In mast furling. Desirable?

[Ian_Edwards]

Which version suits, in my view, depends on what type of sailor you are.
Which is the more important?
The destination?
Or
The journey?
If it's the former, and you are more interested in getting there before all pontoon spaces are taken, or all the restaurants are full, or the pubs shut. Then in-mast reefing is probably your best option.
If you are more interested in sailing the boat well, using the wind shifts to your advantage and not too concerned about the shore side delights of the destination, or even reaching your destination. Then a conventional rig which you can tune and tweak is for you.
There's aways a middle ground, but I'm firmly in on the side of enjoying the art of sailing a boat well and effectively.
If I just wanted to get there, I'd join the darkside and get a motor yacht.
I've kept a boat in the Oban area for well over 20 years and I've witnessed many Friday afternoon rushes up the Sound of Mull, with yachts under engine, rushing flat out to get to Tobermory for a night out. I have no problem with that, but it's not what I enjoy.
On my numerous passages up and down the Sound of Mull, I often catch up similar sized yachts beating to windward, my Southerly is sailing faster and pointing higher. More often than not, the reaction of the other boat is to start the engine and furl the in-mast reefing.
Although it is obvious that in-mast reefing is more convenient that slab reefing. I can reef the main without leaving the cockpit, and I've yet to see an in-mast reefinf system which can perform as well to windward as a conventionally rigged boat.

 

[johnalison]

It’s not for me, though I can see the attraction for people doing moderate cruising. I think it is mainly a matter of boat size, and would see 10 m as being on the small size, since in-cockpit slab reefing shouldn’t be too hard for most sailors. Apart from the reliability issue, that I know little about, the chief disadvantage of in-mast reefing is the additional weight aloft, even when reefed. I believe that part of my 34’s good handling and speed is due to the fact that I’ve kept weight aloft down, and even have the radar at the stern.

 

[Major Tom]

Do you think you could have successfully furled the main in those conditions without the engine on? Maybe if you'd kept the genoa out and sailed hard on the wind but with the main spilled?

(Genuine questions and not trying to prove any points- my only direct experience of in mast was years ago on my DS course)

Yes, easy to furl by doing just that (on starboard tack) without needing engine.

 

[wonkywinch]

We love our Z Spars in mast furling. Never had a problem with it but did read the instructions first.

Unlike stack packs, don't automatically release the main and the vang prior to furling. Leave a little but of port tack (Z Spars slot is on the starboard side of the mast). Leave the vang on! Ease the vang just sufficiently so the leech is slack. This keeps the boom almost perpendicular so the sail furls linearly.

Also keep tension on the outhaul as you do with your genoa sheet when furling so the sail rolls in tightly. And watch it carefully so you can stop before you roll in any creases which will be a risk as the sail ages and stretches.

The simplest thing in the world to operate. 2 minutes to deploy and furl from the cockpit shorthanded with infinite reefing. Two lines, in and out. And furls on a wider range of wind angles than a traditional main.

Edited now I read my notes again - from Z Spars ..

Furling the sail: Hoist the boom topping lift and/or ease the kicker so that the leech is slack. Maintaining a light tension on the outhaul, furl the sail with the wind ahead. A slight pressure from the wind will avoid creases in the sail. Ensure that the furling drum has 2 or 3 turns of rope left on it when the sail is furled as far as the clew reinforcement patch.

 

[ylop]

Which version suits, in my view, depends on what type of sailor you are.
Which is the more important?
The destination?
Or
The journey?
If it's the former, and you are more interested in getting there before all pontoon spaces are taken, or all the restaurants are full, or the pubs shut. Then in-mast reefing is probably your best option.
If you are more interested in sailing the boat well, using the wind shifts to your advantage and not too concerned about the shore side delights of the destination, or even reaching your destination. Then a conventional rig which you can tune and tweak is for you.

Surely on this logic the person keen to get to the destination ASAP would want the faster sailing boat that points higher to the wind!

There's aways a middle ground, but I'm firmly in on the side of enjoying the art of sailing a boat well and effectively.

I may be an odd ball (indeed I am) but I've never been bothered about getting to the pub first (or necessarily at all) but also don't need to tweak the very finest bit of performance from the boat/sails either, being happy to enjoy the journey, the tranquility, the wildlife, etc rather than getting 0.1 knots more.

