In mast furling pros and cons

[knuterikt]

No, but to do it without a load of hassle you do need the wind well forward of the beam. Unless you have a secret - in which case could you share it!

Don't think it's a secret,
I have a two line reef system operated from the cockpit, in line spreaders, fully battened main and batcars with wheels.
Assume you start DDW
Prepare reefing lines and halyard
Adjusting the main sheet so sail have some clearance to spreaders, you don't want the sail to hang onto the spreaders to much while pulling in the reef.
Head up a little to take some pressure out of the main, adjust head sail sheet so the head sail pulls the boat, give you a nice stable platform to work on (boat tracks nicely without AP)
slack halyard to preset mark, while pulling the mast reef in by hand - last bit I use the winch (after the halyard is secured on the clutch as my first mast reef share winch with the halyard) (when single handed I do this in sequence).
Pull in the clew reef - make sure the sheet is not to tight as you pull the reef in, adjust sheet if needed.
Adjust sheets & heading.

If you have spare hands pulling in the slack on both reef lines while you slack the halyard give even better control of the excess sail (less flapping).

 

[Leighb]

No, but to do it without a load of hassle you do need the wind well forward of the beam. Unless you have a secret - in which case could you share it!

Also true to some degree with inmast, we find that it is much easier with the wind fairly well forward, but the most important point is ensuring you are on the correct tack. On Stb the sail rolls away easily but on Pt it is much more difficult if not impossible. I have managed to reef going downwind, but only on Stb tack, when I needed to on Pt, I gybed before reefing.

Regarding the OPs original (I think) question, which was whether he would buy a boat with inmast reefing, our own experience was that if the boat is otherwise what you are looking for go for it, but first get a price for replacing the rig and sails should you find you just can't get along with it. We did so, but after the first year found that it was perfect for our modest cruising needs and increasingly creaky physique.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Don't think it's a secret,
I have a two line reef system operated from the cockpit, in line spreaders, fully battened main and batcars with wheels.
Assume you start DDW
Prepare reefing lines and halyard
Adjusting the main sheet so sail have some clearance to spreaders, you don't want the sail to hang onto the spreaders to much while pulling in the reef.
Head up a little to take some pressure out of the main, adjust head sail sheet so the head sail pulls the boat, give you a nice stable platform to work on (boat tracks nicely without AP)
slack halyard to preset mark, while pulling the mast reef in by hand - last bit I use the winch (after the halyard is secured on the clutch as my first mast reef share winch with the halyard) (when single handed I do this in sequence).
Pull in the clew reef - make sure the sheet is not to tight as you pull the reef in, adjust sheet if needed.
Adjust sheets & heading.

If you have spare hands pulling in the slack on both reef lines while you slack the halyard give even better control of the excess sail (less flapping).

The inline spreaders is part of your secret. Mine are swept back - by the time I've sheeted in far enough to keep the main off the spreaders/shrouds during the reef, my apparent wind angle will be around 60-70º. Any more and the sail has to be hauled down scraping over the rigging. Horrible.

 

[knuterikt]

The inline spreaders is part of your secret. Mine are swept back - by the time I've sheeted in far enough to keep the main off the spreaders/shrouds during the reef, my apparent wind angle will be around 60-70º. Any more and the sail has to be hauled down scraping over the rigging. Horrible.

Sailboats are always full of compromises

 

[Kurrawong_Kid]

Regarding the OPs original (I think) question, which was whether he would buy a boat with inmast reefing, our own experience was that if the boat is otherwise what you are looking for go for it, but first get a price for replacing the rig and sails should you find you just can't get along with it. We did so, but after the first year found that it was perfect for our modest cruising needs and increasingly creaky physique.

+1 ; and we are much more likely to try to sail in very light winds since setting or retrieving mainsail is so convenient.

 

[pvb]

On my previous boat, the last time I had the furling main cleaned and serviced I also had it treated with Seal 'n' Glide - a super-slippery coating which reduces friction at the mast slot, giving easier furling. It also repels water, keeping the sail cleaner longer and minimising risk of mould.

