling a design down can turn a brilliant boat into a mediocre one, but the fact that Coronet had been designed with a short waterline length made Westell’s job a comparatively easy one.  “Without altering the underwater body of Coronet, I snubbed the bow back 6 in. and lopped 12 in. from the after overhang” he noted.  He cut the weight down to match the shorter hull by “flaring the topsides out in a curve instead of building the deck out horizontally”, replacing the Coronet’s right-angled flare with the elegant curves that are a trademark of the 505. The 505 shape may not be quite as efficient as the Coronet’s angular shape, because waves can strike the flared-out sections up high, adding drag and cutting speed. Ian Proctor was probably right when he wrote that the 505’s curved flare was less effective in reducing drag and spray than the Coronet’s straighter sections, but the curves made the 505 easier and lighter to build in the technology of the day. Modern designers, freed from structural problems by superior technology, have been able to return to the Coronet style of slab-sided hulls and angular flare or wings. But the Five-Oh’s midsections still inspire modern designers. “If the mid section looks like anything it is a 505 taken to another level” is the way boatbuilder Steve Clark describes the Vanguard Vector, a production skiff type of the ‘90s.

Coronet had used her smaller sails for most of the trials, so it must have been an easy decision to discard the wingmast and reduce the sail area when Westell created the 505. “The lower displacement allowed sail area to be reduced to 150 sq. ft. without any loss of performance” he was to write.  In another look to the future, Westell retained the big spinnaker which set from a pole that was (for the time) extremely long at 2.5m (8ft3in). The 505 was perhaps the first boat that really showed the northern hemisphere the potentia of big spinnakers and long poles. As Westell himself wrote, the long pole held the spinnaker more securely in strong winds, and as early as 1955 he wrote that tacking downwind, at up to 20 degrees from dead downwind, was the norm in 505s (there is proof, incidentally, that it was popular in ocean racers as early as the ’30s). Initially, the 505’s sailplan was quite open in design and even allowed rotating masts if they were included in the measured area, but in a tribute to the success of Westell’s design almost everyone followed his plan and the class moved to a one design rig.

The 505 proved to be one of the few boats that could be reduced in size without being reduced in quality. “In fact, when they later raced together, Coronet was handsomely beaten by the Five-O-Five” wrote Westell…..”She relies for her speed in all wind conditions neither on excessive length nor excessive sail area but on a careful proportioning of everything”. The new class enjoyed the initial boost of adoption by the strong Caneton class (under the name Caneton Rapide) but it very quickly earned International status and outgrew its parent in both reputation and popularity. Paul Elvstrom never left any doubt that he thought the 505 was one of the best boats afloat, and even today top sailors feel the same.  As former world class president Ali Meller notes, “whoever developed the class rules had the wisdom to allow any material to be used in construction, and to allow some development in foils, rigs and control systems. The result was a magical boat that was far ahead of its time in 1954 but continued to develop without obsolescing existing boats.”

“It has everything” says Chris Nicholson, multiple world champ in 505s and 49ers.  “You require a fairly big crew, so that caters for big people, and the small people can steer the boats. It’s a fairly demanding class, it powers up easily enough in light air, and one thing that helps it out so much is all the controls on the rig and centerboard to help it go up and down through the range. At risk of sounding biased, I think it’s one of the best boats I’ve ever sailed on”.




[1] Seacraft, October 1957, p 52

Una reborn


A taste of history and, I think, some Stone’s beer as the reproduction of Una sails at the Small Reach Regatta. Pic supplied by Garry Sherman

Way back at the start of the Sailcraft story, I looked at the tale of Bob Fish’s little catboat Una. Along with her contemporaries, the big schooner America and the sandbagger-type Truant, she caused a sensation in British sailing in the 1850s. Una introduced the beamy catboat type to British waters, where they briefly became a must-have item among the trendy aristocracy as well as many middle-class sailors. Una became so famous that for decades after, “Una” was the standard British term for a mainsail-only rig. She is also the earliest small racing boat for which we have detailed information.

A few years ago, Massachusetts sailor Garry Sherman became fascinated by Una. He steeped himself in her history, built a model, and then started to build a full-size replica from the lines in Dixon Kemp’s “Manual”. Along with an appreciative audience on the Wooden Boat magazine forum, I watched Garry’s beautiful work, which extended to making the patterns for the cast fittings.

Looking at the photos on Garry’s build thread I was struck by the size of the timbers. She was designed in the era of heavy sawn timbers; before boatbuilders honed the art of steaming lighter frames. Looking at her heavy structure, the slack bilges, fine and deep forefoot and the bare foot of freeboard makes one understand why Unas were seen at their best in light winds and flat water.

Amongst the information found by Gary Sherman is this model of Una, presented to the Royal St George Yacht Club by the original owner, the Earl of Mount Charles, in 1853.

In June Garry launched Una, complete with her 1852 sail number. He reported that she floated dead on her lines – an impressive feat considering the lack of information about the details of her construction. On 4 July 2018, the new Una became what must be the only design of the great Bob Fish to sail into the 21st century. A minor structural issue with her mast caused some problems in her inaugural event, the Small Reach Regatta, but overall Garry appears to be understandably delighted with his creation.