On my numerous passages up and down the Sound of Mull, I often catch up similar sized yachts beating to windward, my Southerly is sailing faster and pointing higher. More often than not, the reaction of the other boat is to start the engine and furl the in-mast reefing.

Plenty of slab reefed yachts in the Sound also not being sailed ultra-efficiently and a lot motor sailing or motoring! Of course it may not be that the boat can't go better / faster / higher but that the crew either don't have the knowledge or the inclination. I need to up my game though - I don't think I've ever overtaken anyone and embarrassed them into starting the engine before, never mind it being a regular thing.

 

[fredrussell]

We obviously are not devotees of in mast reefing. But I have relatively recently sailed on a boat with it, for the first time. It’s certainly convenient and easy to use. Quicker to reef than our slab reefing, but there’s no getting around the issue of sail shape. Both geometric when not reefed, and fullness when part reefed. Things are better than they used to be I am sure. But I think the dividing line is still in the same place as always. Performance orientated sailors, and traditionalists will always veer towards slab. Cruising sailors who have no racing aspirations or particular desire to push the boat’s envelope will be well served by a furling main. I am happy to leave charter operators to their headaches.

Just out of interest, does your boat have a furling headsail? Lots of people on this thread talking of needing to get the last 0.1kt from their sails - which I fully understand - but if that’s the argument then surely hank-on headsails would be the ideal?

 

[DanTribe]

My boat had an add on behind the mast system which I hated from day one. The sail has no shape, was prone to jambs and seemed to add little speed when set. True it was handy when I needed to lose the main quickly but there was always the worry that it would jamb. Best improvement I made was to remove it and get a proper sail.
Probably OK when new and with a newish sail and essential when short handed on larger yachts but not for me

 

[Ed Sned]

A thought for those who prefer conventional slab reefing but are concerned about the hassle and weight of getting the main up... consider a 2:1 halyard.

I have a 52m2 fully battened large-roach main and I can pull it up from the cockpit without putting it on a winch until the last 6-12" (and I'm no spring chicken). It does mean a bit of extra line in the cockpit, but with modern dyneema lines and the reduced load, you can go for a much smaller diameter and then add covers for where it goes through the clutch (remember to do the reef points too). Also means I can open the clutch (having obviously taken the load off with the winch first) and drop it into the stackpack in about 4-5 seconds ....
I generally race solo and so rarely having to go to the mast is very valuable

 

[MagicalArmchair]

Do you think you could have successfully furled the main in those conditions without the engine on? Maybe if you'd kept the genoa out and sailed hard on the wind but with the main spilled?

(Genuine questions and not trying to prove any points- my only direct experience of in mast was years ago on my DS course)

Yes, I could have either kept the Genoa powered up to keep head to wind, however there was a headsea as well that would have kept trying to take the bows away.

I can understand why Selden would say that, it makes furling easier on the crew and the loads are reduced. It is basically what had to be done in the days before in-mast furling and stack packs. I can't say I do it often and I certainly don't have to go head to wind to furl - it's easier on upwind points of sail - but it's also a trade-off, I'll head up wind if there's not much in the way of sea-state as adding spray and cresting waves to the mix also has an effect on crew.

I would also imagine that the forces required to furl are not any greater than the shock loads experienced by the furling gear in a crash gybe or a broach. I did have one errant crew member put the furling line on the electric winch the wrong way round and it was pulling directly against the ratchet mechanism, I noticed when the sail wasn't going in and there were a quick series of loud bangs from the mast as the continuous line skipped on the drum ... god knows what had been going on before it skipped as the line was melted in places. Everything still seems to function OK but I will be checking it over winter and replacing the furling line.

Thinking about it though, I don't often use my main beyond a beam reach if the wind is properly strong, just the genoa is enough to achieve hull speed, so the majority of my heavy weather reefing on the main is on upwind courses where just easing the main sheet allows trouble free reefing.

Topping out around 8,4 knots under reefed genny .... nice comfortable speed with no drama.

Your point on turning up into the sea and swell, as well as turning on the motor is certainly a valid one. At that point in time, those few minutes of reefing, was enough to tip some of my more delicate crew members from feeling sea sick, to actually being sick. Sequence of events:

• Broad reach, building winds, flying along.
• Harden up, now hard pressed and leaning over (crew alarmed at the sporty lean - note, we were not side deck in the water, just leaning over a bit more than required for hull speed and after 4 hours on the broad reach, they were used to flat and fast).
• Engine on (I do communicate why we are doing this clearly, but it is still a change of equilibrium for the crew)
• Headsail away (so flapping sails = noise = alarm)
• Motor ahead into head seas, and head up to wind (waves over the deck = change of motion = alarm).
• Reef down (slight flapping = noise = alarm)
• Back on course.