 

[Boat441]

We have inmast on our 44 footer.

It certainly wouldn't be my first option; but it was a balance with other aspects/features on the boat.

So some observations (most of which I think have already been covered):
- they add a lot of weight up top so change the handling characteristics of the yacht. Its the added mass that this creates; and it creates it in the wrong place, i.e. up top!
- we have a Hood system, and the design can only be described as fairly poor. (Not sure who has the Hood system now; I use to know) We have had the bottom bearing housing completely re-engineered, as it was originally rotating on a set of bicycle cup and cone axle bearings. Really not man enough for the job!
- if its a retro fitted, check the spreader heights and lengths. Our top spreader has significant increased width to be able to cope with the added mass and as a result fouls the No 1 when close hauled.
- You loose a lot in performance due to sail shape. If you're just cruising it probably doesn't matter that much; but if you do any racing, the handicap you will get for the in-mast really doesn't compensate for the loss of performance (nothing to do with my sailing ability honest !!!!)
- We have jammed it a couple of times; but that was down to us being too hasty. If you follow the right procedure and take your time you should be fine.
- on boats less than 40 foot my personal preference would be traditional with slap reefing and lazy jacks. Over 40, short handed I think there are some better in-boom systems coming out now. This at least lets you obtain a good sail shape and keeps the weight down low. Above that...one would have to ask ones skipper!!!!

Would I buy another boat with in-mast? Maybe. As when we bought ours, it was a compromise of an number of factors.

 

[BrianH]

We have inmast on our 44 footer.
[...snipped...]
- We have jammed it a couple of times; but that was down to us being too hasty. If you follow the right procedure and take your time you should be fine.

This is really what worries me (if the jams occurred on furling) and why I eventually chose in-boom for a retrofit. "Being too hasty" is easily done when hit by a sudden blast that lays the boat flat - it happens where I sail (northern Adriatic) and the katabatic wind can occur suddenly and without warning - being usually single-handed doesn't help, "take your time" doesn't much come into it.

on boats less than 40 foot my personal preference would be traditional with slap reefing and lazy jacks. Over 40, short handed I think there are some better in-boom systems coming out now. This at least lets you obtain a good sail shape and keeps the weight down low.

I went from slab reefing on a 31' - unless one wanted to drop the entire sail it just wasn't quick enough in the above scenario. As for better in-boom systems emerging, you may be right, my Profurl system is far from ideal and I know they have improved it since I installed five years ago. Also, making a simple check in my Italian marina last year (>2000 boat places) I was surprised at the high proportion of in-boom installations, at least 25% of the in-mast systems from a cursory assessment.

 

[Cruiser2B]

I've been very happy with the Forespar Leisurefurl in-boom system that came with my boat. When boat-shopping I wouldn't have excluded a boat with in-mast furling, but I too had concerns about added weight up high, less-than-ideal sail shape and the worse-case-scenario sail jam. In-boom alleviates all of these worries - and as a benefit over slab-reefing, it's apparently infinitely reefable, though they suggest reefing to the battens. They say it can be reefed/furled on all points so long as the sail's been depowered and the boom is within 45º of centre, but I admit to being a lot more conservative. If the furler does pack it in, then the sail can still be slabbed on the boom. I'd go with in-boom again.

 

[jordanbasset]

My wife has made the decision our next boat will have in-mast furling, the same as out last boat.

 

[haydude]

I didn't want to hijack Robins thread so I thought I would ask in a new one for the pros and cons of in mast furling.

My initial thoughts are that its not a good idea, but I can't quite work out why I think that! Are there more things that can go wrong than with slab reefing? Have people had problems with it, or is it like many things, and once you've got used to it, you don't know how you ever lived without it.

As I hope to be changing my boat in the next 12 months, I wouldn't want to rule out a boat with in mast furling without good reason.

Any opinions welcome, good and bad!

Thanks

Yet another thread on in-mast furling! I am not sure how can this forum could do without one.

