New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-11-22
YACHTING.
SCHooNERs MAY RACE FOR THE CUP.
THE NEW Upton CHALLENGER LIKELY TO
BE A TWO MASTER

BE TWO MASTER
Glasgow. Nov 21.-It is now regarded here
as a certainty that the next Cup challenger will
be schooner and that she will be designed by
F. L. Watson for Sir Thomas Upton. The
challenge which names this schooner will be for
a race in 1901
The news that Sir Thomas Upton would chal-
lenge with schooner for 1901 created no surprise
among New-York yachtsmen yesterday The ad-
vantages accrung 10 challenger from the other
side OF the ocean In having two masted vessel
built 10 sail for the Cup fully discussed when
c. L. Orr-Ewing was expected to challenge with
his schooner Rainbow. which was designed by
Watson about three years age. In putting In
challenges for the Americas Cup single masted yes
sells are limited to ninety foot waterne length
while schooners limited to rs feet in this d.
mension. AS the water line length OF the Rain
bow was exactly at the limit allowed by the deed
OF gift II regarded as highly probable that
the owner intended to challenge with the new
vessel. No challenge arrived. but II Is not DOUBTED
that Watson was experimenting with a new vessel
that had all the requisite dimensions for cup
schooner racing At that time It threw damper
on local hopes when Clinton Crane returned from
Scotland and said that the planking OF the RAINBOW
was three inches thick, according to his own meas
Tribune. showed that the Orr-Exng schooner was
not intended for the Americas Cup, as she would
her a hope OF winning against light metal cratt
such the Herreshoffs have turned out In the
Defender and subsequently in the Columbia MI
Orr-Ewing has determined to take the Rainbow
out OF the racing field.
1t is thought that one reason Sir Thomas Upton
has decided schooner Is that he expects the
defending vessel to be more solidly built and 10
contain proportonately more weight than cutter.
This. It has been said, might be expected to equal
ize things more when the challenging vessel has to
have a good deal Of material In her 10 give
her strength TO cross the ocean. There may De
something in this superstition, though 1t also seems
reasonable to expect that the builder OF the ue-
Tending schooner will economic In upper surplus
weight as much in proportion as with a cutter
Some people have asked why the Columbia could
not be used to oppose the challenging schooner.
AS TO this II may pe said that the Columbia Is
limited. as a single masted vessel to ninety-loot
waterline. while the schooner waterine MAJ, pe
1l5 feet But schooners race az 81 per cent OF Ine
racing length while cutters sail at their tull meas
urement. The Columbia's racing length is lyL.l2so;
and II the schooners racing length in reality snou
be saw l25 feet she would sail at - per cent 0i
this and the difference in racing lengtn 10 De Pau
for in time allowance by her would then De Iess td
three feet On the other hand she would ENJOY sle
advantage OF waterline that was over t"en.y-nA
feet longer than that Of the Columbia an au
vantage that ought to be worth much more t"di
the time allowance. especially In fresh preeles; In
this view the tenant club might not care 10 tahe
the risk OF defending with cutter.