BOAT-BUILDING AND DIMENSIONS.
The 'trim built wherry' of song has been improved off the face of the
Thames. Originally it was purely a passenger craft: it contained space
for two or more sitters in the stern, and was fitted for two pair of
sculls or a pair of oars at option. Larger wherries were also built,
'randan' rig (for a pair of oars with a sculler amidships, or three
pairs of sculls at option). Such boats were the passenger craft of the
silent highway before steamers destroyed the watermen's trade. When
match racing came into vogue, wherries began to be constructed for
purely racing purposes; they had but one seat, for the sculler, and were
carried as fine as they could be, at either end, with regard to the surf
which they often had to encounter. Their beam on the waterline was
reduced to a minimum; but at the same time it was necessary, for
mechanical purposes, that the gunwale, at the points where the rowlocks
were placed, should be of sufficient width to enable the sculler to
obtain the necessary leverage and elevation of his sculls. The gunwale
was accordingly flared out wide at these points, above the waterline.
This flared gunwale had nothing to do with the flotation of the boat; it
was in effect nothing more than a wooden outrigger, and it was this
which eventually suggested to the brain of old Harry Clasper the idea of
constructing an iron outrigger, thereby enabling the beam to be reduced,
and at the same time the sculling leverage to be preserved without the
encumbrance of the top hamper of these flared gunwales. Such was the old
wager wherry, and its later development of the wager outrigger.
We have said that the wherry is obsolete. Modern watermen use, for
passenger purposes, a craft called a 'skiff.' She is an improvement on
the 'gig,' a vessel which came into vogue on the Thames for amateur
pleasure purposes about the year 1830. The 'gig' was originally adopted
from naval ideas. She had a flush gunwale, and the rowlocks were placed
on the top of it. So soon as the outrigger came in, oarsmen realised the
advantage to be gained by applying it to the gig, in a modified form.
Half-outrigged gigs became common; they had a reduced beam, and
commanded more speed; they were used for cruising purposes as well as
for racing. Many regattas offered prizes for pair oars with coxswains in
outrigged gigs. Theoretically a gig was supposed to be 'clinker' built,
i.e. each of her timbers were so attached to each other that the lower
edge of each upper timber overlapped the upper edge of the timber below
it, the timbers being 'clincked,' hence the name. 'Carvel' (or caravel)
build is that in which the timbers lie flush to each other, presenting a
smooth surface. This offers less resistance, and before long builders
constructed so-called 'gigs' for racing purposes, which were carvel
built. From this it was but a step to build racing gigs with but two or
even one 'streak' only, i.e. the side of the hull, instead of being
constructed of several planks fastened together, was made of one, or at
most two planks. The ends of the vessel were open--uncanvassed, and in
this respect only was there anything in common with a 'gig' proper.
This system of stealing advantages by tricks of build caused gig races
to be fruitful sources of squabbles, until regatta committees recognised
the importance of laying down conditions as to build when advertising
their races.
To return to gigs proper. This craft did not find the same favour fifty
years ago with the professional classes that it did with amateurs. The
wherry was still adhered to for traffic; but meantime Thames fishermen,
especially those who plied flounder fishery on the upper tideway, used
what is called a skiff; a shorter boat, with as much beam as the largest
wherry, a bluff bow, and flared rowlocks. She was strongly built,
adapted to carry heavy burdens, and, by reason of being shorter, was
easier to turn, and handier for short cruises. A similar class of boat,
but often rougher and more provincial in construction, was to be found
in use at some of the up-river ferries. The wherry, when once under way,
had more speed than the skiff, but when long row-boat voyages ceased in
consequence of the introduction of steamers, the advantage of the skiff
over the wherry was recognised by watermen. Their jobs came down to
ferrying, to taking passengers on board vessels lying in the stream, and
such like work; and for these services speed was not so important as
handiness in turning.
During the last fifteen years the skiff build has found more favour for
pleasure purposes than the gig. The outrigged gig is liable to
entanglement of rowlock in locks, and where craft are crowded, as at
regattas. (It would be a salutary matter if the Thames Conservancy would
peremptorily forbid the presence of any such craft at Henley Regatta.)
