New mast cost

[Daydream believer]

I forgot another reason the owner dumped the inmast system
In our club Bye laws state that masts have to be lowered on the hard every winter. Our lifting gear meant that once the boat was beached the mast had to be dropped to lift in the gantry to bring ashore
The task of getting the battens out & the sail down & the reverse on the mooring each year prior to lift out was a real hasssle

 

[NormanS]

I forgot another reason the owner dumped the inmast system
In our club Bye laws state that masts have to be lowered on the hard every winter. Our lifting gear meant that once the boat was beached the mast had to be dropped to lift in the gantry to bring ashore
The task of getting the battens out & the sail down & the reverse on the mooring each year prior to lift out was a real hasssle

If you're using that as an argument against in-mast furling in general, as opposed to the particular circumstances of one boatyard, you are indeed clutching at straws. All these newfangled ideas like plastic boats, and alloy masts etc, have always had their doubters. Enjoy your sailing in your dug-out canoe, with flax sails and a stone anchor.

 

[Daydream believer]

Enjoy your sailing in your dug-out canoe, with flax sails and a stone anchor.

Hmmm!!!! hope they are not flax sails & I do not have to use a stone anchor. I have just paid for the annual marina fee & there is a brand new Hyde Fibrcon main sitting in the lounge along with a laminate jib waiting to see the light of day on my fractional mast.

 

[Tranona]

A big disadvantage of in mast is the weight up the mast.
I have seen a Sadler 29 where the owner was able to remove it & he claimed a big improvement on several aspects.
Is this possible with some larger masts?

The Sadler was not designed to have an in mast so it was probably an add on system which does indeed add weight because of the extra spar and mandrel added to the original mast.

However for boats designed to have in mast from the beginning the extra weight is minimal if any. The section of the mast is smaller and the sail lighter as it does not have battens, reefing lines, blocks etc nor cars to keep the sail running smoothly.

The stability figures for my in mast boat are exactly the same as with "conventional" rig. However I think i have probably compromised it by having a radar reflector added, but no radome, which is a bit of a killer on may boats - irrespective of their rig.

One would like to think that designers and mast makers with all the technology at their disposal would have a good understanding of these issues and take them into account when specifying rigs!

 

[Daydream believer]

The Sadler was not designed to have an in mast so it was probably an add on system which does indeed add weight because of the extra spar and mandrel added to the original mast.

However for boats designed to have in mast from the beginning the extra weight is minimal if any. The section of the mast is smaller and the sail lighter as it does not have battens, reefing lines, blocks etc nor cars to keep the sail running smoothly.

The stability figures for my in mast boat are exactly the same as with "conventional" rig. However I think i have probably compromised it by having a radar reflector added, but no radome, which is a bit of a killer on may boats - irrespective of their rig.

One would like to think that designers and mast makers with all the technology at their disposal would have a good understanding of these issues and take them into account when specifying rigs!

You are probably right about the "add on", however, I have seen lots of boats ( in mast furling systems)with long battens running vertically up the sail. Presumably this is to achieve more sail area via a roach. I would also dispute the comment about mast section as the mast does have to accommodate the sail on the rear section.
I would accept that mast designers would possibly use the fairings for the sail as part of the structural design of the mast rather than just an add on
Are you sure that in earlier stability figures the different mast sections are taken into account? The latest RCD rules have downgraded a number of boats ratings-possibly ( & I am not totally sure here so others may correct me) due to some extent to revised ways of measuring stability & taking such figures into account.

But as I have no intention of getting in mast, the arguments- for me at least- are largely irrelevant- as are my opinions to those that want it of course

 

[Tranona]

You are probably right about the "add on", however, I have seen lots of boats ( in mast furling systems)with long battens running vertically up the sail. Presumably this is to achieve more sail area via a roach. I would also dispute the comment about mast section as the mast does have to accommodate the sail on the rear section.


But as I have no intention of getting in mast, the arguments- for me at least- are largely irrelevant- as are my opinions to those that want it of course

There are many different variations of sails, just as there are for conventional sails. The most common is the long vertical battens to increase area and add roach. These are not without potential problems for example making the sail too bulky and prone to jamming. They can be a pain to take off the mast as you have to drop the whole sail with the battens in. However the latest battens are lighter, thinner and more flexible which reduces that problem. There are also trick designs with pop up battens at the top to support extra area. Laminate sails with short battens are another development.

As to mast section, they are not variations on traditional masts but designed specifically for the job. You can see the different sections on the Selden website. As to stability, the AVS figures I saw when I bought me new boat show exactly the same irrespective of type of mast or type of keel ( the shoal keel I have is heavier than the deep keel). As to weight aloft, suggest you pick up a standard furling sail and compare it to a fully battened with all its hardware. I would also guess the whole sail is lighter than the radar reflector that is 3/4 of the way up the mast!

 

[rotrax]

I would also guess the whole sail is lighter than the radar reflector that is 3/4 of the way up the mast!

I have yet to find a mainsail on a yacht over 30 feet that is lighter than a radar reflector!

Or even the Radome unit.

I understand that the hight of mounting can give weight where it is not best placed, but the total weight of either item is less in my experience than a mainsail.

Purely subjective of course-I have removed and bagged many sails and installed both reflectors and Radomes-and it is very possible my memory of the respective weights is playing me false.

 

[Barbican]

I have yet to find a mainsail on a yacht over 30 feet that is lighter than a radar reflector!

Or even the Radome unit.

I understand that the hight of mounting can give weight where it is not best placed, but the total weight of either item is less in my experience than a mainsail.

Purely subjective of course-I have removed and bagged many sails and installed both reflectors and Radomes-and it is very possible my memory of the respective weights is playing me false.

