Do you still beat to windward ?

[JumbleDuck]

If these 'yachtsmen' prefer to motor everywhere, why don't they buy motor boats?

This one prefers to motor to windward only. Sails are fine downwind.

 

[PhillM]

We will beat if it's a relatively short passage and we don't have a strong tide against us. Against say a solent spring I would go backwards if beating.

And in my case, even with the engine on

We can usually manage to sail against either tide or wind, not both. If its both, we go somewhere else and have the choice of doing so while looking like we meant to go somewhere else, or backwards.

 

[johnalison]

I have had a succession of fin-keeled boats in order that I will be able to sail to windward effectively, and with pleasure. On the other hand, it can be a bit of a slog. I think my answer would be that I would almost never tack across open water, such as the North Sea or Channel, with a day passage of 70m+. If I were lucky, I might manage 4kn towards my destination, but often less and life's too short for messing around. I often beat my way along a coastal passage of maybe 30m, but short tacking, again, I have rather given up doing. My 34 is not very handy short tacking, but we do sometimes beat out of the Orwell for fun.

Close-hauled is a different matter, and a common part of passage-making.

 

[sailorman]

As opposed to just being close hauled.

Maybe there are less people sailing, and the rivers are clearer of traffic, but this season seems more people doing so .

Are you still up for it ?

Close hauled would lay the course in 1 tack
if you cant lay it then its a beat

 

[Grumpybear]

We have done a lot of windward sailing this year, but as age creeps up on us we do mostly shortish local sails, up to about 2 hours ish. Around Plymouth, especially with some north in the wind, what's not to like?

 

[awol]

I suspect the modern AWB could be described as a motor vessel with an auxiliary mast from what I've seen this year.

 

[JumbleDuck]

You do need to tack to beat. If you beat to windward you will put a tack into get to your destination, thats how it was taught to me and how I have always heard it explained.

I thought beating to windward required a series of boards with tacks in between.

 

[Deleted member 36384]

I thought beating to windward required a series of boards with tacks in between.

Your english is far more eloquent than mine, that is the point I was trying to make.

 

[DanTribe]

To me, beating to windward is what sailing is all about. My boat really comes alive on a beat and the feeling when she is "in the groove" is very special. Any old box can get blown downwind but there's little fun in that.
If you need to get somewhere in a hurry you should leave earlier or choose a different form of transport.

 

[Neil]

I will beat to windward as much as possible. But. I find that as I near my destination, I get more and more impatient until I put the engine on for the last bit.

 

[Uricanejack]

Thanks. That was more or less my understanding, although not certain that coming about or tacking is a necessary component of beating to windward.

I'm really more puzzled by the inference being drawn that being close hauled means motorsailing.

If we're beating to windward and having to tack, then I would normally expect that we'd be close hauled. I just do not get the connection with motorsailing.

+1 pretty much what I thought.
It didn't occur to me anyone implied "close hauled means motor sailing"
Just if they would have to beat or sail close hauled to get to where they want to go. It means they would choose to motor sail instead.

To motor sail instead of a long beat to windward, why not just take the sails down and motor straight there?
If the tack will get you where you are going. Why would you need to motor.

Of course I can't motor sail, I don't have a cone

My boat does OK "close hauled" but better "full and by".

 

[Uricanejack]

So I agree - I don't think you need to tack to be beating, just trying to differentiate between the meanings in OP.

As for motorsailing. I assume OP means the practice of engine on, mainsail pinned in, maybe 20 degrees off the wind whereby you lay the direct course due to the engine but the main is up, mainly for stability / visibility/ pride rather than propulsive effort!

/QUOTE]

Interesting. This was my first though. This would appear to be a misconception. Having seen this strange idea mention regularly in other threads. I have deduced it means sailing with both sails up and the engine. Oh and a cone.

 

[Uricanejack]

To me, beating to windward is what sailing is all about. My boat really comes alive on a beat and the feeling when she is "in the groove" is very special. Any old box can get blown downwind but there's little fun in that.
If you need to get somewhere in a hurry you should leave earlier or choose a different form of transport.

