Talk:Scampi 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incorrect statement[edit]

The statement that the Scampi 30 "was built by several companies, including the Yamaha Corporation in Japan, as the Yamaha 30" is incorrect. Notwithstanding that this statement is not supported by citation, a review of both boat's dimensions (https://sailboatdata.com/sailboat/scampi-30-4 and https://sailboatdata.com/sailboat/yamaha-30-1) clearly indicate dimensions which are unique to each boat. As dimensions define a boat's design, the boats are NOT the same. Boltguy (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consideration shoud be made to remove the second part of this statement: "...was built by several companies, including the Yamaha Corporation in Japan, as the Yamaha 30". There is no citeable reference that Yamaha's version of the Scampi was marketed as the Yamaha 30. Notwithstanding that the dimensions of these 2 unique boats are clearly different, the statement on https://sailboatdata.com/sailboat/yamaha-30-1 states: It is thought that the YAMAHA-30 is based on the Norlin designed SCAMPI MKIII. "thought" constitutes neither fact nor something which is verifiable.
It is suggested that the statement refering to production by Yamaha should be edited to remove "..., as the Yamaha 30" Boltguy (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ref says more definitively The third version of the SCAMPI was built by a number of firms around the world. (In Japan as the YAMAHA-30). Do you have a ref that says that this is not the case? - Ahunt (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the same cited author, on the Yamaha 30 page, states "It is thought that the YAMAHA-30 is based on the Norlin designed SCAMPI MKIII." . The two statements contradict each other. As such, the credibiity of this resource is suspect.
As far as a ref refuting the above goes, the published dimensions of the boats show that the boat refered to as the Yamaha 30 is clearly not the same as the Scampi 30. Boltguy (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In comparing the Scampi 30-3 and the Yamaha 30-1 the key dimensions are very close so it could plausibly be a derivative of the same design. Difference in LOA: 4", waterline: 7" Beam: 7" displacement: 324 lbs (which is 4%). In fact on a boat with a raked stem the same increase in the weight will give a longer waterline anyway. I would say these are close enough to be "rounding errors" and generally support the possibility that both boats are the same design. We have a ref that says they are, you will need a ref that says that is not the case. - Ahunt (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas derivatives of the Scampi 30 were produced (such as the Norlin 30 and the Scampi Jubilee), they were not described as being a Scampi 30.
Evidence exists showing that Yamaha may have indeed built Scampi 30s under licence. The same evidence shows a marked physical difference between those boats and the actual "Yamaha 30 ".
"Saying" that the differences in measurements are "rounding errors" is a subjective opinion. Without supporting evidence, a mere statement that the Yamaha 30 is Yamaha's version of the Scampii 30 is likewise subjective. Published dimensions, on the other hand, are objective, verifiable facts. Each dimension of both boats is undeniably different. Hence, they cannot be claimed to be of the same design. Boltguy (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scampi 30 was marketed as the "Yamaha 30" by the Yamaha Motor Corporation! This article seemingyl puts to rest the question. As does this image. Boltguy (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect spelling "Farrymann"[edit]

"Farrymann" in reference to the Scampi 30's engine is mis-spelled. The name incorrectly includes an extraneous "r". https://everythingaboutboats.org/farymann/ Boltguy (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect statement re: RORC[edit]

The Half Ton Cup was NOT held under Royal Ocean Racing Club (RORC) handicapping rules. It was held under International Offshore Rule handicapping rules.

