Dinghy Identification - Help

Hi All,

Been in touch with National 18 Class and it is not a National 18.

So the hunt goes on.

Kind regards,
Huw

Originally posted by osprey Hi All,Reasons thought <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">not </span>too be an Osprey are:- The boat in the pictures appears to have a deck stepped mast The stern deck looks not large enough and does not form an enclosed rear bouyancy tank The side decks do not form an enclosed side bouyancy chamberTo the best of the class knowledge no Osprey has had any of these attributes. But we are willing to be educated and learn of a long lost form of Osprey.My current own thought is a National 18.Kind regards,HuwWebmaster Osprey Class Websitewww.ospreysailing.org.uk/">www.ospreysailing.org

And since from the start of the Osprey class having lots of buoyancy was
seen as a major plus for the design, it would seem unlikely that anyone
built an Osprey without the buoyancy.

Then again, stranger things.....

And Huw, while you're here;

1) The Osprey's own designer denied, in print, that the trapeze was
developed for the Osprey which your site claims it may have been. Apart
from that, it was well known in 14s and Singapore beforehand.

2) The Osprey did NOT beat the FD in the IYRU trials. In fact it didn't even
come close to the FD which was an overwhelming victor in the first trials.

Why not take these false claims down from your site?

Don't say Y & Y are repeating that line of complete cobblers!

In the first trials ('52) the FD scored 4,5,2,7*,3,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1. The 7th
place came when the boat was sailed by another crew.

The Osprey scored 5,6,7,1,8,3,4,9,2,5,3,3,6,4.

Clear victory on both placings and elapsed time to the FD.Osprey wasn't
even in the top 3 on total elapsed time. Osprey beat FD just once, when
the FD was sailed by a new crew. Even when the FD had a small jib and no
trap, it beat Osprey comfortably in the trials.

In many ways, of course, this is not important. The Osprey had, and still
has, many advantages over the FD. But false claims in advertising and
promotion are annoying.

And on a wider note, it seems bad for the sport for classes to imply for
years that the governing body's exhaustive trials got it wrong. We should
know that proper trials get the correct result (FD WAS faster than
the Osprey in the trials, which years of yardsticks confirm) and therefore
we should be able to protest when we see things like the cruddy pseudo-
trials ISAF foisted on us with the problem-ridden RS-X.

I can see ISAF's point of view, though. Even when they ran two exhaustive
sets of trials, the Osprey and 505 class continue to spin BS in their promo
material years later, implying ISAF was wrong in their selection. If ISAF get
no credit for doing the right thing in the trials format, they may as well do
the wrong thing.

The true reason to raise it, of course, is that I'm a petty-minded, pedantic
time-wasting anorak who wants other people to suffer too!


Edited by Chris 249

Originally posted by Chris 249 Don't say Y & Y are repeating that line of complete cobblers!

As someone who has spent a day trawling through Y&Ys archives and failed to get all the data he was looking for I can sympathise if they are tempted to repeat what is widely stated rather than going back to the primary source if its just a sideline rather than part of the focus of the article.

If you're genuinely doing a historic piece of course there's no excuse, you have to do the research. However I can't even find the Torbole report from the 49er trials, and there are plenty of myths building up around that...

The Osprey web site has been updated to reflect information provide in this thread.

Kind regards,
Huw