Inrigged craft glide off each other when gunwales collide, whereas
outriggers foul rowlocks of other boats, and cause delay and even
accidents. An outrigged gig has two alternative disadvantages, compared
to the skiff build; if she is as narrow at the waterline as the skiff,
her flush gunwale reduces the leverage for oar or scull. If, on the
other hand, she is built to afford full leverage, this entails more beam
on the waterline than in a skiff, the rowlocks of which are raised and
flared above the gunwale. Hence it is that the skiff build is gradually
superseding the once universally popular gig.
A dingey is a short craft, originally designed as a sort of tender to a
yacht, but adopted for pleasure purposes on the Thames for nearly half a
century. It is sometimes built with a flush gunwale like a gig, but more
commonly with flared rowlocks like a skiff, thereby affording the
required leverage for swells, while at the same time reducing the beam
on the waterline.
Besides the above mentioned craft, which are designed to carry at least
two oarsmen (or scullers) and a coxswain, modern boat-builders construct
what are called sculling dingies and gigs, which are fitted with only
one pair of rowlocks, and are intended mainly for occupation by a single
sculler, though they will at a pinch carry sitters both in the stern
sheets and in the bows. They also build sailing gigs and dingies, which
are usually fitted with a 'centreboard,' and are of greater beam than
those specially designed for rowing or sculling; though they can be also
propelled by oars or sculls when required, they are less handy for the
latter purposes, in consequence of their construction for the double
duties of both sailing and oarsmanship. The following are dimensions
commonly adopted by builders, such as Messrs. Salter of Oxford, for
various classes of gigs, dingies, and pleasure skiffs:--
Length. Beam.
Gig, pair-oared, inrigged 22 ft. 3 ft. 9 in.
ditto randan 25 ft. 3 ft. 9 in.
Skiffs, pair-oared 25 ft. 4 ft. 0 in.
ditto 23 ft. 4 ft. 6 in.
ditto 20 ft. 5 ft. 0 in.
The variations in beam being in such vessels designed conversely as
regards the lengths, in order to obtain approximate equivalent of
displacement--
Length. Beam.
Skiffs, randan 26 ft. to 27 ft. 4 ft. 0 in.
ditto 25 ft. 4 ft. 6 in. to 5 ft
Where the beam ranges as high as 5 feet the vessel will carry about four
sitters in the stern. The narrower craft carry about two, sitting
abreast in the stern.
Dingies (inrigged) range from about 12 feet in length with 4 feet beam
to 16 feet in length with about 3 ft. 6 in. beam.
Some dingies are built as short as 9 feet, but they command but little
speed, and are useful only as tenders to larger vessels for the purpose
of going ashore, &c. Their shortness makes them handy to turn, and
compensates in short journeys for their want of speed.
The prices of the various builds enumerated above depend much upon the
materials used, whether oak, mahogany, cedar, or pine; and also upon
length of keel, and upon fittings, such as oars, sculls, cushions,
stern-rails, &c., masts and sails. Figures vary from about 40_l._ for a
best quality randan skiff, all found, to as low as 20_l._ for a gig, and
12_l._ for a dingey, turned out new from the builder's yard.
It is customary to fit all rowing boats such as above described with a
hole in the bow seat, and also in the flooring below, in order to carry
a lug or sprit sail when required; but the shallow draught of such
vessels as are not fitted with centreboards causes them to make a good
deal of leeway and so disables them from sailing near the wind.
Racing boats are generally built of cedar, sometimes of white pine. The
history of the introduction of the various improvements of outriggers,
keelless boats, and sliding seats, has been given in other chapters. We
propose here simply to give a few samples of dimensions of racing boats.
Various builders have various lines, and no exact fixed scale can be
laid down as correct more than another.
_Dimensions of a sculling-boat recently used by Bubear in a sculling
match for the 'Sportsman Challenge Cup,' built by Jack Clasper._
Length 31 ft. 0 in.
Width 0 ft. 11 in.
Depth, amidships 0 ft. 5-3/4 in.
" forward 0 ft. 3-1/2 in.