Boltguy (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The cited ref says The prototype, (by convention, referred to as the MKI,) trounced the competition at the half ton cup of 1969 (sailed under the RORC handicap rule). - Ahunt (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the cited author has provided incorrect information. Other resources including the Wikipedia entry (International Offshore Rule) contradict the cited resource. Boltguy (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Normally the 1/2 Ton Cup is raced under IOR rules, but it is not implausible that that one competition was raced under RORC rules instead. We have a WP:RS that says it was, so to change that we will need a source that shows that race was under IOR rules. We don't go by opinion and supposition, we go by what the refs say. We have one ref that says it was, do you have one that says it wasn't? - Ahunt (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In Brief history of the Offshore Racing Congress, the following statement is made: "Between April 1967 and November 1968 the committee met on a number of occasions and the ORCC considered the draft of a new International Offshore Rule at its November 1968 meeting in London. It was then unanimously agreed to recommend to all national authorities that the Rule should become operative in the 1969 season." Boltguy (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well that was the recommendation, but it doesn't prove that all competitions did use it. In fact, given it was the same year it is quite possible that the change for 1/2 ton was not implemented until the following year. We still have one ref that says it was raced under RORC rules and nothing that says it wasn't. To refute the ref we need a new ref that actually says that the first ref is wrong. - Ahunt (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the same ref states: "On 1 November 1969 the Offshore Rules Coordinating Committee held its final meeting and approved the Constitution for the new Offshore Rating Council.", it seems implausible that the IOR Half Ton rules were in effect during the 1969 Half Ton Cup at Sandhamn. Boltguy (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except we have a ref that says they were. We can't go on opinion and supposition, we need one or more refs that say that is wrong as per WP:PROVEIT. - Ahunt (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, @Ahunt, I agreed that in 1969, the Half Ton Cup was conducted under RORC rules! However, I've now come across another citiation which states that IOR rules were followed: "After several meetings starting in 1967, the two devised the new International Offshore Rule (IOR) to begin use in the 1969 season." Boltguy (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to find the dates for the 1969 1/2 Ton Cup. It was held in Sandhamn, Sweden in 1969 and 1970. I did find that the 1970 competition was held in early August. If the year before's competition was held at the same time of year, in August 1969, then it was before your quote above On 1 November 1969 the Offshore Rules Coordinating Committee held its final meeting and approved the Constitution for the new Offshore Rating Council. Which makes it even less likely it was raced under IOR rules. - Ahunt (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, @Ahunt Boltguy (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata sidebar improvements[edit]

The sidebar currently contains details relevant to all version of the Scampi 30.

- The title of the sidebar (Scampi 30-2) should be changed to remove "-2". The 30-2 was the second version of the Scampi 30 production models. It was only produced by Älvdalsplast AB in Sweden and under license by Nautic Saintonge in France.

- "Name" should be likewise remove "-2"

- The reference to Älvdalen as a builder of the Scampi 30 should be removed. "Alvaden" was not the name of a boat builer. Älvdalen was merely the town in which the actual builder, Älvdalsplast AB was based.

- The incorrect spelling of Farymann should be corrected to remove the extra "r" Boltguy (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed one additional issue: The Scampis were not designed for "Gennaker" (asymetrical spinnaker) use as the sidebar suggests. The entry should be replaced with the correct "Spinnaker" dimensions. Boltguy (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - 273 sq ft would be a very small spinnaker! That was the dimension for the Genoa (sail). - Ahunt (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The dual entry "Jib/genoa area" shows ony a single value (for the jib). As the two sail types are distinct and thus unique to each other, the entry should be corrected to read: "Jib"
Sail area for the genoa should be stated as a 'range' to account for the varying genoa overlaps. This site indicates a range of 314 sq ft - 314 sq ft for the genoa area. The same site indicates a range of 548 sq ft - 784 sq for the spinnaker. With this information being available, consideration should be made to include a Spinnaker entry.
Unrelated to the Scampi's sail dimensions, there is still one other detail in the side bar which should be corrected for consistency: "No. built" . The current entry correctly states "at least 50 built". However, the main body of this article properly states "with about 1,000 boats of all marks built". Boltguy (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the number built. The Jib/genoa area is hardwired into the specs template, it cannot be changed for just one boat, as the template is used for thousands of boat articles. The l-36 website is a boat parts supplier. They are just indicting what might fit, not what the original spinnaker size was. Any boat can fly a huge range or spinnakers if they have to. None of the specific refs about the boat mention a spinnaker at all, let alone the factory-supplied size. Those sites, including sailboatdata and boat specs work from factory information, so it was likely not specified in the original brochures. We really need a better ref than that to add spinnaker details. Does the class association restrict spinnaker size? - Ahunt (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The class association provides maximum spinnaker dimensions, not a calcuated maximum area.
Translated from Swedish: "The length of the spinnaker may be max. 11.350 mm... The maximum width of the spinnaker core shall not exceed 6.480 mm. The width of the spinnaker core at half its height shall not be less than 75% of the foot width." Boltguy (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found the all of the sail dimensions in the MK4 brochure.
Spinnaker : "70 kvm" = 753 sq ft
Main : "15.5 kvm" = 167 sq ft
Genoa I : "33 kvm" = 355 sq ft
Genoa II : "26.5 kvm" = 285 sq ft
Genoa III : "18.5 kvm" = 199 sq ft
Genoa IV : 12.5 kvm" = 135 sq ft
  • In addition, the Scampi's IOR MK III rating is noted as 21.7 ft
Boltguy (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is an amalgamation of 2 unique sail types, can the confusing Jib/genoa area entry simply be omitted? This may allow proper sail references and their dimensions to be included in Other sails while conceivably not affecting the template. Boltguy (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably the best way to handle it! Ref added.  Done - Ahunt (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scampi_30&oldid=1207992936"