That was a reef in just a few minutes, but enough to push my younger lad over the edge.

I'm interested to try downwind - I have tried it before, but the clue, even with the vang hard on, raises too high, and there is too much power as it bags us even if you let off just a little outhaul. This leads to the "bunching up" of the sail at the bottom of the furl, risking jamming (hence my favoured method above). I might ask Selden that specific question you know. If I could have made that work in those winds, those crew might have toughed it out a bit longer

 

[Dockhead]

I've sailed many charter boats with both in-mast and stack-pack/lazy-jacks - I've had problems with both.

In the case of the in-mast furling, the boat had a worn out main, way too baggy, and the sail material was far too thin and flexible (so worn out it was almost like spinnaker material) ... when rolling out, the exiting sail picked up a fold from the baggy part, pulled it out of the slot and jammed. We lost an afternoon of our holiday while the charter company sorted it out. The solution was to only roll out on a starboard tack so the exiting sail closed the exit-slot and prevented the folds being picked up.

The stack-pack problem was a boat that required a gorilla on the main-halyard, the batons caught on the lazy-jacks constantly requiring dropping and rehoisting to free the batons. The sail sliders were old and worn and had way too much friction, and some of the sliders were no longer attached to the sail. On top of this, to reef required going head-to-wind, releasing the halyard and then having to go forward to the mast because the sail didn't drop cleanly, and if you didn't want the reefing lines thrashing about, you needed to pull all of them in as the sail came down. Making the halyard fast once it was down required me to balance on a mast step which was not easy in the swell we were in - it's important to detach the halyard or make it fast if you don't want the sail going back up the mast in a real blow.

The cause of these issues on both systems were all due to combinations of poor maintenance, sail condition, and/or cheap equipment (sliders, sail, battens) so IMO it is all avoidable.

Assuming you have good sails, a regularly maintained roller furler, or, for stack packs, ball-bearing cars, battons that don't protrude from the luff and jam in the lazyjacks, and a single-line reefing system then here are the differences.

• Sail shape and performance - roller furling will not deliver the same performance as a stack-pack - the horizontal battons allow a larger sail area and a better sail shape.
• Reefed Sail size- Stack pack has 3 or 4 sail sizes to choose from, roller furling is infinite.
• Ease of use - Roller furling - Sail size can be reduced and increased from the cockpit without changing course, unless running deep downwind - it is a two line operation - ease the outhaul and pull in on the furling line. Stack pack requires releasing the main halyard and dropping the sail to the reef point you need while securing the reef-line you want in order to pull the clew and tack into place. It's a good idea to tidy up the unused reefing lines to stop them thrashing around while you sort out the sail, they will need to be loosened again to shake the reef out. If the unused reefing lines are not stowed properly, then they can come loose and catch on deck hardware or people if the wind is strong and the sail is flogging during a tack.
• Stowage - as the roller furling stows the sail in the mast, it is out of the way and a ratchet prevents it deploying accidentally (Selden). A stack pack is flaked into a sail-cover mounted on the boom which can then be zipped shut - ensure you have a method to easily do this as if the boom extends into the cockpit and over the bimini then the end of the cover and stowage of reefing lines can be a pain. Depending on how tall you are, larger boats can also make reaching the halyard to secure it difficult. You need to leave the cockpit to stow a stack-pack and leave it safe - most people do this in a marina at the end of the day, but in a gale at sea, if you want to prevent the unexpected deployment of the sail then the main halyard at the head of the sail needs to be made fast somehow - usually involving a trip to the mast.
• Boat size - the bigger the boat, the bigger the sails. Stack-packs require a certain amount of strength and fitness to manhandle into their stowage - this effort increases with sail size - not to mention a bit of clambering around on deck. If this is not important to you, then it is not a negative point for stack-packs.

On both my boats I have had in-mast furling from Selden - they have functioned without issue since 2010. My current boat has a 54m² main sail, and as a cruising couple, there is no way we could cope with this as a stack-pack in strong winds.

