lustyd
Well-known member
On our boat that's also true of the sofa so it makes little difference either way. People who don't shower are dropped off at the nearest port!
Buy a boat for the future, now?
- Thread starter andyb28
- Start date
RunAgroundHard
Well-known member
Why not buy now for a possible future use? What you envisage now, will either happen or it will not. So everything else being equal, it does not matter what choice you make. Just make a decision.
There was a time when you did not know one end of a boat from another and you learned. Hence, the evidence suggests if you go up a size, you will learn.
My own experience.
First boat was 41’, older hull shape from the late 70’s. Bought for young family. Learned to sail it, but could allready sail 30 footers confidently. Young family have flown the nest, some times I sail with friends but that has tailed off over the years. Now sail single handed. Retirement is not so far away and old friends who have retired want more sailing. We shall see.
Still have the same 41 footer.
I think if I had a smaller boat, nothing would have changed except spent less on mooring costs and small stuff.
If you have the dosh for a bigger boat, buying a newer, smaller boat, maybe the better option for long term ownership.
There was a time when you did not know one end of a boat from another and you learned. Hence, the evidence suggests if you go up a size, you will learn.
My own experience.
First boat was 41’, older hull shape from the late 70’s. Bought for young family. Learned to sail it, but could allready sail 30 footers confidently. Young family have flown the nest, some times I sail with friends but that has tailed off over the years. Now sail single handed. Retirement is not so far away and old friends who have retired want more sailing. We shall see.
Still have the same 41 footer.
I think if I had a smaller boat, nothing would have changed except spent less on mooring costs and small stuff.
If you have the dosh for a bigger boat, buying a newer, smaller boat, maybe the better option for long term ownership.
rotrax
Well-known member
We already had a smaller high build quality well equipped yacht ten years ago.
Age means a smaller boat and less adventurous sailing. The new boat is already earmarked, currently in the ownership of a member of this forum.
We shall enjoy our new club mooring in Gosport and taking part in our Clubs activities once more.
KompetentKrew
Well-known member
To recap, I bought my current 40' boat as my first.
It has a conventional mainsail, with slab reffing - this is not a concern at all to me, and I'm a little surprised that at least one experienced member of the forum thinks a furling main beneficial.
The way I see it, once you're out of the harbour and in deep water, everything is rosy - you have plenty of time to take care of things. The shortcoming of a big boat is its mass, which makes it more nerve-wracking at close quarters.
A beginner's mistake is less likely to do damage to a smaller boat - the kind of mistake you make when you're new to being on your own, new to the boat, more stressed out, you've got too many things to think about.
Some other comments have remarked that things happen more slowly on a big boat - yes, exactly! You can't just slap the engine in reverse if you realise a mistake too late. I haven't skippered a smaller boat, but I think a 40' boat forces you to think further ahead. You have to get everything right. Which is a nice discipline to have, but it's expensive when you inevitably make a mistake.
Baggywrinkle
Well-known member
... actually quite a lot of forum members .... this keeps coming up so here is some history.
Tranona
Well-known member
Not sure why you are surprised. Post#45 gives some specific examples of other forum contributors and of course I have often explained why I think it is superior for a cruising boat. Another little nugget is that over 90% of HRs above 36' (and many of the smaller models) built in the last 40 years have in mast. In fact it was HR that pressed Selden to develop and refine their system to meet the expectations of HR customers.
To me the surprise is that people still persist in defending slab reefing on modern cruising boats. Every time this subject comes up we get long explanations of how people have little tricks to overcome the basic drawbacks of slab reefing - their trick ways of dealing with keeping the luff cringles in place, reducing the friction in the masses of cordage necessary, parceling up the unused bunch of sailcloth dangling off the boom when reefed, pondering when to reef knowing that they only have 3 discrete sail areas to play with each a substantial incremental reduction. The row of expensive clutches to manage the lines in the cockpit or the hassle and potential danger of going to the mast to reef if you want to avoid the mess in the cockpit. I can sort of understand it for those who were brought up with the old 70/80s IOR masthead rigs with their massive genoas and trim tab mainsails where reefing the main was rare in normal cruising conditions, but those days are past and more modern rigs that are main biased require a different approach to adjusting sail area to match conditions.
