The Washington times., 1903-01-30
BIG YACHT MAY HAVE
REACHED SPEED LIMIT
British Authority Dissects
the Two ShamroCks.
TANK TRIALS ARE VALUELESS
Such Experiments Afford No Opportu-
nifty to Test Weather Qualities.
a Necessary Adjunct,

nifty to Test Weather Qualities.
a Necessary Adjunct.
There has been such diversity Of
opinion as to whether yacht building for
/ cup racing has reached its limit that the
pertinent criticism Of the London
/ Field" aRent the subject viii be of much
/ interest to yachtsmen, inasmuch as it
/ deals principally with the development
/ Of the Shamrocks:
Il IS because a smaller section Of the
/ public take an interest IN yachting than
/ in other national past mes that when
I some event OF unusual Importance is
about to take place, such as a match for
/ the Americas Cup. all sorts OF extrava-
. giant reports are promulgated relating to
! the probable speed and extraordinary de
! veIopment of the yachts
No Limit to Credulity.
/ There seems to be no limit 10 the cred
ulity of the public IN matters connected
/ with the races for the Americas Cup.
/ When Shamrock I vas built on the
] Thames from Flies lines the papers
/ we're flooded with fragrant reports of her
+ speed. and. even though she had never
/ been tried. there was q current belief
+ that she was the most perfect racing
yacht ever launched.
/ Then when it came 10 the construc-
/ lion of Shamrock II on the Clyde we
/ were repeatedly assured that Mr.. Wat
/ long before she left the stocks. It was
| also reported that her construction was
something quite out Of the common
Reasons for these assertions were
/ freely quoted Had not the builders made
eleven models, with no less than sixty
! four alterations in orGer to obtain the
best form to drive through the waterg
The models were cut in wax and tried
in an experimental tank Surely. after
such q departure, Shamrock II must be
the most wonderful OF yachts.
Mystery of Construction.
The mystery of her special construc-
ton was not quite so easy to explain. but
its very secrecy seemed 10 convince the
public that the builders had something
up their sleeve which would make the
boat far superior to any ordinary racing
vessel.
Shcrn Of her enigma ticaI surround
I1ngs, however, level headed yachting
men saw in Shamrock II q very ordinary
development OF the cup yacht built to
suit the old New York Yacht Club rule
Her form, like the form OF all Watson-s
boats. was shapely, but so far as the
tank experiments went We believe them
10 have been practically worthless
Tank experiments. or at any rate
those such as were tried upon the much
talked Of models. revealed nothing as
regards the weatherly qualities Of the
yacht, and as these qualities alone are
the life and soul Of a racing vessel /
unless We can develop them by means OF ,
. the models. series OF experiments in /
a special tank are merely wasted energy. +
Framework of Yacht.
Certainly the framework and plating /
Of the vessel. although carried out sub /
silentio. was nothing out Of the com /
mon, and during her briet career sham (
rock II sometimes suffered from the /
Ioosening of rfvets
With regard TO the speed Of Shamrock /
II. her actual trials with Shamrock 7 /
showed that the reports Of her sailing
were often grossly exaggerated she
was eventually, perhaps. a little faster /
than the Fife boat, although when tried
in Weymouth Bay the latter won on all /
points of sailing. IN the event itself in /
American waters she went remarkably
we'll, but Columbia was the better 10
windWard in a nice breeze
Interesting Comments.
c F. Herreshoff. who was living near
Dumbarton when Shamrocs II was built.
makes some interesting and Instructive
comments upon the designs Of the two
Shamrocks. He remarks that il is GER
taiuly a coincidence that the pair should
have been 50 evenly matched, as in de-
sign they were as widely different as fl
is possible 10 make two boats of The
same type He asserts that the form OF
Shamrock ! was the result Of years Of
thought and experience. while that of
Shamrock II was the outcome Of the
tank experiments.
Whether or not c. F HerresboG is
right in this assertion. il IS. Of course.
impossible 10 say. but the principal
points Of difference In the designs lc
correctly illustrates by means o.
sketches. showing that. firstly. Shamrock
II carried her center OF bgoyancy much
further forward than the Fife boat: sec
ondIy She had a shorter I'm; thirdly.
she had fuller water lines forward and
finer aft. Shamrock II also had more
rake to her stern post than Shamrock 7.
There is also a further reference 10
the poor composition metal used in the
construction of the Shamrock II and the J
proba pie composition Of the plating Of
the Shamrock III
DisIocated Her Shoulder,