I will not bore you with technical pros and cons, but rather my own experience:

I have had boats with in-mast furling since 2008. I could not do without one. I could not bear the hassle of hoisting and flaking a mainsail. I sail single handed a 42 foot sailing yacht and I have fun. I find already the preparation and close quarter maneuvering pretty taxing single-handed (or with my passive "passengers") and thus the simpler I can make the boat the better and it cannot go any simpler than with in-mast furling.

Some can go all about performance. I raced on sailboats with expensive fully battened mainsails. I saw little difference, my boat can be faster. Why? Well there is a difference of more than half a ton of flesh, bones and gear between my single handed boat and a fully crewed racer. Beside my boat always reaches hull speed with a light breeze. A clean hull and good sail trimming can do to performance more than a fully battened mainsail. I have seen many with fully battened mainsail sailing like dogs.

Do they jam? Apparently if you read comments on fora, but I never managed to do it. Is mine magic? No I just know how to use it properly.

Are they good in gale force wind? I do not know how would I do without one. I can reduce it to any size I want so that I can maintain speed and control. Possibly with a traditional I would have to drop it altogether and risk going on deck to rig a trysail.

Are there better makes? I tried a few and I recommend Selden because it is easier to furl (less force required) and to maintain.
Are there bad ones? YES the retro-fit ones. A mast must be designed for in-mast. If you want one, change the mast or change the boat.

Is a boat with factory fitted in-mast main worth more? You can bet on it. In-mast furling is an optional worth 10% to 15% of the value of a new boat, and thus makes the boat more valuable and easier to sell in the second hand market.

Who are the detractors? In general those who do not have one and wish they had one instead and thus keep probing the forum to feel good about their traditional main by agreeing with other detractors.

 

[haydude]

One con - weight aloft.

The weight of the sail, when partially reefed is in the mast and at x feet above the centre of gravity, where x can be quite a big number.

With slab reefing (or in-boom) the partially reefed weight is lower, in relation to the centre of gravity.

Thus, in-mast, when reefed, makes the boat a little more tender (more weight, further aloft).

I never noticed it, thus the "additional weight aloft" is negligible in all the boats I sailed. Just as an example I can reach hull speed in 12kts close hauled with full main without ever going over 15 degrees heel. I can too sail in a F7 close hauled with an extremely furled genoa and main and still maintain not more than 15 degrees heel.

Do you speak by experience? On what boats?

I think it is all about handling.

 

[Cruiser2B]

Talk about timely...

http://www.ybw.com/news/sailing/537...-experienced-mechanical-problems-in-caribbean

 

[Cruiser2B]

I think the 'weight aloft' argument, at least the way I see it, is that in the worst-case off-shore riding out a storm situation, with drogues, para-anchor, lying ahull, whatever. You will have likely stowed a sopping-wet sail putting even more weight up where you don't need it. Other than that, you're correct in saying the weight aloft is a non-issue.

 

[haydude]

Talk about timely...

http://www.ybw.com/news/sailing/537...-experienced-mechanical-problems-in-caribbean

LOL!

Another one who does not know how to use it properly! Clearly inexperienced with in-mast furling

 

[silver-fox]

Sorry to introduce facts into this thread but I have just replaced my furling main and furling 135% genoa on my 42ft Moody.

I was interested to note that the main weighs 14kg and the genoa 30kg.

So much for the argument about weight aloft! Clearly the main offender is the genoa and of course its added windage aloft when furled, yet this is never discussed by the high priests of prejudice.

14 kg with a COG somewhere below the first cross trees on a 10 tonne boat - 4 tonnes of which is in the keel, impacting significantly on stability? Bah humbug! I am surprised we don't have more discussions about radar scanner weight aloft - or more significantly whether the tanks are full or not.

I have used slab reefing, roller boom furling and in mast. On balance, for relaxed husband and wife cruising in all weathers, in-mast is my clear favourite by a nautical mile. I am quite happy that others don't agree, I just can't stand the BS and mis-information about in mast furling.

