In-mast furling - pros and cons

[jwilson]

I have sailed 10,000 miles both with in-mast and 10,000 miles with a fully battened main and Lazyjack system as a long distance sailing husband and wife team.

The battens were always catching on the lazyjacks and I had to go forward every time to reef. No such problems with the in-mast. It got a bit stuck on a handful of occasions, but no dramas and easily rectified.

I prefer the in-mast for ease of use.

If I was interested in performance then perhaps battend main on roller cars with everything led back to the cockpit would be ideal.

Not quite sailed as many miles with in-mast, but in the thousands. I agree it can work well. One one boat we had an in-mast main as standard kit on a big Catalina, and a retro-fitted track at the side for a full-battened main for club-level racing.

In a blow the roller genoa plus in-mast main was really easy to handle, and match area and trim to the weather and course. I've had more trouble with jamming single line reefing blocks inside booms than I have had with in-mast systems, though I agree the potential for big problems is there. There is a technique for using in-mast, mainly in keeping some tension on the outhaul as you furl.

I have also used a Maxi-Roach vertically battened in-mast, and it seemed no worse than a standard short-battened main for drive and shape.

 

[marklucas]

I have only sailed with in-mast furling once - and all I can say is that it jammed and despite an hour's hard labour we couldn't get it unjammed. I admit that this could have been user error.

If I was buying a 57' yacht I'd be looking at in boom furling - then if that fails have all the lines and cringles in place for slab reefing and if racing with crew then revert to slab and cunningham - all the benefits but none of the downsides.

 

[capnsensible]

Done 4 transatlantics with furling, 6 without.

I like it and I reckon it makes the boat generally safer.

 

[rotrax]

I think the point about the height of the boom made earlier is the reason on a large boat. Putting on a sail cover or even zipping a stack pack is difficult above shoulder height, made even more difficult on a yacht with a deck saloon. Many Oysters being built at the moment, with traditional rigs, have a "V" shaped boom and the sail drops into it. Not sure if there is a powered sailcover or something similar.

Yup- been there! As a fully paid up shorthouse our new boat suprised me when I found I could not reach the stackpack zip. I fitted two steps to the mast, but now I usually lower one side of the lazyjacks untill I can reach and then return it to its previous position.

 

[BrianH]

I have only sailed with in-mast furling once - and all I can say is that it jammed and despite an hour's hard labour we couldn't get it unjammed. I admit that this could have been user error.

If I was buying a 57' yacht I'd be looking at in boom furling - then if that fails have all the lines and cringles in place for slab reefing and if racing with crew then revert to slab and cunningham - all the benefits but none of the downsides.

I cannot imagine why in-boom is being studiously ignored by the majority in this thread. Properly fitted it has all the benefits of in-mast and none of its disadvantages, especially the very real one of jamming when not reefed in a rising gale. All the comments about how to prevent that is for nothing when it happens. Everyone can make a mistake, such as above with an admission of possible user error, but who is always perfect? It is a horror scenario that made me reject in-mast and fit a fully battened, ProFurl, in-boom system.

It wasn't perfect and I had two seasons of minor problems with creased furling until I had it working flawlessly. But here's the crux of the matter - I could always reduce or drop the main whatever happened.

 

[windpipe]

I cannot imagine why in-boom is being studiously ignored by the majority in this thread. Properly fitted it has all the benefits of in-mast and none of its disadvantages, especially the very real one of jamming when not reefed in a rising gale. All the comments about how to prevent that is for nothing when it happens. Everyone can make a mistake, such as above with an admission of possible user error, but who is always perfect? It is a horror scenario that made me reject in-mast and fit a fully battened, ProFurl, in-boom system.

It wasn't perfect and I had two seasons of minor problems with creased furling until I had it working flawlessly. But here's the crux of the matter - I could always reduce or drop the main whatever happened.

IMHO - In boom furling is not for the sub 60 foot short handed sailer, it is more complicated than the in-mast and from my experience causes more problems because of the accuracy needed by boom angles etc.. over 60 foot with some crew YES. It also increases the cost significantly which is why you only tend to see it on Super yachts.

 

[BrianH]

IMHO - In boom furling is not for the sub 60 foot short handed sailer, it is more complicated than the in-mast and from my experience causes more problems because of the accuracy needed by boom angles etc.. over 60 foot with some crew YES.

My boat is 31' and I am usually single-handed. What is "more complicated" and what is your experience of "more problems" being caused? I am genuinely interested in your experience because I did have initial difficulties, which were eventually resolved.

The "accuracy needed by boom angle" is easily derived by a substantial and rigid boom vang that ensures the necessary 88° to the mast. Once accurately set up it is not a problem.

It also increases the cost significantly which is why you only tend to see it on Super yachts.