" sternpost 0 ft. 2-1/4 in.
_Historical Eight-oars (Keelless)._
Length. Beam. Builder.
1. Oxford boat,[9] 1857 54 ft. 0 in. 2 ft. 2-1/2 in. Mat Taylor.
(at No. 3's rowlock)
2. Eton, 1863 57 ft. 0 in. 2 ft. 1 in. Mat Taylor.
Depth at stern 6 in.
3. Radley, 1858 56 ft. 0 in. 2 ft. 0-3/4 in. Sewell,
Depth at stern 7-1/2 in. for King.
4. Oxford, 1878 57 ft. 0 in. 1 ft. 10 in. Swaddell &
Depth at stern 6 in. Winship.
5. Oxford, 1883 58 ft. 0 in. 1 ft. 10-1/2 in. J. Clasper.
Depth at stern 6-1/2 in.
[9] The first keelless eight that won a University match.
These boats are selected because each in its turn won some reputation,
and also because they exemplify the builds of different constructors.
No. 1 was always highly esteemed by those who rowed in her.
No. 2 carried Eton at Henley Regatta from 1863 to 1870 or 1871.
No 3 was eulogised by Mr. T. Egan in 'Bell's Life,' on the occasion of
her _debut_ in the above-mentioned school match _v._ Eton. She retained
a high reputation for several seasons, was once specially borrowed by
Corpus (Oxon) during the summer eights, and was said by that crew to be
a vast improvement on their own ship.
No 4 carried Oxford from 1878 to 1882 inclusive, losing only the match
in 1879, in which year the crew and not the boat were to blame.
No. 5, after one or two trials, was in 1883 found to be faster than No.
4 (which was then getting old!), and in her the Oxonians won a rather
unexpected victory; odds of 3 to 1 being laid against them.
In addition to these builds, the dimensions recorded by the well-known
authority 'Argonaut,' in his standard work on 'Boat Racing,' are here
given. That writer does not commit himself to saying that they are the
_best_, but simply states that they are the 'average dimensions' of
modern racing boats. Unfortunately, the writer cannot trace the
dimensions of the celebrated 'Chester' boat, Mat Taylor's first keelless
_chef-d'[oe]uvre_, but he recollects that her length was only 54 feet;
and her stretchers were built into her and were fixed.
The cost of a racing eight, with all fittings, is about 55_l._ Some
builders will build at as low a price as 50_l._, especially for a crack
crew, or for an important race, because the notoriety of the vessel, if
successful, naturally acts as an advertisement. A four-oar costs 35_l._
to 40_l._; a pair-oar 20_l._ to 25_l._; and a sculling boat 12_l._ We
have known some builders ask 15_l._ for a sculling boat. On the whole,
racing boats are from eight to ten per cent. cheaper nowadays than they
were a quarter of a century ago. Although the introduction of sliding
seats necessarily adds to the expense of making them, competition seems
to have brought down the prices somewhat.
_'Argonaut's' Dimensions of Modern Boats._
+-------------------+---------+-------------------+---------+---------+
| | | Racing Fours | Pair | Sculling|
| | Racing +---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Particulars | Eight | With | Without | Oars | Boats |
| | | Cox. | Cox. | | |
+-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| |ft. in. |ft. in. |ft. in. |ft. in. |ft. in. |
|Length of boat |58 6 |41 0 |40 0 |34 4 |30 0 |
|Breadth (over all) | 2 0 | 1 9 | 1 8 | 1 4-3/8| 1 4[10]|
|Depth, amidships | 1 1-1/2| 1 0-1/2| 1 0 | 0 10-1/2| 0 8-1/2|
| " stem | 0 8 | 0 7-1/4| 0 7-1/2| 0 4-1/4| 0 3-1/2|
| " stern | 0 7-1/4| 0 6-3/4| 0 6-1/2| 0 3-3/4| 0 2-3/4|
|Distance from seat | | | | | |
|to thowl[11] | 0 5 | 0 5 | 0 5 | 0 4-1/2| 0 4 |
|Height of work from| | | | | |
|level of slide | 0 7-3/4| 0 7-3/4| 0 7-3/4| 0 7-1/2| 0 7-1/2|
|Length of slide | 1 4 | 1 4 | 1 4 | 1 5 | 1 5-1/2|
|Length of amidship{| | | | | |
|oars {|12 6 |12 6 |12 6 | -- | -- |
| Buttoned at {| 3 6 | 3 5-1/2| 3 5-1/2| -- | -- |
|Length of bow and{ | | | | | |
|stroke oars { |12 4 |12 4 |12 4 |12 3 | -- |
| Buttoned at { | 3 4-1/2| 3 4-1/2| 3 4-1/2| 3 4 | -- |
|Length of sculls {| -- | -- | -- | -- {|10 0 |
| Buttoned at {| -- | -- | -- | -- {| 2 8 |
|Space between }| | | | | |
|cox.'s thwart and }| | | | | |
|stroke's stretcher}| 1 8 | 1 8 | -- | -- | -- |
|(cox.'s thwart }| | | | | |
|18 inches deep) }| | | | | |
+-------------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
[10] Breadth on boat, 11-1/4 inches.