If you always have a crew fit enough to deal with a stack-pack in a blow, and ultimate performance is important, or you want to race your boat, then my recommendation would be to get a stack-pack.
If you are a cruising sailor, with a larger boat (>40ft) who sails short-handed and you are looking for ease of use, then get roller furling.

All the arguments about reliability of the two systems are a waste of time .... IMO it is a dead heat if you are talking about modern, well maintained systems.

This is a good post, pretty much nails it.

In-mast furling has pluses and minuses (like most things on boats).

Pluses:
1. Fast and easy furling and unfurling without leaving the cockpit.
2. Furl and unfurl on almost any point of sail.
3. Ideal storage of the sail inside the mast.
4. Fast and infinitely variable control of sail area without leaving the cockpit.
5. Flatter cut sail easier to make into a low drag shape in strong wind.

Minuses:
1. Flatter cut sail harder to make into a more powerful shape in light wind
2. Not possible to have more than just a bit of roach, which limits ultimate power.
3. Not tolerant of baggy sail.
4. Weight aloft.
5. More maintenance, which you neglect at your peril.
6. No bending of the mast (but that's the ONLY control you lose).

The advantages are more and more meaningful, the larger the mainsail is, and the harder the weather. I wouldn't want in-mast furling on a 10m boat used mostly in good weather. But I'm glad to have it on my 16.4m boat often used in gnarly offshore conditions.

Bits of more detail:

1. Advantage 4 -- infinitely variable sail area -- becomes a really profound advantage when you learn to use it. It means you have more control over sail area than with normal reefing, which means you are more likely to have just the right amount of sail up. We race our boat and find that in some conditions this offsets the disadvantage with roach. This control also means that you can manage sail area with the mainsail and don't have to molest the jib, and that adds power also -- not reefing the jib, ever. It took me some years to really figure this out.

2. Disadvantage 3 -- you really don't want to use Dacron or other woven sails, with in-mast furling. Laminate sails and in-mast furling go together like cookies and cream. So maybe another disadvantage is the cost of your sails, but not for me, as I wouldn't use woven sails even without in-mast furling.

 

[Baggywrinkle]

Which version suits, in my view, depends on what type of sailor you are.
Which is the more important?
The destination?
Or
The journey?
If it's the former, and you are more interested in getting there before all pontoon spaces are taken, or all the restaurants are full, or the pubs shut. Then in-mast reefing is probably your best option.
If you are more interested in sailing the boat well, using the wind shifts to your advantage and not too concerned about the shore side delights of the destination, or even reaching your destination. Then a conventional rig which you can tune and tweak is for you.
There's aways a middle ground, but I'm firmly in on the side of enjoying the art of sailing a boat well and effectively.
If I just wanted to get there, I'd join the darkside and get a motor yacht.
I've kept a boat in the Oban area for well over 20 years and I've witnessed many Friday afternoon rushes up the Sound of Mull, with yachts under engine, rushing flat out to get to Tobermory for a night out. I have no problem with that, but it's not what I enjoy.
On my numerous passages up and down the Sound of Mull, I often catch up similar sized yachts beating to windward, my Southerly is sailing faster and pointing higher. More often than not, the reaction of the other boat is to start the engine and furl the in-mast reefing.
Although it is obvious that in-mast reefing is more convenient that slab reefing. I can reef the main without leaving the cockpit, and I've yet to see an in-mast reefinf system which can perform as well to windward as a conventionally rigged boat.

I love these anecdotes, if you can sail your boat well, have a slippery hull design with no fouling, a folding prop, and properly set sails then you will pass most of the leisure sailors and charter boats out there. Recently did a run down from Rovinj to Unije in the Adriatic with our new set of sails - I now have a vertically battened roller furling main which does hold a better shape than the sail it replaced - but we also had fresh bottom paint, and a folding prop, and the dinghy was on davits. We were also well clear of the land to avoid the fickle inshore winds. Nothing came past us and we overhauled everything that was on the same course over the space of 4-5 hours. We didn't do that because we were the fastest boat there, we just didn't come across anyone going faster. Some of the other boats had AIS and I could see their speed over the ground was half a knot to a knot slower than us.

There have been other days when we have been overhauled by boats being sailed better than us, with both roller furling and slab reefing. Slab reefing will in no way guarantee being faster than anyone else, it's just one factor in many that contribute to the ultimate speed of the boat.

As with most things on boats, it's the skill and experience of the skipper and crew that will make the biggest difference - my pet hate is the charter boats that ply the Adriatic with the luff of the genoa flapping - and that's the case on boats with both types of mainsail reefing.

No point in judging your sailing performance on a random collection of leisure sailors, go racing if you want to find out how good you are, and for serious racing no-one chooses a roller-furling main (edit: although comments from @Dockhead seem to prove that not always to be the case), just as they wouldn't choose a fixed prop or tow their tender behind them.

 

[Tranona]

We obviously are not devotees of in mast reefing. But I have relatively recently sailed on a boat with it, for the first time. It’s certainly convenient and easy to use. Quicker to reef than our slab reefing, but there’s no getting around the issue of sail shape. Both geometric when not reefed, and fullness when part reefed. Things are better than they used to be I am sure. But I think the dividing line is still in the same place as always. Performance orientated sailors, and traditionalists will always veer towards slab. Cruising sailors who have no racing aspirations or particular desire to push the boat’s envelope will be well served by a furling main. I am happy to leave charter operators to their headaches.

Things are indeed better. Charter boats (like my first one) have cheap sails that get abused and quickly lose shape. They lasted 4 seasons on my boat even in the light airs of the Ionian. My biggest mistake when speccing my second was not ticking the "better sails" box, but I had already exceeded my self imposed limit and it was a toss up with the bow thruster. The latter met a more pressing need. However, again the cheap sail lasted 4 seasons when it started to lose shape. bit the bullet and had a new one made in Vectran. Unfortunately the mast section used did not have room for vertical battens unless cheaper lighter cloth was used and on balance considered better to go with Vectran that enabled a bit of roach with a Spectra reinforced leech and which just fitted in the slot when furled. Vast improvement in sail shape and drive over the original with the promise of longer life..

 

[Dockhead]

We obviously are not devotees of in mast reefing. But I have relatively recently sailed on a boat with it, for the first time. It’s certainly convenient and easy to use. Quicker to reef than our slab reefing, but there’s no getting around the issue of sail shape. Both geometric when not reefed, and fullness when part reefed. Things are better than they used to be I am sure. But I think the dividing line is still in the same place as always. Performance orientated sailors, and traditionalists will always veer towards slab. Cruising sailors who have no racing aspirations or particular desire to push the boat’s envelope will be well served by a furling main. I am happy to leave charter operators to their headaches.

We race occasionally, longer ocean races, and do pretty well, despite having in-mast furling. We are fully competitive in conditions where you are reefed most of the time; less so in lighter conditions.

You are right on the money when you talk about fullness of the shape when reefed -- in-mast furling main gets flatter as it is reefed. I find this to be an advantage, not a drawback, because you can have more sail area up with a flatter shape, which is desirable in strong wind, because you get a better lift-to-drag ratio so less heeling.

The drawback is that when the wind is light and you are NOT reefed; you will never get as much power from even the best in-mast furling main, as you can get from a horizontally battened mainsail with a large roach.

Note that not all in-mast furling mains are alike. In previous years, in-mast furling mains had a hollow leech -- negative roach -- which is awful for shape. Nowadays they typically have straight leeches or even a moderate roach supported by vertical battens. So the with the right sail, the disadvantage compared to the best horizontal batten sails is considerably reduced. We have carbon laminate sails and a slight roach in the main.

 

[Tranona]

The arguments, or should I say preferences seem about even to me, although seeing it mentioned several times, with single line reefing and half decent batten cars you shouldn't need to go out of the cockpit to reef and all it takes to drop the main should be bang the halyard clutch

Not really - the split I suggested earlier is very obvious. Those who "prefer" slab mostly have no experience of owning a boat with in mast and tend to take their negatives from observed "jamming" or alleged poor sail shape leading to reduced performance. Both of those so called cons are easily avoided (and slab reefing has some equally annoying cons)

On the other hand most of the proponents have experienced ownership of both and express a clear and real preference for in mast based on their own experience and not observation and anecdote.

I have recently gone back to slab reefing because of the choice of the boat for my final project and once again gone through all the tricks of making it all work reasonably well. We tend to forget the amount of development over the years that has gone into making what is essentially an unsound system work - expensive batten cars, full battened sails, lazyjacks, stack packs, rows of clutches and winches, flatteners and so on to still be left with an imperfect system that restricts choice of mainsail size to 3 (or maybe 4) pre determined levels. This, of course can be justified if racing or if the boat is designed to respond to all the sail adjustment, but the reality is that with a cruising boat loaded with 1.5 tonnes or more of gear and designed for easy short handed sailing in mast with good sails is just as effective in achieving respectable passage times.

