Looking at these 6 Blue Water Cruisers - Page 3 - SailNet Community
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #21 of 62 Old 09-14-2009
Just another Moderator
 
Faster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 18,303
Thanks: 126
Thanked 458 Times in 435 Posts
Rep Power: 10
     
Quote:
Originally Posted by aferlazzo View Post
That looks like a very nice boat, but the stowaway mast is not something I would want if I wanted to do what you propose.
Completely agree.... fortunately furling mains are not universal among most of these boats, unlike recent production runs from other mainstream builders. (As I understand it, in many cases now a standard main is an option!!)

Ron

1984 Fast/Nicholson 345 "FastForward"

".. there is much you could do at sea with common sense.. and very little you could do without it.."
Capt G E Ericson (from "The Cruel Sea" by Nicholas Monsarrat)
Faster is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 62 Old 09-14-2009
Best Looking MALE Mod
 
Cruisingdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,918
Thanks: 3
Thanked 125 Times in 57 Posts
Rep Power: 10
     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faster View Post
The Baba 40, Tayana 37 and similar boats are quite different beasts than the Passport 40, Nassau 42 etc... even though they are from the same designer and probably of similar build quality.

All great offshore boats, and probably none of them backs up well under power, but besides that quite different in spaciousness and esp cockpit comfort.
Agreed, but my thought process was more in line with what I would buy with his budget. Also, none of those boats are exactly rockets in modern terms!!!

On the inmast, I will tell you that my opinions are starting to change on it. I am 'gulp' beginning to like it. We were in a hard blow the other day and I was pretty much singlehanding. I know you have put in a reef in a blow, Fast, it is never fun and verges on being (in my opinion) probably the most dangerous thing a singlehander can do under 'normal operating conditions'.

On the inmast (and inboom), it is merely a matter of cranking the engine, pointing winward for a moment, quickly reefing it in FROM THE COCKPIT, then falling back off and killing the main. Under some circumstances (I believe more appropriate for a crew of two), you can reef without even cranking the motor but I have reasons for not doing that - even if I do not use the motor.

The point being, for all their bad raps, I wonder if the great negatives of these systems do not come from the older inmasts and their periodic failures (and not the newer ones)? The only big gripe I have with the inmast is the loss of power and difficulty getting a good sailshape. But for someone whose is more interested in safety and ease then speed, they do have an appeal.

Thoughts?

BTW, this would probably make a good thread topic and I think I will start one in General. It just made sense to comment here since he brought it up.

- CD

Sailnet Moderator



1987 Tayana Vancouver 42, Credendo Vides, (Mom and Pops boat, F/T Mobile Live Aboards in Puget Sound)

My Website:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Follow My Blog at:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Follow me on Facebook:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Cruisingdad is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #23 of 62 Old 09-14-2009 Thread Starter
Member
 
mrybas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 85
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Rep Power: 9
 
One of the boats I'm looking at has a Schaefer in-boom main roller system system. Is this a quality system? Is in boom superior to in mast furling?
mrybas is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #24 of 62 Old 09-15-2009
Self Grandizing Egotist
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 74
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 8
 
CD

The point being, for all their bad raps, I wonder if the great negatives of these systems do not come from the older inmasts and their periodic failures (and not the newer ones)? The only big gripe I have with the inmast is the loss of power and difficulty getting a good sailshape. But for someone whose is more interested in safety and ease then speed, they do have an appeal.

Thoughts?

BTW, this would probably make a good thread topic and I think I will start one in General. It just made sense to comment here since he brought it up.

I started the exact thread you mention over on CruisingWorld and there was quite a bit of back & forth about it. General consensus is that people who have them love them, those that don't think they're "units of excrement".

People who like them cite the increased security of sail handling from within the cockpit. Someting to consider when a reef is required and the thought of playing tarzan on the foredeck is unappealing. Also mentioned was the reduced need for strength and agility in order to accomplish a reef.

Those against them cite the potential dangers involved if the mechanism breaks just when you really NEED to reef. Putting your safety in the hands of a mechanical widget that's snapped is unappealing. Cutting the outhaul or halyard is an expensive temporary fix that still requires you to go up front.

Lastly, one need only look at the fact that these systems allow fewer people to handle larger sails (and boats) which explains why many newer boat come with them as standard. Because so many of these systems are being adopted by mainstream builders nowadays (even the prestige ones like Hallberg, Hylas, Oyster, Najad, Regina etc..), I can only assume that they have gotten more & more reliable. The fact that this encourages the wealthier to buy bigger cause it's easier is just a side benefit for the builders though

I am not one of those who in expressing opinions confine themselves to facts. - Mark Twain
SeanRW is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #25 of 62 Old 09-16-2009
Best Looking MALE Mod
 
Cruisingdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,918
Thanks: 3
Thanked 125 Times in 57 Posts
Rep Power: 10
     
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanRW View Post
CD

The point being, for all their bad raps, I wonder if the great negatives of these systems do not come from the older inmasts and their periodic failures (and not the newer ones)? The only big gripe I have with the inmast is the loss of power and difficulty getting a good sailshape. But for someone whose is more interested in safety and ease then speed, they do have an appeal.

Thoughts?

BTW, this would probably make a good thread topic and I think I will start one in General. It just made sense to comment here since he brought it up.

I started the exact thread you mention over on CruisingWorld and there was quite a bit of back & forth about it. General consensus is that people who have them love them, those that don't think they're "units of excrement".

People who like them cite the increased security of sail handling from within the cockpit. Someting to consider when a reef is required and the thought of playing tarzan on the foredeck is unappealing. Also mentioned was the reduced need for strength and agility in order to accomplish a reef.