[11] Measured from front edge of slide to plane of thowl.
The writer thinks, and believes that 'Argonaut' would agree with him,
that these recorded average dimensions could be improved upon in divers
respects, e.g. as to oars, for sliding seats the length 'inboard' should
not be less than 3 ft. 7-1/2 in. to 3 ft. 8 in.; otherwise, when the
oarsman swings back there is not sufficient length of handle to enable
his outside hand to finish square to his chest, and with the elbow well
past the side. The sliding-seat oar requires to be at least 10 inches
longer inboard than the fixed-seat oar, for the above reason; and in
order to counterpoise this extra leverage, it is customary to use blades
an inch wider for slides than for fixed seats, viz. 6 inches wide at the
greatest breadth, instead of 5 inches as of old.
Again, as to distance of the plane of the thowl perpendicularly from
that of the front of the slide when full forward. This should not be
less than 6-1/2 inches, in the writer's opinion, even with a 16-inch
slide. If the oarsman slides nearer than the above to his work, he does
not gain; for much of his force is thus expended in jamming the oar back
against the rowlock, rather than in propelling the boat. He 'feels'
extra resistance, and may accordingly delude himself that he is doing
more work, if the slides close up; but in reality he is wasting his
powers.
In modern racing boats, the men slide too close to their work; and if
any builder will have the courage to set his men further aft than is the
custom (say about 6-1/2 to 7 inches), he will find his ship travel all
the faster.
As to shapes of hull: the earliest Mat Taylor boats have never been
surpassed, in the writer's opinion, and were much faster than the modern
builds. The peculiarity of Mat Taylor's build was that he put his
greatest beam well forward, about No. 3's middle or seat. Such boats
held more 'way' than more modern craft, which are fullest amidships.
Builders of the present day construct as if the only problem which they
had to solve was to force a hole through the water in front of the boat.
This is not all that is necessary in order to get a boat to travel well.
A racing boat leaves a vacuum behind her, and until that is filled she
is sucked back into that vacuum.
A boat built like the half of a split porcupine's quill could enter the
water with the least resistance, but would leave it with the greatest;
in fact, she would not travel at all, because her bluff stern would
create a sudden vacuum behind her, which would retard her progress. This
is a _reductio ad absurdum_, but it shows the effect of having the
greatest beam too far aft. The problem to be solved in designing the
lines of a boat is so to arrange her entry into the water, that what she
displaces in front may with greatest ease flow aft to fill the vacuum
aft which she leaves as she progresses. Otherwise she pushes a heavy
wave in front of her, and drags another behind her. If anyone will watch
the bank as a racing eight passes, noting the level of the water at a
rathole, he will see the level of the stream first rise as the boat
comes nearly abreast of his point of observation. Then, as she passes,
the water will sink, and after she has passed it will rise again higher
than before she neared the spot.
The first rise is caused by the boat pushing a wave in front of her: the
following depression is caused by the vacuum which she is leaving behind
her, and the final rise by the wave which runs behind her to fill her
vacuum. Obviously, the less water the vessel moves the easier she
travels. If by any designing the wave pushed in front could be induced
to run more or less back to the stern, then the second (following) wave
would be more or less reduced in bulk, and the labour would be
proportionately lighter.