 

[Dockhead]

. . . No point in judging your sailing performance on a random collection of leisure sailors, go racing if you want to find out how good you are, and for serious racing no-one chooses a roller-furling main (edit: although comments from @Dockhead seem to prove that not always to be the case), just as they wouldn't choose a fixed prop or tow their tender behind them.

No, I would also not choose a furling main for racing, if I had a choice. I use it only because I can't afford to maintain a separate boat just for racing, and 97% of my sailing is cruising. I make the best of what I have. It turns out that it's not all that bad, but it's still not what I would choose for racing.

 

[ashtead]

I guess having got the stack pack version I’m in the camp of not trusting the in mast but if I was old and had anything larger than say12m I would be looking for in boom (yes I know expense etc ) but many do manage 13m with stackpack . To some extent if buying secondhand it’s what you will find in market -most Hallberg owners are of an age where it’s convenience assists and I guess if you have budget to maintain the gear and sails I can see how you might use the main more if able to reef more simply. For us with double headsails we would try to be going downwind on large headsail if it was reefing weather . That said we have luxury of not having to make that upwind slog under double reefed main normally . Ultimately I would be asking what sort of sailing does your crew want to do and how physically active/nimbe are they. That’s not much help I guess but for smaller10m sails try to stick to the fully battened main with stackpack pack if you want the extra speed etc and live with the marginal reefing issue .

 

[Dockhead]

Not really - the split I suggested earlier is very obvious. Those who "prefer" slab mostly have no experience of owning a boat with in mast and tend to take their negatives from observed "jamming" or alleged poor sail shape leading to reduced performance. Both of those so called cons are easily avoided (and slab reefing has some equally annoying cons)

On the other hand most of the proponents have experienced ownership of both and express a clear and real preference for in mast based on their own experience and not observation and anecdote.. .

I agree that the passionate feelings against in-mast furling belong almost exclusively to people who have either never used them, or who have only experienced them on a badly maintained charter boat, or especially, delivery skippers who sail them on boats which have been standing unused for years. And not to people who have lived with them long enough to develop the skills to use them properly, and get the system in proper working order (including a non-baggy sail).

I'm in the latter group, and I'm happy with my in-mast furling, but I wouldn't say I prefer it for all situations and on all boats. I love the sight and feel of a big roachy, bat-wing like slab-reefing mainsail; there's nothing else like it. I think about that sometimes on sunny mild days. But in the middle of the North sea on a stormy night I thank Zeus for having in-mast.

Some good reading: Major leap for effortless performance - Carbon furling mast

 

[Chiara’s slave]

Just out of interest, does your boat have a furling headsail? Lots of people on this thread talking of needing to get the last 0.1kt from their sails - which I fully understand - but if that’s the argument then surely hank-on headsails would be the ideal?

Yes we do. But as it’s comparatively small, and on a fractional forestay, we don’t need to start jib reefing until the wind is well over 20kn, and then we’d normally find that the sea state is our limiting factor. And with 20kn, we are not going to notice the odd 0.1kn, you slow down to keep your fillings in place anyway. Our first reef is always the main.

 

[doug748]

We are starting a group which plans a yacht share and are considering the pros and cons of various yachts. In mast furling came up and as I have not really thought about it in the past
decided that there was no better place for advice than here! I will encourage the other group members to view the comments.
We are looking for a yacht of around 10m and will be sailing in Spain. We noticed 2 Furia 33s and one had in mast which sparked debate.
In general what are the pros and cons? My only experience is watching a neighbouring yacht owner trying over days to unjam his furler and this did put me off a little.
On the other hand they do seem neat and easy to use!
I will be interested in views and experiences as these may inform our buying options.
Thanks all.

With a young, fit and mobile crew you would, in my view, be bonkers to specify in mast on a 10 metre boat.

.

 

[Tranona]

With a young, fit and mobile crew you would, in my view, be bonkers to specify in mast on a 10 metre boat.

.

Read post #14 - he is 84.

However, age of owner is irrelevant. Anybody can take advantage of the benefits of in mast. I was 55 young, fit and able but not really bothered about the strength of crew when I bought my first and 70 the second. As this thread has shown sailors of all age groups value in mast based on their experience of both. It is those that don't have experience that seem not to like the idea.