I researched the subject exhaustively before deciding which system to install and for a retrofit found that the in-boom (with new mainsail) was less expensive than a new mast or even an add-on, in-mast mechanism (also with new mainsail) that could never be optimal. But minor cost differences had nothing to do with my final decision, which rested purely on the ability to reduce sail whatever happened to the sail or mechanism. Furled weight aloft and better setting mainsail with full-length battens and roach were merely a bonus.

Perhaps on a new yacht it could be more expensive because so many in-mast systems are standard - having been developed with economies of scale long before in-boom systems became widely available. On larger boats in-boom systems start to become expensive because they usually incorporate automatic motors and winches, although I am prepared to accept that larger in-mast systems probably do too. My small boat needs none of that and is simple in the extreme, with both halyard and reefing line leading back to the cockpit allowing me to swiftly reef to any degree by manipulating those two lines without going forward.

The one advantage in-mast has over in-boom is the greater angle off the wind at which reefing may occur. My in-boom system has an articulated luff-groove to allow the sail to always be in-line with the wind without the ship being completely head-to-wind to avoid friction at the luff-groove but it still has a closer limit than the larger slot and rolling sail of the in-mast.

 

[Elemental]

I cannot imagine why in-boom is being studiously ignored by the majority in this thread. Properly fitted it has all the benefits of in-mast and none of its disadvantages, especially the very real one of jamming when not reefed in a rising gale.

In my experience, if people experience difficulty it's during the unfurl process - not during furling. Ergo, the likely outcome is a jammed sail in a falling rather than rising wind.

Properly maintained (mainly coating the sail in Sailkote) this simply doesn't happen often.

 

[BrianH]

Properly maintained (mainly coating the sail in Sailkote) this simply doesn't happen often.

Often? OFTEN?? With my track record once would be enough to be disastrous.

Four years ago during my research I posted on here asking for experiences with both systems. I cannot remember any negative responses for in-boom - well, there weren't many in use at that time, so hardly a useful sample. But I do remember someone working on yacht maintenance in Spain with some very telling accounts of how many in-mast mainsails he had to cut away because they were so tightly jammed.

 

[jordanbasset]

When we first had our boat (in-mast furling) I did have problems a couple of times. Always when I was taking the sail out so no did not cause any danger, just irritating as would spend a long time fixing the problem.
Soon learned it was entirely my fault in that when I furled it in I was not keeping tension on it, so although the sail went in, it caused problems when I tried to get it out.
Since then in the last 2 1/2 years have not had any problems.

 

[Elemental]

Often? OFTEN?? With my track record once would be enough to be disastrous.

Four years ago during my research I posted on here asking for experiences with both systems. I cannot remember any negative responses for in-boom - well, there weren't many in use at that time, so hardly a useful sample. But I do remember someone working on yacht maintenance in Spain with some very telling accounts of how many in-mast mainsails he had to cut away because they were so tightly jammed.

I can't comment on in-boom systems, I've never owned one. However, my experience of in-mast systems has been very good. They do need maintenance (a good slippery sail to resist pinching plus encourage a tight roll) and a decently shaped sail (old blown out sails pinch more readily) seem more relevant than technique. I just let everything off and furl / unfurl mine as required...

If buying another boat, I wouldn't mind if it had either in-mast or slab reefing...

 

[BrianH]

I can't comment on in-boom systems, I've never owned one.
............

If buying another boat, I wouldn't mind if it had either in-mast or slab reefing...

But, presumably, not in-boom

This demonstrates exactly what I have found, an entrenched antipathy to the system by those who have no experience of it. As with the earlier poster who wrote about it being "more complicated" and "causes more problems", but when I ask for some clarification to such vague and dogmatic assertions ... no response.

The vast majority of yachts now have in-mast reefing systems and everyone likes to rationalise that what they have is the best and everything else is rubbish, but in this case it really is strange Perhaps it is all analogous to the Betamax-VHS syndrome - for those who can remember that far back.

 

[Tranona]

But, presumably, not in-boom

This demonstrates exactly what I have found, an entrenched antipathy to the system by those who have no experience of it. As with the earlier poster who wrote about it being "more complicated" and "causes more problems", but when I ask for some clarification to such vague and dogmatic assertions ... no response.

The vast majority of yachts now have in-mast reefing systems and everyone likes to rationalise that what they have is the best and everything else is rubbish, but in this case it really is strange Perhaps it is all analogous to the Betamax-VHS syndrome - for those who can remember that far back.

Think you are being a bit unfair here. There have been many attempts to produce an effective in boom system, some by major suppliers, but most have failed to establish a position in the market (at least in the smaller sizes). And of course those in the minority who have fitted them will usually rationalise their decision!

There do seem to be some fundamental problems to overcome and the advantages do not seem sufficient to persuade volume users to put the effort into solving the problems, unlike in mast which is now a well developed and accepted system.