About the only benefit I see of slab reefing is that you can if you make the effort get a better sail shape that might give you a few fractions of a knot extra speed through the water (far less than the constant speed benefit without any effort of a folding or feathering propeller!)
Cruising is more about comfortable passage times than ultimate speed through the water and like for like an in mast rig with decent sails will more than match a typical slab reefed example of the same model boat.
Of course if you have a slab reefed boat there is no incentive to change as the cost is so high and you have to make the best of an imperfect system - plus of course defend it because you don't have a choice. However if you are lucky enough to be able to afford a new boat you will probably choose like the majority to specify in mast.
Last edited:
KompetentKrew
Well-known member
No, I just think the hassle is not worth caring about. It takes a few minutes to put the sails up, compared to the hours spent cruising. If I'd got a boat with a furling main I would probably be perfectly happy with that too. This strikes me as one of those things that some people are (probably pointlessly) religious about.
Sea Change
Well-known member
In the interests of balance, I'll just say that when things go wrong with in-mast, it can leave you in a nasty situation. It's almost impossible for a slab reefed main to get stuck, but it's entirely possible with in-mast, whether through user error, lack of maintenance, or failure of a component. It's clearly possible to sail tens of thousands of miles without a problem, but if it does happen, you may be stuck with a partially furled sail and no easy way to get rid of it.
The same argument could be made against roller genoas, except in that case you can manually wind the sail around the forestay, by driving in circles if necessary. No such option exists for the main.
I'll admit that I can only think of a couple of times that I've seen a jammed in-mast, with the sail wrapped in an ugly bundle leaving a big bag above spreader height. But it does happen.
The same argument could be made against roller genoas, except in that case you can manually wind the sail around the forestay, by driving in circles if necessary. No such option exists for the main.
I'll admit that I can only think of a couple of times that I've seen a jammed in-mast, with the sail wrapped in an ugly bundle leaving a big bag above spreader height. But it does happen.
RunAgroundHard
Well-known member
They get stuck when the halyard jumps the sheave and jams in the truck.
It has happened to me twice and both times required a mast climb to release the shackle. The last time was in an Atlantic swell off Vigo, not easy and very risky.
Anything can fail.
doug748
Well-known member
Yes. Of course modern roller genoas have a large number of advantages and a few disadvantages. Furling mains have a large number of disadvantages and the single advantage: ease of reefing.
Fine for the sort of sailing the OP has outlined.
.
Baggywrinkle
Well-known member
... and the last few points #48/#49 are exactly the issue ..... with seldom occurring failures, where the failure hasn't been personally experienced, our imagination takes over and manufactures scenarios that support our beliefs and choices. These then get discussed to death on forums like this, making it difficult for people looking for advice to make an informed decision. Blanket, unsupported statements like "Furling mains have a large number of disadvantages" simply don't contribute to a logical discussion, but are normal because people carry their identity into their decision making - this is why two people faced with the same choice will come to different conclusions. There is plenty of research to support this, and on the forum it broadly breaks down into those who see themselves as traditional, experienced sailors - unlikely to make choices that go against what they perceive as accepted wisdom, and those with a progressive approach, who are more open to trying something new and therefore accept that some things don't deliver on their promises. As the world, and technology, moves on, the more conservative view shifts too - if something is around long enough, it becomes accepted wisdom for the next generation. I've experienced this listening to my father and his sailing friends in the 70s - quite a few of his friends had wooden boats, and a big talking point was that a wooden boat is a better blue-water cruiser because you can find wood and woodworkers all over the world. That is an absurd argument for a blue-water boat considering the constraints associated with wood as a boat building material in the modern world. They also considered 30ft boats as fine for crossing the Atlantic, but the ARC now has a minimum size limit, preventing the perceived "blue-water" boats from the 60s/70s from taking part.
Humans naturally make choices that they perceive as being consistent with their self image, then go on to create scenarios in their minds to justify their choices - often without any real thought about probability, or without any direct experience. We have collectively failed to learn that the sea, and life, can be very unpredictable. We fixate on certain aspects of a boat, in the mistaken belief that these will be the things or features that will save us one day. In doing this, we can end up sacrificing ease of use and convenience for a perceived or contrived benefit - this is a false economy IMO as it is usually something that blindsides us that causes the biggest issues.
A couple of examples, we had a family friend who got so obsessed with the dangers aboard his boat, he invented, and rigged, multiple preventers and "safety" systems so that in the end, only he knew how to sail it - his processes and procedures were a nightmare for crew, and a total hindrance when reacting to the unforeseen - so his friends stopped sailing with him. Another broke the skeg off his HR, ripping the laminate open and needing a complete interior removal and re-build. He was about to hit some rocks, went hard over to avoid them, the boat pivoted around the keel allowing the skeg to run wide and hit the rocks almost side on - without the keel in front of it, it was just a big exposed lever laminated to the hull and was unable to withstand the impact - before that, he wholeheartedly believed a skeg would save him, skeg vs spade is no longer a talking point for him, but the accident was not unusual, just the scenario was unexpected - he always imagined a longitudinal strike.
In reality, the biggest factor in avoidable disasters are our own decisions, made in the heat of the moment, when exhausted and/or under pressure - and this happens in so many scenarios that I think addressing comfort and fatigue is the single biggest factor that improves the safety of the boat and crew.
So back to in-mast reefing, I personally find that fighting to bag a slab-reefed sail, and securing the main halyard to stop the sail going back up the mast, is exhausting and strenuous in anything approaching challenging conditions, and the bigger the boat, the heavier and more unwieldy everything is.
I prefer in-mast, and for those that prefer slab, fine .... your boat is not my boat. Neither system is a panacea to all the problems the sea might throw at us, and neither system dictates where you can and can't go with your boat, despite what the more conservative members of the forum might tell us.
Humans naturally make choices that they perceive as being consistent with their self image, then go on to create scenarios in their minds to justify their choices - often without any real thought about probability, or without any direct experience. We have collectively failed to learn that the sea, and life, can be very unpredictable. We fixate on certain aspects of a boat, in the mistaken belief that these will be the things or features that will save us one day. In doing this, we can end up sacrificing ease of use and convenience for a perceived or contrived benefit - this is a false economy IMO as it is usually something that blindsides us that causes the biggest issues.
A couple of examples, we had a family friend who got so obsessed with the dangers aboard his boat, he invented, and rigged, multiple preventers and "safety" systems so that in the end, only he knew how to sail it - his processes and procedures were a nightmare for crew, and a total hindrance when reacting to the unforeseen - so his friends stopped sailing with him. Another broke the skeg off his HR, ripping the laminate open and needing a complete interior removal and re-build. He was about to hit some rocks, went hard over to avoid them, the boat pivoted around the keel allowing the skeg to run wide and hit the rocks almost side on - without the keel in front of it, it was just a big exposed lever laminated to the hull and was unable to withstand the impact - before that, he wholeheartedly believed a skeg would save him, skeg vs spade is no longer a talking point for him, but the accident was not unusual, just the scenario was unexpected - he always imagined a longitudinal strike.
In reality, the biggest factor in avoidable disasters are our own decisions, made in the heat of the moment, when exhausted and/or under pressure - and this happens in so many scenarios that I think addressing comfort and fatigue is the single biggest factor that improves the safety of the boat and crew.