In six years of ownership and thousands of miles, with a seriously stretched and baggy main I have never had a problem. We find we can reef running downwind on either tack without issue too. Just needs using properly and maintaining properly as does all equipment.

Its also infinitely variable and safer because we can take in, or shake out, reefs from the cockpit and because we its so easy we do so more often and optimise the sail area to the conditions better.

What would we do if it ever failed? Take a spare halyard and wind it round the mast to stop it flogging and sort it out at our leisure.

 

[Boat441]

Sorry but weight is a factor and will be measurable both in terms of statis stability and moments of inertia.

Weight will increase over a conventional mast due to a) increased cross section to compensate for discontinuos cross section, b) in-mast furling masts are not tapered as conventional masts, and c) furling gear.

Whilst I've not found anything that provides exact comparison, websites suggest a 60% increase in weight. This is supported by reckmans weights for various inmast and conventional mast weights.

So a 17m mast could easily be 50kg heavier than a conventional mast. This will be acting around the middle of the mast, so probably some 10m above the CG of the vessel; that's the equivalent of a 1/2 ton righting lever. So it will have an effect on stability and handling characteristics of a yacht.

Perhaps there is another naval arch on here who has time and access to data who could do a comparison for use to quantify the effects?

My point is weight does play a factor.

As you will see from my previous posts I have in mast furling. I'm not for or against it. there are pros and cons to it which need to be balanced. In-mast will suite some people, but not others and as such it is an emotive subject!

 

[jordanbasset]

Sorry to introduce facts into this thread but I have just replaced my furling main and furling 135% genoa on my 42ft Moody.

I was interested to note that the main weighs 14kg and the genoa 30kg.

So much for the argument about weight aloft! Clearly the main offender is the genoa and of course its added windage aloft when furled, yet this is never discussed by the high priests of prejudice.

14 kg with a COG somewhere below the first cross trees on a 10 tonne boat - 4 tonnes of which is in the keel, impacting significantly on stability? Bah humbug! I am surprised we don't have more discussions about radar scanner weight aloft - or more significantly whether the tanks are full or not.

I have used slab reefing, roller boom furling and in mast. On balance, for relaxed husband and wife cruising in all weathers, in-mast is my clear favourite by a nautical mile. I am quite happy that others don't agree, I just can't stand the BS and mis-information about in mast furling.

In six years of ownership and thousands of miles, with a seriously stretched and baggy main I have never had a problem. We find we can reef running downwind on either tack without issue too. Just needs using properly and maintaining properly as does all equipment.

Its also infinitely variable and safer because we can take in, or shake out, reefs from the cockpit and because we its so easy we do so more often and optimise the sail area to the conditions better.

What would we do if it ever failed? Take a spare halyard and wind it round the mast to stop it flogging and sort it out at our leisure.

Pretty much my feelings on the subject, my boat also had a baggy main. I did manage to jam it once in 5 years very early on, but that was down to me, no biggy as it was when I was unfurling it. My wife will have nothing else now, she loves it, I tend to agree.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Sorry to introduce facts into this thread but I have just replaced my furling main and furling 135% genoa on my 42ft Moody.

I was interested to note that the main weighs 14kg and the genoa 30kg.

So much for the argument about weight aloft! Clearly the main offender is the genoa and of course its added windage aloft when furled, yet this is never discussed by the high priests of prejudice.

14 kg with a COG somewhere below the first cross trees on a 10 tonne boat - 4 tonnes of which is in the keel, impacting significantly on stability? Bah humbug!.

How much does the reefing system itself weigh?

 

[Twister_Ken]

I was interested to note that the main weighs 14kg and the genoa 30kg.

Frankly I'm astonished that your main weighs in at 14kg. Mine - on a smaller boat - is heavy enough that when bagged I have difficulty lifting it over the guardrails and onto the pontoon.

Presumably there's also a furling spar (a mandrel?) running up the mast as well, which will also weigh something.