The new Una shows off her fine bow and stern lines. Gary Sherman pics


Garry has now celebrated the Una project with a self-published Blurb book. I’m sure he’ll keep in touch as Una stretches her legs and gives us an insight into the state of the art at the dawn of small boat racing.




What we’re sailing today Pt 3 – Germany


One of the most striking things about the German dinghy scene (or should that be Jolle scene?) is the strength of the classic doublehanders – the sort of round-bilge boats with a symmetrical spinnaker and one trapeze that are best known in the form of the 420, 470, 505 and Flying Dutchman. The Korsar, created as a sort of smaller FD in the late ’50s, is still a strong class. Pics from the Segelclub Ville site (above) and https://bootsport.sprenger.de/ (below)


To try to kick this blog back into action, I went back to an old hobby and started counting national championship attendance, to try to track what’s really happening in our sport. This time I’m looking at Germany, one of the powerhouses of the dinghy sailing world. It’s not easy to navigate the German sailing scene, which like every major sailing nation has a unique culture and organisation, but with the aid of Google Translate and a bit of luck it seems that we can get a reasonable picture of what Germans sailors are racing.

As sailing historian Dougal Henshall has also noted, Germany is a land where classic dinghies dominate. If we look at 2017 national titles attendances, the most popular class is the inevitable Opti, with the Europe the third most popular and followed by the Laser Radial, Laser Standard, Laser 4.7 and Contender. The Finn is the 8th most popular class in terms of 2017 national titles attendance, followed by the OK and the Finn’s predecessor, the O-Jolle. Together, these older singlehanders make up 36% of national title entries.

Where Germany really stands out is the love of classic doublehanded dinghies with symmetrical spinnakers and one trapeze. The most popular trapeze boat (and second in the rankings overall) is the ubiquitous 420, but there are strong fleets of Flying Dutchmen as well as local classes inspired by the FD (such as the Korsar and Ixylon), the 470 and the 505. The love for trapeze doublehanders goes all the way down to the 10ft Teeny, probably the world’s smallest trapeze class. Such boats make up 27% of national title entries.

The 5.1m long Ixylon is another classic trap-and-spinnaker doublehander. Like many European boats it was designed for cruising and use in sailing schools as well as racing. The Ixylon is the only class created in the former communist DDR to survive; that fact, together with its lack of pretension, has caused it to be called “the Trabant of the water”. Pic from the class builder’s site.

As in so many other areas, there are few new designs that have achieved significant sales success. The Laser 4.7 (5th most popular class), the little 1983-vintage singlehander Seggerling (11th on the list) and the 29er (16th) are the newest designs (or re-designs) that have achieved significant popularity.  The skiffs and foilers (29er, 49ers, Int 14, Musto Skiff and Moth) make up just under 10% of the national title fleet.

CLASS Crew Type Spinnaker National championship National ranking Notes (see end of page)
Optimist 1 Hiking No 204 703 1
420 2 1 trapeze Sym 131 218
Europe 1 Hiking No 129 135 2
Laser Radial 1 Hiking No 81 249
Laser 1 Hiking No 72 147 3
Laser 4.7 1 Hiking No 64 107
Contender 1 Trapeze No 62 102
Finn 1 Hiking No 60 141
OK 1 Hiking No 57 105
O Jolle 1 Hiking No 54 120
Seggerling 1 Hiking No 53
FD 2 1 trapeze Sym 53 89 4
Korsar 2 1 trapeze Sym 52 89
Ixylon 2 1 trapeze Sym 49 64
29er 2 1 trapeze Assy 41 98
470 2 1 trapeze Sym 40 90 5
Conger 2 Hiking 38 122
505 2 1 trapeze Sym 35 82
Teeny 2 (junior) Hiking Sym 34 83
Pirat 2 Hiking Sym 59 123 6
Moth 1 Foiler No 26 33
H Jolle 2 1 trapeze Sym 22
Vaurien 2 Hiking Sym 21 7
Flying Junior 2 1 trapeze Sym 20 38
49er 2 2 trapeze, wings Assy 15
Taifun 1 Wings No 13 8
12 Sq M Sharpie 2 Hiking No 13 9
Jeton 2 1 trapeze Sym 8 10
Javelin 2 1 trapeze Sym 8 11
J-Jolle 3 Hiking Sym 8 12
49er FX 2 2 trapeze, wings Assy 8
Laser 2 2 1 trapeze Sym 6 13
Musto Skiff 1 1 trapeze, wings Assy 5
Z-Jolle 3 1 trapeze Sym 10
Cadet 2 Hiking Sym 43 79
Int 14 2 Trapeze, wings Assy 16 36 14
Elbe H-Jolle 2 Hiking Sym 15

Schwertzugvogel     2         Hiking              Nil             23                   42

VB Jolle                      2         Hiking              Nil                                     9

The German passion for single-wire symmetrical doublehanders extends all the way to the little Teeny, designed in 1986. At just 3.15m/10.3ft, it seems to be the world’s smallest trapeze class and is slightly more popular than its older rival, the International Cadet. Pic from www3.tsv-schilksee.d
A typical scene at the Alster, a small lake in inner Hamburg. As in many European areas, there is little open ground for dinghy sailors. Here, many dinghies are stored at tiny marinas along the lakefront. This sort of facility encourages sailors to use more stable boats that can easily be stored and rigged on docks. Wiki Commons pic.


