DS1 Design Changes

[ctenidae]

Interesting the '61 also has no thwarts.If it's truly a '61, then I think we can positively identify a 1962 as one with thwarts and no motor well. Might be the only year that can be called with certainty on design aspects alone...

I addeda column to the spreadsheet asking if the year is documented- original receipt, clean title string, something definitive that says "This is a 19XX DS1"

[navahoIII]

I am almost certain that ours, sail #1001, is a (probably late) 1961.
It has the panel over the foreward flotation tank with two access "doors", attached with bungees. I wonder, did bungees even exist in 1961? If not, how were the doors held in place?

Brad - If your number is 818, then your boat may be early 1961.

[navahoIII]

Ours has thwarts and no well, but I still think it's a '61 based on the following pm I received from Baysailer last year:


Hi Dan,

I'm really only going on faith of what I was told when I bought it and some other antedotal evidence that mines a 63. I.E. referencing the Time article (bathtub navy) O'day made the 1500th DS in the first week in Aug 63.

Based on that I would think yours is a bit earlier than 63. There's an ad in what looks to be october 61 showing sail number 971, so you might be looking at earlier 62. Would be nice to have production records

http://www.iheartodays.com/files/model_ ... _658h2.jpg

There's a few things on mine that are different from the earlier ones I've seen like I don't have the wire traveller eyes but I do have the motor well/cooler.

[navahoIII]

Oops, sorry, that indicated a'62!

I had another message from someone who thought that it is more likely a '61 because the boat in the photo of the ad was probably an early '61, and it is only 30 numbers below 1001, as the issue date on the magazine shows (if you look closely) October, 1961. It is logical to assume that the boat in the photo was not produced the very day of the photo. It was probably at least a few months earlier. Also, given production times for the magazine, it is safe to assume that the photo was taken a month or more before publication. So -- if the boat was produced in, say, even as late as June '61, it is reasonable to conclude that 30 more could well have been built before the end of the year. Furthermore, production of the DSI started in 1958, and given the number of boats produced it has been figured that around 300 boats a year is a plausible figure. I, therefore, conclude (as did the kind person who informed me) that the 1001 is very likely of (late?) 1961 vintage.

I'll take question now...

[dtrop01]

Mine definitely matches most closely to the middle link.

As for doors VS. shelf, I bet the 1961 is simply missing the panel with the bungee doors. I have the doors, but have noticed that in a couple of minutes I could convert this to a shelf with nothing more than a screw driver. Just a shelf over the flotation tank with a panel in front containing two holes for the doors. Seems like I've seen boats of this age and older - some with and some without. My guess is some think its unnecessary weight for a racer.

Not speaking for Bob Damon, but if the boat was equiped with a panel, that panel cannot be removed for racing, unless a suitable support is substituted. Check the measurement by-laws.

[GreenLake]

The first link, the Point Roberts boat, is not a DS. Note how the cuddy is really short and the mast is stepped before the cuddy. Some other ODay boat, perhaps an Osprey?

Just tweaked my entry in the spreadsheet.

[algonquin]

Brad - If your number is 818, then your boat may be early 1961.

Seems that the indications are my DS is a 1961 or slightly older. I updated the chart to indicate that.

Also on my DS I have (3) bronze motor mount hardware on the transom. Also still have the removable motor mount bracket. In additional I have the original spinnaker pole. Wood with bronze hardware at the ends. Brad

[ctenidae]

Added a new column- "Keelson connected to bow tank?" because it seems that most are, but mine is not. There's a good 3-4 inch gap between the keelson and the tank, doesn't appear to ahve ever been connected in any way.

[navahoIII]

Same here. Keelson ends a few inches short of bow tank. Not only that, but the end is completely open, providing a wonderful place for water and junk to enter keelson! It is a b@#^h to drain and clean!!

Reason? Can't it be glassed off?

[GreenLake]

Same here. Keelson ends a few inches short of bow tank. Not only that, but the end is completely open, providing a wonderful place for water and junk to enter keelson! It is a b@#^h to drain and clean!!

Reason? Can't it be glassed off?

Mine is open in front as well. It has what appears to be a half-hearted drain hole on one side next to the front of the CB.

I think I'd prefer a hollow keelson to badly encased wood in any case, and an open one with drain holes to anything closed that can fill with water through cracks.

[ctenidae]

The open keelson is annoying, as it collects a good couple inches of water. And leaves, sand, slime, and everything else under the sun.

I'm going to go out on a limb and postulate that from 1965 on, it's closed and connected to the bow tank. Just a guess, but I bet it was part of the 1965 design changes.

[navahoIII]

I agree that the drain holes (one on each side of keelson) are poorly executed. In order to give better and quicker drainage, what would be wrong with drilling, up to, an inch hole in their place, keeping them neat and clean? Why can't he holes be larger?

Right now it looks like someone hammered out the holes with something not too sharp!

[navahoIII]

Just wanted to mention that it appears mine is the only one, thus far, to have the jibsheets (cam)cleated on the inside of the coaming, as opposed to the CB trunk. One obvious advantage to that is the sheets are out of the way of the cockpit. Any reason(s) why I should move the cleats to the CB trunk?

[GreenLake]

I agree that the drain holes (one on each side of keelson) are poorly executed. In order to give better and quicker drainage, what would be wrong with drilling, up to, an inch hole in their place, keeping them neat and clean? Why can't he holes be larger?

Right now it looks like someone hammered out the holes with something not too sharp!

You know from lightweight parts on bikes that drilling holes in flat surfaces can work w/o removing all the strength. Same here. Keep the hole neat and you should be able to flush the keelson to rins it.

[ctenidae]

Just wanted to mention that it appears mine is the only one, thus far, to have the jibsheets (cam)cleated on the inside of the coaming, as opposed to the CB trunk. One obvious advantage to that is the sheets are out of the way of the cockpit. Any reason(s) why I should move the cleats to the CB trunk?

Only reason I can think of is having them both in one location might make it easier when singlehanding. Of course, you could mount cleats on the CB, and have the best of both worlds. I might just mount some cleats on the coaming, too, so long as they don't interfere with comfortable seatting.