So back to in-mast reefing, I personally find that fighting to bag a slab-reefed sail, and securing the main halyard to stop the sail going back up the mast, is exhausting and strenuous in anything approaching challenging conditions, and the bigger the boat, the heavier and more unwieldy everything is.
I prefer in-mast, and for those that prefer slab, fine .... your boat is not my boat. Neither system is a panacea to all the problems the sea might throw at us, and neither system dictates where you can and can't go with your boat, despite what the more conservative members of the forum might tell us.
Last edited:
Sea Change
Well-known member
Good point. Curious about how this happened- do you use a skinny dyneema halyard? Is the sheeve a bit worn and loose?
The in-mast failure I have personal experience of was in somebody else's boat. The wrong shackle had been used at the head of the sail, with a couple of mm of pin protruding, and this had managed to catch in the confines of the mast. Somehow it had taken 300nm of sailing for it to occur though. I climbed the guy's mast to try to help but all I could do was diagnose the problem. Fortunately we were in a sheltered anchorage when I went up.
Babylon
Well-known member
Buy a boat for the now now.
What you can handle or short-handle now.
What suits your cruising plans for now to the medium-term at most.
What you can handle or short-handle now.
What suits your cruising plans for now to the medium-term at most.
Tranona
Well-known member
Can you list the "large number of disadvantages" as I seem to have missed those. On the other hand you seem to have missed all the positives that others have listed.
lustyd
Well-known member
So not an issue with in mast furling after all.
Sea Change
Well-known member
An installation error by the yard. Having a few threads protruding on your halyard shackle wouldn't have the same consequences on a slab reefing system.
My point is that this system was less forgiving of a small mistake, and the consequences were pretty significant.
lustyd
Well-known member
It's not far off of the issue Ruby Rose 2 had recently where a lack of threadlock made a screw come loose and caused their unreefed slab main to stick at the top of the mast.
If you screw up installation, anything can fail, but that's nothing at all to do with the product.
dancrane
Well-known member
The in-mast furling disagreement is a very interesting bit of drift.
I suppose I ought always to have been a huge fan of in-mast furling despite not having tried it, considering I'm expecting to be quite happy to motor to windward rather than sail, largely on the basis of avoiding wasting limited cruising time and effort.
But my reaction on seeing (I think) an Island Packet with in-mast furling a few years back, was of the main's shocking shapelessness and pitiable size. Despite its scale, it really resembled the sail on an infant's toy.
I appreciate the reasons why that may have been (no roach, etc) but I hadn't realised things had improved. I guess it's a case of durable old unadvanced kit surviving into the present and holding back the impression that many of us may hold even about improved versions of the same principle.
I hope the one I saw was just a rotten example because the growing use/availability of the system is to me as appealing beside slab reefing, as slab reefing seemed beside boom roller-furling.
.
I suppose I ought always to have been a huge fan of in-mast furling despite not having tried it, considering I'm expecting to be quite happy to motor to windward rather than sail, largely on the basis of avoiding wasting limited cruising time and effort.
But my reaction on seeing (I think) an Island Packet with in-mast furling a few years back, was of the main's shocking shapelessness and pitiable size. Despite its scale, it really resembled the sail on an infant's toy.
I appreciate the reasons why that may have been (no roach, etc) but I hadn't realised things had improved. I guess it's a case of durable old unadvanced kit surviving into the present and holding back the impression that many of us may hold even about improved versions of the same principle.
I hope the one I saw was just a rotten example because the growing use/availability of the system is to me as appealing beside slab reefing, as slab reefing seemed beside boom roller-furling.
.
lustyd
Well-known member
You can set any sail badly, and you can buy bad sails for both. The sailor is still in charge of trim and the loft is still in charge of correct sizing and cut. I've seen considerably more slab reefed sails with poor shape, and I'd argue that outside of the racing community most of us are clueless and just pull ropes until the boat moves as desired. I experiment with different ropes but I certainly don't know how to optimally set my sails.
Other threads that may be of interest