In part, this stability is apparently because the german national sailing authority, the   Deutscher Segler Verband (DSV) exerts strong control over the class structure; for example small classes are not allowed to have a national championship. On the other hand, the same tight controls appear to favour the Olympic-stream 9ers, yet they have not overtaken the comparable conventional boats in terms of popularity. The Seggerling home-built singlehander has also apparently managed to achieve popularity without recognition from the DSV or a large commercial builder.

Perhaps the major reason for the strength of the traditional classes is simply that they suit Germany’s conditions so well, both afloat and ashore. Expatriate Australian sailor Andrew Landenberger, an Olympic Tornado silver medallist and Moth world champion, found the downside of newer designs when he tried to introduce the Australian NS14 dinghy to Germany. Andrew’s home club, like many in Germany, had such tight restrictions on dinghy storage space that boats had to be wheeled into the water and tied to the jetty to allow space for others to rig up. The traditional European classes would sit happily on the end of the painter while their sails were hoisted and before and after racing. The fast but tippy Australian boat was too unstable to be moored to the dock, which made it impractical for club racing.

The Schwertzugvogel is one of several northern European designs that is also available in a keel version. Like many other European classes (including the O-Jolle, Finn, and FD it was also designed for camping use and can sleep two people. Pic from the Segel-Club Ville site.

So what can we learn from German dinghy sailing? One is that yet again, we see that there are significant differences between the major sailing nations. No other country has quite Germany’s passion for the classic doublehanded dinghy. On the other hand, as with so many other countries – perhaps all – the most popular segment is the classic hiking singlehanders, and the adoption of new skiff and foiler designs has been very limited.  And perhaps the most important lesson is an old one; local conditions both ashore and afloat will play a major role in a class’ popularity, and not even high performance or heavy promotion can make a type popular if it is is not suited to the local wind, water, culture and facilities.


NOTES TO TABLE – almost all German classes run a Ranking List according to national sailing authority prescriptions. These take into account various regattas during the season. I’m not sure whether the fact that the national title fleets are normally half as big as the ranking list reflects a qualification process, or a coincidence. I use the number of officially-ranked boats; some classes also give information about boats that competed in some ranking events but did not qualify for official rankings for various reasons such as not doing enough events. Some very small classes (Int Canoe, Aquila) have not yet been included but seem to get only a dozen or so boats to championships and in official rankings. 
1- A and B divisions only counted in rankings
2- May include some double counting of Masters and Opens.
3- As above.
4- Over 130 crews compete in ranking events.
5- Combined Swiss/German nationals with Swiss boats excluded.
6- Separate Youth and Master championships. Biggest regatta had 66 boats.
7- Championship fleet total refers to biggest event, not the nationals.
8- Biggest regatta – may not have had enough active boats to run an official nationals. The Taifun is a sailing canoe and it seems that 3 International Canoes also raced a separate series. Details later.
9- German Open – most entries were from the Netherlands.
10- As 13 per note 8
11- As per note 8
12- As per note 8
13- As per note 8
14- Not all ranked boats qualified for official rankings.






Fishy tales

The Sunfish  and its ancestor the Sailfish put more Americans afloat than any other sailboats, and they changed the face of the sport. The Sunfish was created – designed makes it sound too serious – by iceboaters Alex Bryan and Cortlandt Heyniger, would-be iceboat manufacturers who were looking for another product to keep their little woodworking business afloat. Using the plans for a surfing paddleboard that a prospective customer had left behind, they created a unique boat with low freeboard and a low aspect lateen rig from an Old Town canoe.

Bryan and Heyniger’s creation  – first known as the Sailboard, then the Sailfish – was just 36in wide and so basic that it didn’t even have a cockpit, but it was light, simple to rig, fun to sail and cheap. The boat was sold in small numbers as a fully-equipped boat, in kit form or just as a plan. Sales were steady but unspectacular until a staff member of “Life” magazine, then one of the most popular mediums in the USA, chanced to have a ride on one in 1949. She got Life to fun a photo spread on the “World’s Wettest, Sportiest Boat“, the phone in Bryan and Heyniger’s factory rang off the hook, and the Sailfish took off as a beach toy. It was soon followed by a larger version, the Super Sailfish.

From http://www.worldofsunfish.com/


The Sunfish itself was born in the early 1950s, some time after Aileen Shields (daughter of big-boat champ Corny and a national women’s champ) had married Bryan and had got fed up with trying to sail a Sailfish while pregnant.  The company’s first employee, Carl Meinelt, drew out the shape of a beamier Sailfish in the sawdust on the factory floor, and added a cockpit so Aileen Shields Bryan could sit more comfortably. That doodle in the dust was all that was needed to launch 50,000 Sunfish, and many thousands of imitations. By      10,000 Super Sailfish, 5,000 Sailfish and 5,000 Sunfish had been built and the class was growing at 2,500 a year.

Bryant Sunfish.png
Aileen Shields Bryant on one of the boats she inspired. From “Cornelius Shields on Sailing.”

