No TOm, that would be a replica.. 8) 8) 8)
Technically, if a fraction of the original boat remains, it can be called a restoration. I have a few of my restorations on the show circuit, that compete with a boat (that always wins) that has literally a 12" piece of keel as the only part that's original. This boat is a brand new build, but is considered a 1932 triple cockpit, which burns the hell out of me, but this is the way it is.
I'm surprised they haven't included more of the 1963 Bluenose hull and structure, but as is often the case, it's cheaper and faster to make new then fix, restore and re-install the old. She'll have a large percentage of her old hardware re-installed and things like her wheel, steering gear, plus lots of out of sight stuff, so she's a restoration.
Greetings Craig & Paul,
Ok. That clears it up. Since they are using some of the original parts and fixtures of the first replica of the original Bluenose in the restoration of that original replica, then at the end of the restoration when the replica has been newly rebuilt, we are left with the original replica, the Bluenose II, and not the Bluenose III, which would have been a totally new replica of the original Bluenose, or possibly even a replica of the original replica.
Do you suppose that this time around the newly rebuilt replica Bluenose II will be as fast as the original Bluenose?
Cheers,
Tom
looks fast!!!Â
(11-29-2011, 04:21 PM)tombayus link Wrote: [ -> ]. . . Do you suppose that this time around the newly rebuilt replica Bluenose II will be as fast as the original Bluenose? . . .
The original Bluenose wasn't especially fast (I know I've just been damned to hell by the majority of Canadians), but it was a bit faster then most of the working schooners of her day. She had no chance against the racing schooners of her era, which were 2/3's lighter then she, but she did whip up at the smelly hold races (now being actively cursed into damnation). Will she be faster? Probably not, unless you count fractions of a knot as improvement. She's still a fairly burdensome vessel, though lovely lines and charm (maybe that'll save me from rotting in hell for eternity) she's just a fishing schooner. She was designed to sail exceptionally well, considering her "charge", but also to earn her keep, with a few biggest haul awards to her credit.
She does have my very favorite bow style and on designs I can afford the overhang with, I try to convince folks this is the bow they want. I don't like to clutter them up with a sprit, as I think it spoils the beauty of the shape, but Bluenose is fairly clean in it's original form.
(12-05-2011, 11:18 PM)Paul Riccelli PE,NA link Wrote: [ -> ]She does have my very favorite bow style and on designs I can afford the overhang with, I try to convince folks this is the bow they want. I don't like to clutter them up with a sprit, as I think it spoils the beauty of the shape, but Bluenose is fairly clean in it's original form.
Exactly. The spoon bow looks best bald-headed. A very short sprit is ok, but as soon as the sprit length grows to be a large fraction of the overhang, I think the clipper bow looks better. It is almost as if the spoon bow emphasizes the shape of the hull, and the clipper bow emphasizes the shape of the sail plan. It is an interesting optical effect.
Cheers,
Tom
Bluenose is more then a spoon, it's an "indian head" and was a rule beater back in the day, when racing rules where arranged differently. A spoon can take a sprit, so long as it's not to heavy visually, either from rig or spar dimensions. An indian head is like a spoon, but has a "chin", typically high up on the bow, where the sweep of the curve tightens. Again, back in the day, this chin was lowered as much as the rules would allow, so the hull would pick up waterline length quickly as she heeled over. The high chin versions of this type of bow where called indian heads (I don't know why, though I should).
What I like most about this type of bow is it makes a good clever angle, for tall head seas and dramatically picks up volume when the bow is nearly depressed under, just when you need this the most. It's also lighter for it's stiffness on the same LWL as other long overhang bows, especially over the clipper. Because the chin is high, the boat that wear this sort of bow has to be narrow and sail on their ear. Lastly it has "meat" up high, just where you'll need it for stem head fittings and other gear, while other bow profiles seem to get daintier in this same area.
Okay, there's more then you needed to know about a bow and yet another blatant attempt, to extract my butt from the eternal flames thing mentioned above.
(12-07-2011, 09:31 PM)Paul Riccelli PE,NA link Wrote: [ -> ]The high chin versions of this type of bow where called indian heads (I don't know why, though I should).
I actually remember this one from my reading of the likes of John Leather or Howard Chapelle. The curved chin showed up on a series of schooners by Thomas McManus (who designed many of the Essex half of the Gloucester-Essex rivalry that Bluenose came to dominate), which were named after Indian Chiefs, thus "Indian headed" or indianhead bow. I think they were Pontiac, Oriole, and Arethusa. McManus' Elsie and L.A. Dunton are probably still floating in a museum on the east coast, but I think all of the actual Indians are long gone. I'll have to do some research to see who survives.
Cheers,
Tom