My own view is that in boom is unlikely now to achieve critical mass, not necessarily because it is inferior, but for the very reason that the alternative has gained such a strong position in the market. There is little incentive for a manufacturer to enter the market, except to find niches that are not well served by the current suppliers.

 

[jimi]

Well personally on a 57 foot boat I would'nt like to handle a slab reef main without a cockpit full of gorillas! If a family boat then there's only one option, IMHO, and that is in mast reefing.

 

[Fluter]

Well personally on a 57 foot boat I would'nt like to handle a slab reef main without a cockpit full of gorillas! If a family boat then there's only one option, IMHO, and that is in mast reefing.

Excellent contributions to this thread. i tend to agree that over 50 feet, in-mast (or perhaps in-boom) furling becomes almost a necessity for safe short-handed sailing.

The person I would like to hear from though is the originator of the thread himself, Mr Magnum, who has just completed his first season in a 60 footer with fully-battened mainsail. I'd love to hear from him how he got on and whether there were occasions when it was a struggle short-handed (and perhaps how much motoring he's done).

 

[BrianH]

Think you are being a bit unfair here. There have been many attempts to produce an effective in boom system, some by major suppliers, but most have failed to establish a position in the market (at least in the smaller sizes). And of course those in the minority who have fitted them will usually rationalise their decision!

Hey! That's my line

There do seem to be some fundamental problems to overcome

Again, "problems", even "fundamental" ones - and all without defining which ones. It's like trying to catch fish with bare hands here.

My own view is that in boom is unlikely now to achieve critical mass, not necessarily because it is inferior, but for the very reason that the alternative has gained such a strong position in the market.

I agree, this is the crux of the matter, tied to the fact there seems to be a closed mind to the principle by the essentially conservative, yachting public.

It may be tied in to association with the old rolling boom system, which really was rubbish - as I know from my own experiences with two previous boats.

In the photo added to my post #67 above, the other boat in company with me is a good friend who often sails with me while I often sail with him on his yacht, a Comet with in-mast reefing. We both agree that my system is quicker and easier to reef - not only has he the same sized boat, we are identical ages (later 70s) and both usually singe-handed, as in the photo. Our obsession with easy reefing has a lot to do with where we sail. The NE Adriatic is known for the fearsome bora, a katabatic wind that can arrive instantaneously and blow intensely for some hours. Usually there is little or no warning, it just hits. Fast reefing is essential in such conditions.

 

[Tranona]

Hey! That's my line


Again, "problems", even "fundamental" ones - and all without defining which ones. It's like trying to catch fish with bare hands here.

Thats why I used the line!

From what I have read and heard from people who have tried in boom problems arise in articulating the luff to the mast, ensuring the boom is at the correct angle, and mechanical problems with the mandrell/winding mechanism. As there seems to have been many variations in design of these aspects from different manufacturers it suggests that there is not a foolproof method.

Maybe there is a good design waiting out there, but it does seem that the other advantages of the system are not great enough for anybody to put in the amount of development and marketing needed to dislodge the current market leaders.

 

[BrianH]

Thats why I used the line!

Of course. Touché.

From what I have read and heard from people who have tried in boom problems arise in articulating the luff to the mast,

The ProFurl system has separate luff sections that slot together and are fixed at intervals into, and stand away from, the existing mast luff-groove. This then enables a straight lead onto the inner, rotating boom section. It works well and I have had no problem with it in two year's use.

Other systems, such as the more complex Leisure Furl one, have the furling mechanism forward of the mast, which dispenses with such a necessary aft luff displacement requirement.

ensuring the boom is at the correct angle

No problem with fixed boom vang - covered in an earlier post.

mechanical problems with the mandrell/winding mechanism.

Equally problem free in my experience. As mentioned above, other systems have an articulated joint to bring the mechanism through the mast - could be a source of problems, but these are usually for larger and motor-driven furling.

Where I did have earlier problems was bunching of the sail at the forward end, which tended to jam there. This was cured by minor sail and batten changes, plus a learning curve of how not to have any drive in the sail, which tended to force it forward while furling. The ProFurl agent was a local sailmaker and not at all experienced in supplying what was, to him, a new system.

A remaining problem, which is not a problem with the general principle, is luff friction, added to by the halyard blocks leading back to the cockpit, that makes raising the mainsail hard work and needing winch help for the last couple of meters.

As there seems to have been many variations in design of these aspects from different manufacturers it suggests that there is not a foolproof method.

I do not interpret such variations as that at all. Any one (or all) could be foolproof. They may be trying to reduce costs, or enabling further functionality, such as adding motor drive. It need not mean that one system is flawed and all the others are seeking to avoid it.

But thanks for outlining your own ideas - I'm sure they are common to many who reject the principle.

 

[alphonsus]

Most off the discussion on here has been about larger yachts. I've been looking at 30-36' deck-saloons and quite a few (Westerly Riviera, Moody Eclipse) have in-mast furling, sometimes combined with self-tacking foresails. How come?