The Sunfish and Sailfish took North American sailing away from the staid yacht clubs and onto the beaches.  They transformed America’s image of sailboats from yachts to beach toys, and created a model for sailing as a mass-participation sport. As Ben Fuller points out, the fiberglass Sunfish’s simple two-piece construction also set the model for later boats like the Laser.

Almost as if to underline its status as a beach toy, the Sunfish didn’t become a racing class until the late 1960s, long after other “boardboats” it had inspired were racing as classes in places as far afield as England and Australia. It seems to have been the first class where the manufacturer supplied big fleets of identical boats for the world titles, setting the model that was to be followed by classes like the Hobie, Laser and Windsurfer.

The Sunfish still hasn’t spread too far afield. “The Sunfish class is not as strong or as competitive as the Laser in North America, but it is more popular in the Caribbean, Central and South America” notes former manufacturer Steve Clark. “The group is quite a bit different, but winning the Sunfish worlds is a serious accomplishment”.


The British Piccolo (top) and Australian Sailfish (below) were just two of the many Sunfish/Sailfish  imitations. Despite its name the Australian Sailfish was quite different from the original. Pic above from “The Dinghy Year Book 1962”, pic below from the Wooden Boat Association of Australia site.


The Sunfish must also have been an inspiration for the even cheaper styrofoam Snark, which sold through department stores. Well over 400,000 Snarks were built, although the construction method apparently meant that many had short lives. They’re slow and tippy, but a poll on one of the world’s most popular sailing websites (Sailing Anarchy) showed that the Snark gave many keen sailors their entry into the sport. The Sunfish was also a yardstick for Jim Drake and Hoyle Schweitzer when they decided to make the Windsurfer in 1969 as a simpler “boardboat” with a greater sensation of speed.

The Sunfish story has an echo in the tale of other popular American boats like the Hobie and the Westsail 32 cruising yacht, which became huge successes after exposure in Life and Time magazines respectively. It chimes in with something I learned when talking to those behind the success of classes like the J/24 and Laser, and reading about the Windsurfer’s early struggle. The enormous size and diversity of the US and its market require a unique approach. The Holt/Moore formula won’t work as well as it did in smaller countries such as the UK and Australia, nor will the European style of creating official national classes. To achieve massive success in the US market seems to require a very nimble approach; one that listens closely to what the customers want, and will be able to react quickly to any stroke of luck that comes along.

The Sunfish still out-sells even the Laser in the USA. “The Sunfish has a bigger recreational market than the Laser, that explains why they sell better” explained Clark, who reckons that it came out on top on objective criteria every time they tested it against modern “beach boats”. Perhaps the boat’s niche is protected by its age; few designers nowadays would be brave enough to create a boat with a lateen rig and yet the low centre of effort and downwind power of such a rig make it a good match for the low, slender hull. The Sunfish is a tale of a lucky marketing break meeting a builder who had a good and innovative product, and who was willing to make it even better.


The Rascal and the Resistance – the Vaurien


The language divide means that the French Vaurien is little known in the English-speaking world, but it was one of the most popular boats in early days of the dinghy boom. Its genesis was linked to the dark days of WW2, when Paul and Helene Viannay became heroes of the French Resistance. After peace arrived, the Viannays searched for a way to maintain the spirit of adventure and fraternite that they had found among the Resistance, and to heal the psychic scars of the war. On the beautiful but rugged Glenans archipelago they founded a very basic holiday camp that evolved into a sailing school. The emphasis was, and still is, on teamwork and adventure; this is not a slick resort style operation driven by profit, but a charity intended to breed cooperation in a challenging sailing environment. Glenans is now the largest sail training organisation in Europe, training more than 14,000 people per year, and it’s credited with playing a major part in democratising and popularising sailing in France.

In the winter of 1951-52, Philippe Viannay sponsored the construction of the first Vaurien. It was designed by Jean-Jacques Herbulot, a two-time Star Olympian and a co-designer of the 9m2 Sharpie, and named after a stray dog he had adopted. “Vaurien” translates as “scamp” or “rascal”, and the name fitted the unpretentious little boat well.  Like so many boats of the early dinghy boom era, the Vaurien was a cheap plywood all-rounder.  “The whole conception of the class was of extreme simplicity and one that would sell at the absolute minimum price” it was said. “And yet the boat had to be tough, a good performer under a sloop rig, suitable for complete beginners and sailing schools, capable of taking an outboard motor and also providing first-class one-design racing.”

420 and Vaurien postcard
Vauriens and a very early 420 at a French sailing school. The 420 largely took over the Vaurien’s role as a two-person trainer.


Although the Vaurien’s “mission statement” was similar to that of boats like the GP14, Enterprise or Snipe,  the French class was very different in two significant ways. One was the unique hull shape. The bottom was flat all the way from the bow to a point about 1.7m (5ft5in) from the transom. From that point to the transom there was a Vee-shaped “dart” in the bottom panel, which allowed the stern to take on a gentle Vee shape to reduce transom drag and the normal tendency of a flat-bottom hull to change balance dramatically depending on heel. The hull was sheeted in 6mm plywood and was light by 1950’s standards at 209lb, allowing a small jib and mainsail of just 87 sq ft to drive the boat along at a satisfactory pace. The rudder and centreboard had efficient high-aspect outlines but were produced from plywood to reduce cost.

After successful trials at Glenans the sailing school ordered a batch of 100 – a huge number for that era. This emphasis on professional batch production, rather than home-built one-offs, marked the Vaurien’s second departure from the other major hard-chine classes of the era. Because the accuracy of the shape of the “dart” had such an effect on the shape and performance of the hull, only licensed professional builders who sold the boats at a stipulated maximum price were allowed to build Vauriens. Fittings, equipment and even the paint was covered by strict one design rules, and only sails could come only from licensed sailmakers.

The Vaurien now has an updated rig. It was this cheap little dinghy and others like it that made sailing a popular sport in France, not the famous professional ocean racing circuit, but it has suffered through competition against newer boats.

The rules forced builders to adopt batch production if they were to make a profit, but the result was an extremely cheap boat. The early Vauriens cost only as much as two standard bicycles, and as late as 1964 a Vaurien was less than half the cost of a Firefly or 420 and the same price as the much smaller Mirror.

The Vaurien put France afloat. Post-war laws required large businesses to run leisure and sporting clubs, which encouraged working and middle class people to look for a sporting outlet. Many of them found it in sailing on the huge sand pits, created by the post-war reconstruction and building boom, that were used to form artificial lakes around places like Paris and Rouen. The Vaurien became the backbone of many new clubs on these lakes. “It is quite remarkable how some clubs have developed on account of the Vaurien” wrote Britain’s Dinghy Year Book in 1964. “The Vaurien has brought into the sport of yachting an enormous number of people who would otherwise probably never have been afloat at all.”  As early as 1956-57 there were 875 Vauriens launched within a year, and by 1964 there were 14,000 Vauriens, making it the Snipe’s rival for the title of the third most popular dinghy in the world.

Two former Vaurien sailors, Philippe Poupon (front, on Fleury Michon VIII) and Eric Tabarly (rear, on Cote d’Or) charging out into the Atlantic on 75ft tris at the start of the 1986 Route de Rhum. Poupon won. Scan from http://www.histoiredeshalfs.com.


Among those who honed their skills in the Vaurien was Eric Tabarly. His win in the 1964 singlehanded transatlantic race was seen as a French victory in an Anglo-Saxon ocean. It  earned Tabarly the Legion D’honneur medal and made singlehanded professional ocean racing into a French passion. English-speaking observers today often believe that the popularity of the sport in France is based on the high profile of pro sailing. French sailors tell me the opposite – that pro sailing relies on the fact that organisations like Glenans and the Vaurien association had already made sailing a popular, egalitarian sport.

The Vaurien is yet another class that was driven by a desire to use sailing as a tool to improve the wider society by attracting new sailors into the sport. The same motivation created such successful classes as the International Cadet, the Mirror, the Optimist and the US branch of the Moth. Given their success, it’s easy to think that boats designed with a clean sheet for such powerful motives may tend to be more successful than those created with the narrow aims of being faster.

The Vaurien started to decline in the 1960s. The hull’s flat sections made it unsuitable for early single-skin ‘glass construction and the accent moved to newer boats like the 420. But although the class is long past its glory days, there are still fleets of Vauriens racing in several countries. The Vaurien may not inspire today’s designers with its shape, but any boat that can sell 36,000 hulls and launch the careers of many of the world’s top pro sailors deserves respect.

Pt 1.42: Moral panics, juvenile delinquents, and the Optimist.

Like the US breed of Moth, the world’s most popular dinghy was inspired by a father who was concerned that idle youth would become caught up in “the rising tide of juvenile delinquency”. In the 1940s, US media such as Life Magazine identified a strange new creature – the “teen-ager”. Changes in education and the economy and the freedom given by cars led commentators to speak of an entirely new species, perched between child and adult.

Articles in Life and Popular Science through the early 1940s are said to have sparked the new concept of the “teenager”.

The newly-identified life form was the target of yet another of the recurring moral panics about Kids These Days. This time the fear was not about alcohol or acid, but about comic books. The new genres of crime and horror comics were ruining teenaged minds, said the experts; if you left it to Beaver he’d turn into a psychopath.

Before TV and computers came along, it was comic books that were going to lead kids to ruin. Here in December 1948, the teenagers of Binghampton in New York set comic books alight to protect and purify their peers. From cbdf.org.

In 1947 Major Clifford McKay of Clearwater in Florida gave a talk to a local service club, the Optimists, about protecting teenagers from “the rising tide of juvenile delinquency”. As Clifford A McKay Jnr wrote in Southwinds magazine many years later, his father looked at the enormous success of the “soapbox derby” and the joy his son had sailing with the local Snipe fleet. Major McKay proposed that the Optimist club should sponsor a class of cheap little sailboats, each subsidised by a local merchant in the same way as the soapbox derby carts.


Building and racing “soapbox” gravity racers was a popular way to keep kids on the streets in the 1940s. Bridgeport Library pic.

McKay asked local boatbuilder Clark Mills to build a simple boat that would cost less than $50. As Clifford A McKay Jnr wrote, Mills created gave the boat a pram bow to keep it short enough to be carved from an 8ft sheet of ply, and a spritsail rig which was more forgiving for amateur sailmakers. He built the boat in a day and a half and had it ready for the Optimist club to adopt at its next meeting.