Those against them cite the potential dangers involved if the mechanism breaks just when you really NEED to reef. Putting your safety in the hands of a mechanical widget that's snapped is unappealing. Cutting the outhaul or halyard is an expensive temporary fix that still requires you to go up front.

Lastly, one need only look at the fact that these systems allow fewer people to handle larger sails (and boats) which explains why many newer boat come with them as standard. Because so many of these systems are being adopted by mainstream builders nowadays (even the prestige ones like Hallberg, Hylas, Oyster, Najad, Regina etc..), I can only assume that they have gotten more & more reliable. The fact that this encourages the wealthier to buy bigger cause it's easier is just a side benefit for the builders though
I have not followed the cruising world forums, but appreciate the insight. I did start a tjhread here about inmast. You are right, many people absolutely hate them and many people that have them love them. What I do not understand is that many of the people that hate them and tell about how prone they are to failure have actually never owned the system.

I will be giving first hand knowledge of how well they handle offshore. I am keeping mine, for the time being. I guess I will come to either prove the nay sayers right, or show them they are dead wrong.

- CD

Sailnet Moderator



1987 Tayana Vancouver 42, Credendo Vides, (Mom and Pops boat, F/T Mobile Live Aboards in Puget Sound)

My Website:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Follow My Blog at:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Follow me on Facebook:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Cruisingdad is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #26 of 62 Old 09-16-2009
Best Looking MALE Mod
 
Cruisingdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,918
Thanks: 3
Thanked 125 Times in 57 Posts
Rep Power: 10
     
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrybas View Post
One of the boats I'm looking at has a Schaefer in-boom main roller system system. Is this a quality system? Is in boom superior to in mast furling?
I believe that Schaefer makes good products and inboom I believ eis superior to inmast (except in cost).

- CD

Sailnet Moderator



1987 Tayana Vancouver 42, Credendo Vides, (Mom and Pops boat, F/T Mobile Live Aboards in Puget Sound)

My Website:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Follow My Blog at:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Follow me on Facebook:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Cruisingdad is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #27 of 62 Old 09-16-2009
Self Grandizing Egotist
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 74
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 8
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruisingdad View Post
I believe that Schaefer makes good products and inboom I believ eis superior to inmast (except in cost).

- CD
CD, I agree about the in-boom vs. the in-mast. I may be a relative newbie but it would seem to me that if you're reefing you're trying to accomplish two things.
- Reduce sail area
- Get the weight down from on high
In-mast accomplishes the first BUT in-boom accomplished both

Plus, considering my extensive rocket-science-Lex-Luthor like engineering knowledge, I'd say that rolling something heavy downwards would be easier than rolling someting heavy laterally.

I am not one of those who in expressing opinions confine themselves to facts. - Mark Twain
SeanRW is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #28 of 62 Old 09-16-2009
October Moon B43
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SE Pennsylvania
Posts: 400
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 8
 
FWIW we have an in mast furling main on our Beneteau 43. It has vertical battens which helps with sail shape and power. The vertical battens can hang up when furling if you're not dead into the wind. So just for kicks I recently started heaving to prior to furling the main. So far I've found that the headsail blankets the main well enough that I can furl it without a problem. Unless I begin to have problems I plan on continuing the practice. No reason it couldn't be done to put a reef in the main. Those with in mast mains might want to try it.
Mike
MJBrown is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #29 of 62 Old 09-17-2009
Senior Member
 
mitiempo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Victoria B.C. Canada
Posts: 7,740
Thanks: 0
Thanked 108 Times in 99 Posts
Rep Power: 9
   
With a conventional battened main you can reef from the cockpit by properly leading the lines aft to clutches. Engine not required. Trips to the mast not required. Inmast or inboom reefing is ok (especially inboom) except for the cost but a conventional sail offers the best performance dollar for dollar including the cost of clutches needed for cockpit handling. To use an extreme example the main on the open 60 boats is handled from the cockpit as is the main on many weekend cruisers.
Brian
mitiempo is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #30 of 62 Old 09-17-2009
Self Grandizing Egotist
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 74
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 8
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitiempo View Post
....... Inmast or inboom reefing is ok (especially inboom) except for the cost but a conventional sail offers the best performance ...........
Brian
Ok, once and for all, lets put this in context. Every comment I've heard contrary to in-whatever furling has usually included a statement like the one above. Now it is quite true that performance & sail shape are negatively impacted vs. using a traditional slab reefed system....but to what degree.

If I'm a cruiser, a puddle jumper, a weekend "friends, beer & BBQ" sailor then the extra knot of speed or extra 5 degrees of pointing is NOT going to make or break my day. What will is having to scamper forward on a rockin' deck with sail ties clenched in my teeth. If I'm a Dennis Conner wannabe, then that's a different story.

In-whatever furling offers the lazier, less fit, more laid back or more...seasoned (older ?) sailor the option of staying in the cockpit to NOT ONLY reef but also stow the main....by themselves.

Are they perfect for everyone ? Hell no !

But they certainly have distinct advantages. Can they break ? It's more a question of when but then again, isn't that true of anything on a boat. Will the malfunction happen at the worst time ? Give Murphy a call about that regarding ANYTHING on a boat.

So let's look at the pros & cons in context. MiTiempo has a point...but only a little one IMO....

SRW

I am not one of those who in expressing opinions confine themselves to facts. - Mark Twain
SeanRW is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

By choosing to post the reply above you agree to the rules you agreed to when joining Sailnet.
Click Here to view those rules.

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the SailNet Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
Please note: After entering 3 characters a list of Usernames already in use will appear and the list will disappear once a valid Username is entered.


User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Water, Water Everywhere Tania Aebi Cruising Articles 0 06-14-2004 08:00 PM
Basic Thoughts on Tides Jim Sexton Learning to Sail Articles 0 11-17-2003 07:00 PM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome