# SS American Racer of United States Lines (1964)



## needadditionalinformation (Jan 30, 2006)

Does anybody know or remember anything more (beyond standard stats & dispositions) of this ship or her sisters (American Reliance, Rover, Resolute or Ranger)? Probably no detail would be too uninteresting. Also, were they faster than the American Challanger class? My photo of her is here: http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/61266/cat/500/ppuser/5164 and for reference my pic of the American Challenger is here: http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/61264/cat/500/ppuser/5164


----------



## chiefest (Jul 8, 2008)

*American Racer*

I sailed for US Lines in 60's. There were 5 Racer class ships. I was 2nd mate and third mate. There were 47 crew members on each as I remember. Spent many a tough day and night sailing on the Racer class on the north atlantic run. God, how we survived some of those winter storms I will never know. Usual trip was from USA to Rotterdam, Antwerp, Bremen, Bremerhaven, Hamburg, then back to Rotterdam before crossing to Boston, New York, Norfolk, Baltimore, Philadelphia and back to New York. Then all over again every 5 weeks or so. Most trips also included other ports, such as LeHavre, Southhampton and London and maybe the oddball port in USA if a special cargo was to be picked up. They were designed for the Australia run but instead were assigned to the North Atlantic run before heading to Vietnam in 1968 or do. They were originally all break bulk cargo with no.2 hold a full reefer hold. There was a 70 ton heavy lift boom that could be swung between holds 3 and 4. ( a tricky maneuver that was always dangerous at best). There were 2 deep tanks below lower hold in N0. 5 hold used to carry liquid cargo or delicate cargo that needed to be separate (tea leaves in those quintessinal tea boxes for one). The hatch covers were a newly designed system operated hydraulically with latches at the bottom that kept the hatch covers nested and prevented the covers from accidentally being operated. However, longshoremen would forget to unlatch the latches and when they operated the hatch cover switch, the covers would come tumbling down, necessitating a lot of work to get them back up and on track and watertight. They were steam turbine and we could do 24 knots but generally at 100 rpm we would do 21.5 to 22 knots. We used to brag that we were faster than the Challenger class ships but in reality we were a bit slower I feel. They could do 23 or 24 knots consistently. When Racers were built they discovered a vibration problem from the prop and design changes had to be made as they were built (possibly compromising speed slightly). Around 1967 holds 3 and 4 were converted to container carrying capability and the tween deck covers were removed and vertical steel rails were welded in to capture the 40 ft containers as they were lowered into the holds. Both holds 4 and 5 had a port , center and starboard hold. So , all 6 sections were converted to containers and 40ft and 20 ftcontainers were carried on top of the hatch covers as well. Lots of reefer containers on deck. The Racer class was the first of the bridge automated vessels ( at least for US Lines). We could dial up rpm's by turning a wheel on a console on the bridge. The engineers were awarded higher pay on these ships to placate the engineer union when some positions were eliminated. This caused friction, since the mates were doing more work on the bridge and were getting less pay. A strike was called by the international mates union in 1968 but union politics got in the way resulting in a failed strike. Lots and lots more stories and memories. The Reliance and the Racer are in the mothball fleet and can be seen at the link provided here http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=234669607


----------



## suzettelage (Feb 1, 2011)

My dad was a retired Merchant Marine. He was on the American Reliance. Maybe you sailed with him.


----------



## Bob S (Jul 12, 2004)

Reliance & Racer gone for scrap, see this link

http://forum.shipspotting.com/index.php/topic,8618.0.html

Regards

Bob


----------



## bilgewtr (Jun 8, 2012)

chiefest said:


> We used to brag that we were faster than the Challenger class ships but in reality we were a bit slower I feel. They could do 23 or 24 knots consistently. When Racers were built they discovered a vibration problem from the prop and design changes had to be made as they were built (possibly compromising speed slightly).


There were 2 Challenger class types at U.S. Lines.... Challenger 1, which were basically earler vintage Marad Design C4-S-57a boom ships built in the late 50's to early 60's and their replacement vessels named Challenger 2 class, aka Marad Design C4-S-64a often miss named Racer class, built in the mid 60's. Two wound up at Farrell Lines, to which I sailed on the Austral Patriot. 

With all things being equal (sea condition, current, hull resistance, loaded draft, etc) Challenger 2/Racer class vessels had a service speed of 21 knots, being propelled by single screw 18,000 shp geared steam turbines. The Challenger 1 class had the same service speed of 21 knots with being propelled by single screw 16,500 shp geared steam turbines. However the C1's could extract a max HP of 18,150 to go a designed 22 knots. While the Challenger 2 max HP was 18,750 to provide the same 22 knots.... meaning both hull profiles were very close in design below the water line.

In 1979, the 1st vessel I joined on my 3rd engineers license, was the C1 class American Challenger. Despite being the only ship I've ever sailed upon without AC in the super structure (aft corner cabin with 2 port holes, one on the stbd side with a scoop, the other aft for a free flow thru made it bearable on the run thru the US Gulf, Panama canal and Pearl Harbor where I jumped off with the rest of the suitcase brigade, lol)... it was a great way to start drying the ink on my newly printed license. Being the last US ship to depart Vietnam in 1975 during the fall of Saigon, it was also a historic vessel. There was a photo album onbd depicting the human carnage of carrying over 5000 refugees offshore. I can only wonder if that photo book survived after the ship was scrapped. 



chiefest said:


> The Racer class was the first of the bridge automated vessels ( at least for US Lines). We could dial up rpm's by turning a wheel on a console on the bridge. The engineers were awarded higher pay on these ships to placate the engineer union when some positions were eliminated. This caused friction, *since the mates were doing more work on the bridge *and were getting less pay. A strike was called by the international mates union in 1968 but union politics got in the way resulting in a failed strike.


LOL.... while true with respect to their status being contractually classed A1 automated and they had that clever wheel for speed control on the bridge... the rest of the above quoted post is classic coffee pot misconceptions from the clean khakis department..... The only casualty from early steam ship automation came from the un-licensed crew loosing 3 watch standing fireman rated positions. In 1980 I sailed on the SS Austrail Patriot (I believe X-American Resolute) and the engineer compliment was the same number of personal as the un-automated C1 Challenger class ships. Chief Engineer, one day 1st Assistant Engineer, 3 watch standing engineers (two 3rd AE's and one 2nd AE to cover 24), one day 3rd AE with a reefer/electrical rating and lastly a newbie "Apprentice Engineer" from the engineers union school... who contractually replaced the other day 3rd rating in a funding arrangement where the differential sum between the apprentice engineer's base monthly pay scale and the contracted day 3rd's base monthly rate was sent to fund the Union schools training plan. A great way to pay for ones own education while being paid to do so and a ticket to ride upon graduation. As for a deck officer strike.... laughable! Unfortunately around 1985~86ish the tanker services group replaced all their MMP deck officers without issue and have never returned to take another swim in that labor pool.

Contractually and with agreement by USL ownership, the engineers took direct control of the main turbines away from the mates, because you all simply did not understand how to properly use throttle automation back in the day. The system was being treated like outboard runabout boat engines, rapidly crank it up, no immediate response on the shaft tach, dial it up some more or back completely. On early steam vessel automation there was quite a bit of inherent lag in the electro-pneumatic-mechanical automated operations that occur between selected speed and turbine throttle position change which caused boiler firing rate fluctuations, resulting in severe funnel smoking (white and black, both being bad), water level surging up.... and down out of sight.... sometime so bad it would cause condenser vacuum loss. All because of impatience on the part of the "throttle wheel" operator and/or the direction they were given by the vessels Master. Simply put, that experiment failed because there wasn't sufficient adult supervision on the bridge that understood the engineering processes involved in steam ship speed changes. Today's training requirements via simulators provides a completely different world from back in the day where the mind set was, "they'll either figure it out, or call the hall when they screw up". After a short time USL ownership began to understand the risk/reward potential between a costly operational mistake of the remote throttle control resulting in a plant black out during maneuvering vrs the potential need of the bridge to perform speed changes with respect to early steam ship bridge speed control automation systems. Today vessel speed control is all done quite efficiently by the bridge.... while the dirty coverall department enjoys their own coffee pot misconceptions of what's happening topside...


Cheers (Pint)


PS: I loved bridge control on slow speed diesel engines and the design engineers were smart in providing operating engineers with a speed limiter for sea speed operation to reign in the mates from pushing the main engine too hard under specific load conditions that would put a ME in the "B" range during un-manned engine room hours. Understandably deck officers have their own operational issues and situations to deal with so engineering issues tend to be secondary concerns, if at all. So, with a ever so slight dial adjustment of a couple hundred pony's at 1700.... I'd generally prevent an unnecessary alarm during the night if the weather picked up on my duty watch. So, getting a call from the old man at 0700 the next morning, hey 1st can ya get me another rev again today... was priceless entertainment to boot, lol.


----------



## bilgewtr (Jun 8, 2012)

needadditionalinformation said:


> Does anybody know or remember anything more (beyond standard stats & dispositions) of this ship or her sisters (American Reliance, Rover, Resolute or Ranger)? Probably no detail would be too uninteresting. Also, were they faster than the American Challanger class? My photo of her is here: http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/61266/cat/500/ppuser/5164 and for reference my pic of the American Challenger is here: http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/61264/cat/500/ppuser/5164


Details of all the C4a vessels can be found at;
http://drawings.usmaritimecommission.de/drawings_c4_ma_types.htm

A few pics including one during dismantling can be found at;
http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=1257288


----------



## Wallace Slough (Mar 21, 2009)

The American Racer class were probably the best handling steam turbine ships I ever piloted; remarkably fast bells with their bridge control. I piloted them and their sisters, the Prudential Oceanjet and Seajet, on many occasions in San Francisco, and was always amazed at what fine handling ships they were. 

While it's normal to turn a ship to starboard by backing and filling with the engine wherein the torque of the propellor backing assists the turn, on one occasion when we had some extra time to kill, we made a turn to port with one of the Racer class in Anchorage 9. I'd ring up Half Ahead and get a good swing on with Hard Left Rudder, then back her Full Astern. When the RPM's began to turn astern, I'd shift the rudder to Hard Right which cuts off some of the wheel water to the propellor. When the torque of the propellor began to cause the ship to twist the wrong way, I'd shift the rudder to Hard Left and order Half Ahead. It was amazing how well the ship responded and we turned around to the left in a very small area. Lovely ships!


----------



## Dusty Rhodes (May 18, 2016)

This is Dusty Rhodes, electrician, I was on the pioneer Contractor around 1979, American Champion around 1974-75 and the American Racer around 1976. I would have to find my discharges to get the right dates but these should be close. I was in my 30's back then.


----------



## Dusty Rhodes (May 18, 2016)

Ps... I'm new here. Is it ok to copy this picture of the American Racer to my personal album on Facebook.


----------



## hawkey01 (Mar 15, 2006)

Dusty,

You need to get permission from the poster - needadditionalinformation. 

However he has not been on site since 5th November 2015. You could send him a message via the site - PM - system.

Hawkey01


----------



## pedroeoss (15 d ago)

The American Racer was renamed Austral Patriot and made voyages to Africa for Farrell Lines. We had a cargo fire in the port of Dar es Salaam on 4 July 1979. The ship's captain had a previous fire experience when his prior command hit a petroleum barge in the Mississippi river with fatalities. Our response was strictly by the book.


----------