The Optimist is so pervasive these days that we struggle to stand back and assess the design with clarity.  It’s interesting to see that when it was spreading worldwide at the height of the dinghy boom, it was recognised as the most stable and easily-handled of craft. The British Dinghy Year Book noted that it was “so stable that it is exceedingly difficult for a child to capsize” and “as near foolproof for a child’s first dinghy as it is possible to get”. The stability is obvious, but it’s also noticeable that the centreboard is set further aft than some other prams, which suffer badly from getting caught in irons.

I have to admit that when I first saw an Optimist while I was at a high-performance windsurfer world championship at Lake Garda in Italy, I was appalled. The speed of the boat seemed to be a cruel punishment given the skill with which they were being sailed. It was not until years later, when I saw them being used by beginners in Australia and my own kids started sailing, that I realised how well Mills’ design worked. While my kids and I had seemed to spend hours stuck in irons with the boom whacking our heads or capsized, the Opti kids were just having fun. The beginners found that an Opti was easy to sail, the club found that they were easy to afford, and the future champions found lots of competition in a simple boat. Our club (Dobroyd in Sydney) had Opti sailors who were at the front end of the national fleet, but none of them were the spoiled brats of the stereotype; they loved their little boats and the ease at which they could launch them and through them around for a high wind training session.

State arcjoives of Florida sarasota optimists 1951
Optimist Prams racing in Florida in 1951. The number of early photographs of Optis seems to indicate the wide interest in the tiny boat and some good PR work. State Archives of Florida.

As Clifford McKay Junior wrote many years later, “the dreams and expectations for the Optimist Pram were always large, as large as the boat was small.” Even when only one boat had hit the water, his father was planning a national championship. Fifteen sponsors signed up to the programme in the first week and by November 16th, 1947, a fleet of eight “Optimist Prams” was racing in the warm, calm waters of Clearwater Bay. The fleet grew quickly. Even a disastrous clubhouse fire that destroyed most of the fleet’s boats became a promotional opportunity to launch the class further afield. Within seven years, there were a thousand Optimist Prams racing in Florida alone.

In 1958 Axel Damgaard, a Danish ship captain, saw the Optimist Pram while on a trip to Florida. With Mills’ permission he took the plans to Europe, modified the class rules to allow a more sophisticated sail and fittings, and the Optimist Dinghy was born. In the 1980s, the growing popularity of the International Optimist Dinghy finally killed off the original Optimist Pram class in its home waters.

The Optimist had plenty of competition for the junior sailing sector in its early days. This is one of the few remaining fleets of the National 10/Turnabout, once a very popular junior trainer. With its great beam, a weight of 255lb/116kg and a US Portsmouth Yardstick rating that’s almost identical to an Optimist it would have to be one of the most stable and slowest of all dinghies.

So why did the Optimist catch on so well? It was not the first tiny training pram. Just before the war, The Rudder magazine had published the plans of the Sabot dinghy, which had been modified into the Naples Sabot and the El Toro in California and also adopted in Australia, where it was fitted with a bigger rig. Debate still rages about the merit of the Sabot (which is still popular in California and Australia) and Optimist, although it seems fair to say that the Mills design is slower but easier to handle. The Sabot and its variations was not the Optimist’s only competition – in 1951 it was claimed that over 20,000 examples of the 8ft Sea Shell pram were afloat, and there was at least some class activity. There were also many other junior dinghies, like the little Dutch Pirat (with a flat floor like that of an Optimist, but a conventional bow and a lug rig), the Turnabout and of course the International Cadet.

Sea Shell
Around the time the Optimist was launched it faced competition from classes like the Sea Shell, an 8ft pram that was enormously popular as a rowing and outboard dinghy but took a long while to form a class association. The class is long gone – more evidence, perhaps, that there’s a lot more to maintaining a class than just getting critical mass. Source “The Sailboat Classes of North America”


Perhaps the Optimist succeeded because the class did not splinter into small groups that concentrated only on local sailing, like the various classes derived from the Sabot had; perhaps its success can be seen as the ultimate demonstration that ease of handling and safety attract more sailors than speed.

But like the other classes that sparked off the dinghy boom, in the end the main ingredient of the Optimist was the vision, generosity, and (sorry to say) optimism of those who created the class. Like the other major classes of the time, the Optimist was created to cater to the society in which it lived, rather than as a narrow technical exercise in boat design. From the start, the class was driven by the optimism of volunteers like Major Mackay and his backers. As Clifford McKay Junior wrote, the creation of the Optimist class “was a labor of love. Dad conceived a plan so all kids could sail and promoted the Pram around the state….Clark Mills designed it, built many of the first hulls, and donated the copyright to the Clearwater Optimist Club. The Clearwater Optimist Club with Ernie Green’s tireless leadership spent countless hours with the program, supervising races, working with the boys and girls, and transporting them to regattas….No one received royalties or any remuneration. Dad’s plan worked. It provided inexpensive boats sponsored by merchants for every boy to spend hours and hours on the water, with no time to think about getting into trouble. The goal of these men was that boys and girls could have fun sailing, and grow up to be good citizens . . . and that alone was their reward.”

Although the Sabot pram was popular before the Optimist was created, it splintered into several independent classes. This is the Holdfast Trainer, a South Australian version with more buoyancy,  a jib and a two-kid crew. The class is no longer operating. Pic from The Islander newspaper by Richard Symens.


Most of the information in this post came from the article by Clifford A Mackay Jnr in Southwinds magazine, November 2012.  

Sea Shell information from “The Sailboat Classes of North America” and MotorBoating magazine. In December 1951 the latter claimed that over 20,000 had been built, while Sailboat Classes speaks of    2,500 to 5,000. Since the Sea Shell was sold in kit form as a rowing and outboard dinghy with an optional rigging kit it seems likely that the smaller number referred to the number of kits sold with rigs. The Sea Shell had a class association and seems


Pt 1.41 – Technology, volunteers and the boomtime

While the arrival of new technology played a major role in the postwar growth in dinghy sailing, many older classes such as the Snipe and Lightning kept on growing. Despite the arrival of the new boats, in the early ’60s the Snipe was still the second most popular class in the world, with 14,475 boats. The Lightning (8,700 boats) sat in fifth spot in the popularity rankings. So what kept these older boats popular, in an era when dozens of lighter, simpler and faster classes were emerging?

Part of the success of the older classes was simply that they already had critical mass and a high level of public awareness, but I started reading archives copies of the Snipe class magazine from the late ’40s and early ’50s to find out what else was involved. Coming from an era when dinghy sailors face dwindling fleets and endemic pessimism, going through the Snipe Bulletin’s back numbers was a rather strange and poignant experience. Month after month, the Bulletin spoke of new fleets being formed and new boats being launched by the dozen. There was the same flavour of unconscious optimism that we windsurfers felt in the early to mid 1980s; an assumption that the sport would always keep on growing and that the future would always be bigger better than the present.

It took a while to realise the three important underlying messages that were coming from the words written so long ago by men like Crosby and Wells. The first message was that even in those bountiful years the class’ continuing success wasn’t just the product of its maturity and critical mass meeting the sociological factors that were creating the dinghy boom. Even though the Snipe entered the boomtime as the world’s strongest class, it still relied on the selfless passion of volunteers who were determined to inspire new people to take up the sport and who were prepared to start new fleets, lend the class money to finance technological developments, loan their boats for regattas and do all the other jobs on which the whole sport depends.

Secondly, the class benefited from leaders who were not only champion sailors, but also keen to maintain the class’ low-budget one-design ethos as they steered it through the changes that came with new technology like fibreglass, dacron and alloy. Time and time again one sees that they put the priority on maintaining the competitiveness of old boats. They handled the challenges so well that the new technology made the Snipe more popular and the boats more even, rather than dividing the class into new boats and old ones.

Thirdly, even at the peak of the boom, even the world’s strongest class remained a cottage industry.  Most manufacturers appear to be small operations, and so was the class itself. In the early 1950s the International Snipe association earned about about $3000 per year (about $30,000 in today’s values) and still barely broke even. Much of that income came from generous members, such as the ones who had lent the class $1500 to buy the Snipe’s plans and rights from Rudder magazine, or Well’s gift of royalties from his popular book. In 1951 Crosby, who was still involved in the class, earned just $939 in royalties. In an era in which the richest professional group (self-employed professionals such as doctors) earned $7400 and the median male income was about $3000, Crosby’s royalties would be nice to have but hardly enough to make one rich.

Thanks largely to the good management of volunteers and their skilful handling of new technologies, the Snipe continued its international spread throughout the boomtime. 


The challenges of emerging technology and class growth seem to dominate the Snipe’s history through the early years of the boomtime. In the early ’50s, the Snipe Bulletin reported that the class had an unusual problem – despite the increasing cost of labour and materials, demand for race-worthy new boats was so high that builders could not build the planked mahogany hulls quickly enough, and costs were rising dramatically.

In a complaint that finds many echoes today, it was also noted that many people lacked the skill or work ethic to maintain their planked wooden boats.  “A great many people do not have the time, the place or the skill to do this work themselves, and it is becoming terrifically expensive to hire this work done” lamented the class Bulletin as early as April 1953.

One solution was allowing plywood hulls, which were permitted from the early ’50s. Around the same time, the class took a more innovative step.  Worried that “the development of a fibreglas hull for the Snipe was the only way to keep the Snipe class from gradually dying out as a result of the increased popularity of fibreglas boats” the association started exploring moulded boats as early as 1953: just six years after the first fibreglass racing sailboat, Ray Greene’s Rebel, had hit the water. Considering the strength of the class and the novelty of the technology, it was an impressively far-sighted move. It may also have been significant that the class management turned to the members for feedback and found it almost unanimously in favour.


Snipe hiking
The Brazilian team on their way to Pan American Games victory in 1959. The problem of transporting boats in this era meant that many series used loaner boats. In this series, Conrad and his crew (name TBA) were sailing the boat owned by former world champ Ted Wells but in the last race they proved the strength of the one design ethods by borrowing one of the worst-placed boats and leading until some gear failed. Wells noted that the Brazilians, just 17 years old, trained every day of the year and were so fit that they removed his own hiking straps to allow them to hike with their knees on the gunwale when required. Not too many sailors today can hike like this.


Although the class recognised that Crosby’s shape wasn’t ideal for ‘glass – “the flat sections of a Snipe hull require the use of much thicker fibreglas material than the curved sections of a hull designed specifically for fibreglas” – they took tight control of specifications and moulds and seemed to ensured that the early plastic boats were just as fast as the best timber hulls, but no faster.

The next challenge was synthetic sailcloth, which really hit the scene in the mid ’50s. Sailors knew that cotton sails had major problems. They had to be carefully and gently “stretched in” for hours when new, they could take on permanent stretch if they became wet and the adjustments were not eased, they suffered from mildew, and were so stretchy that top class racers needed specialist sails for light and heavy winds. On the plus side, cotton sails were a well-developed product and if they were well cared for, they could last for ages – Snipe world champ Ted Wells reckoned they had a racing lifespan of 10 to 15 years, which will make those who own many modern sails weep with envy.


Fibreglass Snipe.png
Much to the disgust of fibreglass pioneer Greene, who built the original plug, the Snipe class did not restrict fibreglass builders as long as they followed the tight and extensive specifications.


When sailmakers and top sailors like class president Ted Wells and sailmakers got experience with dacron, they quickly found a significant bonus. The first Dacron sails were no faster than cotton, but the synthetic material’s lower stretch meant that one set could handle the whole wind range, instead of two or three sets as with cotton.

Further experience highlighted other benefits.  “Paradoxically, Dacron has made sailmaking both easier and harder” wrote sailmaker Wally Ross in the magazine of the Lightning class, which was facing the same issues. Sailmaking in cotton could be easier, because the stretchiness and shrinkage often hid a maker’s errors. Dacron’s stability gave no such latitude, wrote Ross; “small errors on cutting do show up and remain in the sail, making Dacron very sensitive to small changes in design”.

Dacron’s reduced stretch didn’t just allow (and require) sailmakers to create better shapes. The synthetic material’s stability also allowed fast sails to be replicated effectively for the first time. “The biggest handicap with cotton was that it required a “breaking in” process which was not at all consistent, and made it impossible to either duplicate a sail, or have it set exactly as designed” wrote Ross. With Dacron “once the correct shape is attained, the finer tolerances and more detailed designs allow the highest degree of duplication.”

Although the advantages of Dacron sails were soon obvious, they were also about 10% more expensive, and threatened to make existing sails obsolete. True to form, the Snipe class showed concern for its members’ pockets and phased in synthetic sails over a few years, first permitting them at club level, then at minor championships and only then at the worlds.

One interesting and apparently surprising result of the new technology was that competition got closer.  Many boats were still kept afloat. Fibreglass hulls, fibreglass sheathing and plywood helped stop the moored boats from leaking and soaking up water, allowing them to compete with their dry-sailed sisters. Alloy spars were less affected by natural material variation and humidity than wooden masts. Dacron’s low and consistent stretch allowed sailmakers to reproduce known winning shapes and therefore make fast sails available to more people. Although the Snipe did not use the emerging technologies to increase speed, the racing got better and owning a boat got cheaper.

Snipe ceremony
Snipe titles were big news. This pic from the Snipe Bulletin shows the blessing of the fleet at a championship in South America. Wells’ account of such regattas show that even by the 1950s, many boats were poorly tuned and there was a huge variation in the standard of fittings. The advent of modern technology made boats more similar and the racing tighter.


One issue that established classes like the Snipe and Lighting could not really address was their weight. By the 1950s, the Snipe was already recognised as a heavy boat, but time and time again the class put the priority on maintaining its one design rules to ensure that the thousands of older boats stayed competitive. The results show that it clearly worked. Snipe Number One was still racing well in 1955, and as late as 1954 Snipe Number 23 was still well up at the national titles.

In truth, the Snipe never really had a choice. As Frank Bethwaite has pointed out, if the Snipe went on a crash diet its heavily rockered, heavily Veed hull would lose too much waterline length, and it would still have too much curve to plane easily.

The weight may actually have helped make the early fibreglass boats compete with the wooden ones. The class’ tight controls on its sail numbering shows that it was still genuinely growing strongly, and the reports from the fleets show that the vast majority were still strong and full of old boats that would have been killed off by a major weight reduction.  Designer and founder Bill Crosby was still actively beating the one design drum by pointing to classes like the Wee Scot, which had hundreds of active boats before it was radically “updated” and then collapsed. As some Snipe sailors said, the class would simply have to accept its weight handicap and concentrate on its strengths. By keeping up with technology but maintaining the competitiveness of old boats, the Snipe maintained its position as one of the world’s most popular boats.

The Snipe’s archives gave me an important lesson. Subconsciously, we may think that it was easier to run a class in those days of growth, optimism and emerging technology. The truth is that even then, the health of the sport relied completely on the time and enthusiasm of volunteers who kept their eye on ensuring affordable sailing for club level sailors.



“”Paradoxically, Dacron has made sailmaking both easier and harder”. ‘Hard Sails’ by Wally Ross, Lighting class yearbook, 1957