BoatU.S. magazine

[mwrohde2]

I just received a copy of the January 2009 BoatU.S. magazine in the mail. In there is an article about the Tartan 3700, of which there used to be a thread here.

My intent is not to discuss the Tartan, but rather the magazine and the article.

The article mentions Tartan's assertion that part of the problem was an over-tightened rig and makes references to stays and shrouds. Then, and I quote, it says,

For non-sailors, the stays (also known as shrouds) are part of the a sailboat's standing rigging and support the mast both fore and aft, as well as side to side. The situation described in the dealer memo involves the port and starboard stays.

It has always been my understanding that the port and starboard standing rigging are always shrouds (and never stays), and that fore and aft are always stays (never shrouds). I think that the author of the article is wrong twice here and is herself possibly a non-sailor.

What do y'all think?

[sailingdog]

Could be a powerboater... being ignorant of sailing specific terms doesn't indicate a lack of boating skills or experience, just sailing skills and experience.

[Delirious]

Well if you get away from the modern design fore-and-aft rig and think of the origins a "stay" is a line attached to the end of a spar or mast that runs to the deck or gunnels. A shroud can be attached anywhere along the spar. But then we have inner-forestays and triatic-stays, and a 9running) backstay can attach to either port or starboard amoidships so, like everything sailing related, there are no absolutes. ;-)

[mwrohde2]

Originally Posted by sailingdog

Could be a powerboater... being ignorant of sailing specific terms doesn't indicate a lack of boating skills or experience, just sailing skills and experience.

I didn't intend to imply that she wasn't a boater at all. It just seems to me that if an article is going to be published, and that article is taking extra steps to define terms for "non-sailors", then the author should at least get the definitions right. Getting something as basic as that wrong calls the rest of the article immediately into question for me.

[mwrohde2]

Originally Posted by Delirious

Well if you get away from the modern design fore-and-aft rig

It was an article about the Tartan 3700. I'd say it is a modern design fore-and-aft rig.

[SJ34]

[QUOTE=mwrohde2;424470]I didn't intend to imply that she wasn't a boater at all.

Don't take it personally, it's SD's job to rattle newbie's cages

[chucklesR]

Keep in mind that the writer was writing for and to BoatUS readers, not a sailing mag; the writer quite possibly didn't know any better and when researching /asking got the notes shorthanded.

Happens all the time.

[Joesaila]

The author did a good job [imho] in explaining the entire problem. While it remains inconclusive [as far as actual truth] the explanation of what occurred was reasonably forthright and I was surprised at the level of integrity conveyed.
The actual definitions of rigging was of little importance to the meat of the article.

[xort]

It's not what they said, it's what they didn't say

[Moonfish]

I agree w/mwrodhe2 - in general, if an author gets basic info wrong, how can you be assured that any other facts or assertations in the article are correct? Sure, in many cases it may be splitting hairs, especially when it comes to something so specialized as sailing terminology, but I'm certainly more comfortable agreeing with someone who has done their research and can prove it at what amounts to the most elementary level.

But then, I'm always right and have never made a factual error or mistake... RIGHT!!