Daydream believer
Well-known member
CorrectedSome people aren't very good
CorrectedSome people aren't very good
The lady at the front in blue overalls is sand bagging.
In all the ships, in all seas, I ever sailed. A Windlass has a vertical gypsy and a Cable Lifter is horizontal.
The original post asked about the convention - not whether it was right or wrong, or even confusing. a supplementary question was "what is a horizontal windlass". The next 2 posts answered both questions.
Both the convention and descriptions are both logical and used consistently by both manufacturers and in general usage. The working part of a windlass is the bit that pulls the chain and that can be either horizontal or vertical depending on the design. It is irrelevant whether the drive is horizontal or vertical as it can be either.
I'm guessing "faking it", but none of them seem to be putting any effort into the job.Please explain to a non English motherlanguage boater the meaning of "sand bagging"
There will be a vertical shaft connected by gearing and clutches to an anchor windlass below deck.Also should there not be a rope (for want of a better word) round the drum of the capstan?
Please explain to a non English motherlanguage boater the meaning of "sand bagging" (marine slang?" clearly nothing to do with some American boats). The very funny thing is her raised little fingers, as though the bar was a tea cup.
Two speedsCan anyone answer the question about the double bar seats?
There will be a vertical shaft connected by gearing to an anchor windlass below deck.
The lower holes are directly connected to the capstan drum.A thought about the two sets of holes. Is the top wheel fixed to this shaft, passing down through the deck, The lower wheel (the holes in use) is fixed to the capstan drum, in which case the people in the photo are doing nothing except posing.
Well it is NOT MY OPINION. I am just reflecting the terminology used by the makers of such equipment. There is a high degree of consistency which justifies the use of the word "convention". This was illustrated in post#2&3 and confirmed by other links in later posts. The only thing I have added is an explanation as to why that convention might be appropriate.In your opinion. Which is worth no more than anyone elses. You must be a hoot at parties. I bet the girls queue up to listen to your mansplaining.
- W
Not by you!Well it is NOT MY OPINION. I am just reflecting the terminology used by the makers of such equipment. There is a high degree of consistency which justifies the use of the word "convention". This was illustrated in post#2&3 and confirmed by other links in later posts. The only thing I have added is an explanation as to why that convention might be appropriate.
The original poster has consistently over the years claimed on here expertise in all things anchoring based on his 50 years experience. Hence my surprise that he was asking such a basic question. No rudeness was ever intended and his question was answered in a very clear and objective manner.
The lower holes are directly connected to the capstan drum.
The upper head is connected to the capstan drum through epicyclic gearing, which gives greater power, but at slower speed.
View attachment 185842View attachment 185843
Drawings copied from Hyde Windlass Company Capstan and Windlass c. 1890
I hope they don't mind.
Please explain to a non English motherlanguage boater the meaning of "sand bagging" (marine slang?" clearly nothing to do with some American boats). The very funny thing is her raised little fingers, as though the bar was a tea cup.
Can anybody answer the question about the double bar seats?
Count me as one of them! I'd encountered it in the rock climbing context, where a difficult climb might be given an easier rating.Definitely an Americanism, on that few Americans know the actual origin of. It is a sailing term.
...
Originally, sandbaggers were sailboats that used shiftable ballast (sandbags), huge rigs, and thus were faster than their length implied.
^^ Exactly! As an avid 40-year climber, a few local climbs come to mind. They were graded 5.9 in the original book, but are now consensus 5.11D. For years I thought they were just the hardest 5.9s around, wondering why they were so damn difficult for me. The author was either a traditionalist, or was carrying a heavy damn sandbag. Quite a few traditional routes are sandbags for the uninitiated.Count me as one of them! I'd encountered it in the rock climbing context, where a difficult climb might be given an easier rating.
Somewhat related to this are 5.9 routes in Yosemite (think... HVS 5a/b in UK parlance?), which were put up in an era when the scale was capped at 5.9 and no harder rating was available. They retain their original grades by tradition, but should be approached with particular caution.