The finer the lines taper aft, the easier the front wave displaced finds
its way to the vacuum aft. _Per contra_, the more bluff the midship and
stern sections, the greater the difficulty in filling the vacuum aft.
Builders hamper themselves by adhering to a red-tape idea that all
oarsmen in a boat should be seated at equal distances from each other.
So long as designers adhere to this, they require a good deal of beam
aft, if Nos. 6, 7 and stroke are of anything like average size. Of
course, there must be a minimum of space for each man to reach out in;
but there is no reason why in some of the seats the space should not
exceed this minimum, e.g. to set the first four men at the minimum, and
then to place No. 5 and extra inch past No. 4 and so on, with perhaps
stroke and 7 1-1/2 inches further apart than the forward men, would
enable the builder to attain a greater longitudinal displacement at the
sternmost part of the boat than he would otherwise require to carry his
men. In lieu of this gain, he can then reduce his beam and depth aft,
and so make his lines taper more to the stern.
Mat Taylor built on this principle. Detractors used to laugh sometimes
to see him chalk off his seats, and say, 'A rowlock here--a seat there.'
The fact was, Mat Taylor placed his men, man for man, over the section
of vessel built to carry them, allowing the minimum distance for reach
in all cases, but by no means tying himself down to that distance where
in his opinion the boat required elongating aft. They said he built by
rule of thumb; so, perhaps, he did, but his builds have never been
surpassed. Modern eights travel faster than of old, thanks to sliding
seats and good oarsmanship, but if some of the old lost lines could be
now reproduced, the speedy crews of modern days would be speedier still.
We offer one more illustration to show the effect of having too sudden a
termination to a boat aft of her greatest beam, or of a certain amount
of beam. Let anyone construct two models of racing boat hulls; probably
he will not succeed in making two of equal speed, but such as they are
he can handicap the speedier in his experiment. Let him place the two
models to race, each towed by a line carried over a pulley, with a
weight at the end of the line. The weights which tow the two models can
be adjusted till the two run dead heats.
Then cut off the stern of one of the models, and bulkhead her, say about
coxswain's seat, and let them race once more with the forces which
previously produced a dead heat. The model with a docked stern will have
become the smaller vessel, and will now weigh less. Nevertheless, she
will become decidedly slower than she was before, and will be beaten by
her late duplicate.
In order to do justice to this experiment, the weights should tow at a
pace equivalent to about four miles or more an hour. It will then be
seen that this docked model leaves a whirlpool behind her stern, which
is retarding her. This experiment of course exaggerates the principle of
full afterlines, and their evil, but it may none the less serve to
illustrate the importance of a finer run aft from a point further
forward than amidships. _En passant_, the boat built by Salter of Oxford
for the O.U.B.C. in 1865 may be mentioned; her dimensions are not to be
traced, but she was specially designed to carry the heaviest man (E. F.
Henley) at bow. She was certainly never surpassed by any other boat
which Salter built. She won in 1865. In 1866 a heavier crew were in
training, and the 1865 boat was supposed to be too small. She was not
tried at all at Oxford with the crew. A new boat was built, this time to
carry E. F. Henley at 5. When the crew reached Putney the writer felt
dissatisfied with the movement of the new boat, and persuaded the crew
to try the old one, even though she would be rather too small for them.
They sent for her, and launched for a trial paddle the Monday before the
race; so soon as they had rowed a dozen strokes in her they stopped, and
declared she was the only light boat they had felt that season. They
rowed the race in her, and won, and never took the trouble to set foot
again in the new and rejected boat.
This victorious boat was then bought by the Oxford Etonians. They won
the Grand Challenge of 1866 and 1867 in her, took her to Paris, and
there won the eight-oared race at the International Regatta. She was
sold and left behind in Paris. The writer suspects that her undeniable
speed was mainly owing to the fact that Salter designed some extra
displacement at No. 3, in order to carry E. F. Henley at that seat.
[Illustration: 'POETRY.']