+1
Crazy I suppose, but I like it.

 

[Uricanejack]

You do need to tack to beat. If you beat to windward you will put a tack into get to your destination, thats how it was taught to me and how I have always heard it explained. I checked the definition in 'Seamanship In The Age of Sail' and it is very clear on it, 'if the ship could not steer her course, because she was being headed by the wind, she reached her goal by making a series of zigzags or boards ...... at the end of each board she was tacked'. However, in 'RYA Sail Trim Handbook' in both the glossary and in the section on sailing to windward it just states that beating is sailing up wind close hauled, there is no description that beating involves tacking.

I will stick with the definition that to beat to windward means you have to tack to get to the upwind destination. Just as happy to see the term used as sailing closed hauled as well e.g. 'on a beat'.

I sail upwind, will beat to a destination unless I have a deadline to make. I like the challenge, it's part of sailing, being driven by the wind, navigating, pilotage - thats what I enjoy about the sport.

Your take on "beating" is how I think of it if beating is referred to.

My recollection of hearing the origin of the term. Which may or may not be bollocks.
It comes from the days of square riggers when men were made of iron and ships of oak.
When a Square Rigger went to windward. The fore and aft sails would work as usual for fore and aft sails. The windward or leading edge of the square sails would "beat" as they flogged when close to the wind.
Hence the term "beating". It just meant sailing to windward.

 

[Deleted member 36384]

... When a Square Rigger went to windward. The fore and aft sails would work as usual for fore and aft sails. The windward or leading edge of the square sails would "beat" as they flogged when close to the wind.
Hence the term "beating". It just meant sailing to windward.

I was wondering about the etymology of the word, I thought about the motion of the ship as it rose and fell from the waves as beating but the beat of the sails sounds far more plausible. It also suggests that beating to windward is more about the point of sail, close hauled, than tacking upwind.

Interesting stuff!

 

[{151760}]

Your take on "beating" is how I think of it if beating is referred to.

My recollection of hearing the origin of the term. Which may or may not be bollocks.
It comes from the days of square riggers when men were made of iron and ships of oak.
When a Square Rigger went to windward. The fore and aft sails would work as usual for fore and aft sails. The windward or leading edge of the square sails would "beat" as they flogged when close to the wind.
Hence the term "beating". It just meant sailing to windward.

That's interesting, I hadn't heard that. On that basis, I'll revise my earlier assertion and say that we beat quite a lot, but don't tack too much if we can avoid it.

 

[sailorgirl]

The only time Temptress has had the wind forward of the beam this year was the windward legs of the fun race held in Neiafu to mark the King of Tonga's birthday! Mostly we have managed Panama to Australia with the wind on or aft the beam and long may it continue that way!

 

[dombuckley]

My recollection of hearing the origin of the term. Which may or may not be bollocks.

My experience of sailing in square riggers would suggest the latter, I'm afraid. A well set and trimmed square sail will flog no more than a fore and aft sail, especially when close-hauled, as that is when the braces, tacks and sheets are all tightest.

My guess would be a corruption of a Dutch or German word, or perhaps a variation on the English meaning of "a regularly-travelled route" (as in "bobby on the beat" - remember those?). Mind you, we also talk about a "good thrash" to windward, so perhaps it comes from "beating", as in to take a hammering. Which, let's face it, is what it feels like sometimes!

As for the OP's question. If you have a Stuart Turner, you rarely have an option....

 

[westhinder]

My guess would be a corruption of a Dutch or German word...

No Dutch nautical term that I can think of.
Sailing closehauled is 'scherp aan de wind zeilen', beating in the sense of a series of tacks to reach a destination to windward is 'opkruisen'

 

[johnalison]

In one memorable year, we went to the Channel Isles for our three-week summer cruise. From leaving the East Coast in our Sadler 29, we got to Jersey and back and only went about twice, between Alderney and Guernsey, despite doing almost all the trip under sail.