Looking at the actual numbers for my Radar Radome vs Main the Radome and mount are 13kg vs the sail (Norlam) at 40kg. The impact of that given most of the triangular sail is low down is too complicated for me to calculate. When we specced our boat we were aiming at achieving an easily handled, and stable cruiser so chose to add two furling headsails at 38kg and 32kg as well as in mast furling, and Radar etc. I remember having detailed conversations about the effect of all this and the designer did quote some numbers, but I can't recall the specifics, only the feeling that for our purpose of comfortable easily managed cruising it was small enough to be irrelevant. One of the commissioning guys sailed quite a few miles on my boat, and a sister ship with carbon rig, spectra sails on a park avenue boom with single line reefing, so he was able to compare.

After musing the question for a bit he said to summarise in simple terms there must be about a wind force difference between the two, with the carbon jobby being the quickest, notwithstanding hull speed is hull speed.....

The owner of that boat had previously had inmast, and in conversation with him he was pleased with the performance but less so with the sail handling/convenience and I remember him saying he would revisit that if he could.... Horses for courses.

So my advice to the OP is that the change would likely cost £15k plus with new mast, rigging, sail etc, but that the only way of knowing is to test sail the boat and see if it fills your criteria, motion comfort, ease of using the gear, overall performance etc. Difficult to do I know, but just the inmast/furling sail on my boat wouldn't be a huge difference on its own even below a f4, what it means to a moody 40 I have no idea, but I would be happy to check it out if the rest of the boat was good. The only other issue might be if it is an add-on system, which I would be more concerned about.

 

[Daydream believer]

I would also guess the whole sail is lighter than the radar reflector that is 3/4 of the way up the mast!

That part of you argument is not relevant to a comparison- are you suggesting that a yacht with slab reefing would always have radar whereas a yacht with furling would not, thus making the later lighter.
You have now admitted that furling sails may well have battens, so to say they are lighter because they do not - as you suggested earlier - is now defeated. Although having less area because of not having battens would make them lighter, due to less sail area, along with less power

A point made earlier is that a Moody 40 is not exactly a fast racer so placing a performance rig on it may be wasted as hull speed would limit any advantage. Anyone buying such a boat is probably not interested in the speed aspect so much as other points such as comfort at sea etc etc so the whole issue becomes less relevant
If the OP feels the boat he is buying is worth the extra expense then that is his decision but one must wonder if there might be better options financially

 

[rotrax]

Our current boat has in mast furling with a Lewmar electric winch to do the hard work.

So far, after sorting out sails and running rigging last May that had been left on the boat while on a swinging mooring or alonside for 5 years unused, it appears fine. It is the type that has the corkscrew for the furling line to operate on.

We left the sails with the makers loft in Hamble for a check up and service and will collect them when we return to the UK.

Previous yachts all had slab reefing, one with a very high friction single line system which was replaced with a rams horn and twin lines.

Would I go back-no.

If I wanted a performance yacht I would not have this fat old tub with its huge pilothouse. In mast does it for me, and I even have a roof over my head when operating the lines in the rear cockpit.

I know, I know-I'm a big softy................

 

[Hacker]

If the OP feels the boat he is buying is worth the extra expense then that is his decision but one must wonder if there might be better options financially

What I was trying to establish was whether or not it was financially viable to buy a boat with in-mast and change to slab (one scenario being a boat with in-mast being available at a price considerably lower than an equivalent with slab reefing). I think what I've learned from the conversation is that it probably isn't financially viable (unless the boat is around £15k or so cheaper than the alternate). So in terms of my original question I think i have my answer, for which I thank you.

Now whether or not I should choose in-mast over slab is a different question!

 

[Bobc]

It's a bit like buying a used car with a view to change it from diesel to petrol. You just wouldn't.

 

[Tranona]

That part of you argument is not relevant to a comparison- are you suggesting that a yacht with slab reefing would always have radar whereas a yacht with furling would not, thus making the later lighter.
You have now admitted that furling sails may well have battens, so to say they are lighter because they do not - as you suggested earlier - is now defeated. Although having less area because of not having battens would make them lighter, due to less sail area, along with less power

Nowhere did I suggest that. Just observing that a simple unbattened furling sail is remarkably light. The point about battened sails was just in answer to your query about different types of sails.

Bringing in radar reflectors and radomes was just to illustrate that these are permanently at spreader height and a partially furled sail only has a small proportion of its already low weight at spreader height or above.

If I remember next time I have the sail down I will weigh it.

 

[howard easton]

I needed the information myself for insurance purposes so I asked Allspars for some ballpark ( ie approximate) numbers for my boat a Starlight 35 . The answer was:
,
> Please see below ball park costings for your rig from deck upwards: -
>
> Structurally complete, but unrigged mast £5000
>
> Standing rigging £1400
>
> Furling gear £2000
>
> Halyards £800
>
> Boom £1200
>
> Rod kicker £600
>
> Spini pole, track and slider £1000
>
> Mast lights and electrics £1000
>
> Carriage, cranage, labour £1000
>>
> All ex vat.
>>

I've used Allspars before and found them an excellent and knowledgeable firm. The figures are approximate. For the OP, most of this would be unnecessary though he would need a bigger stick. I reckon he could get away with l;ess than 10k

 

[Tranona]

.I reckon he could get away with l;ess than 10k

Plus new mainsail (£2-4k depending on sophistication) and extra controls for reefing and you are back to £15k with the extra size mast.

 

[Daydream believer]

Plus new mainsail (£2-4k depending on sophistication) and extra controls for reefing and you are back to £15k with the extra size mast.

£2K for a new main for a 40 ft boat ???

 

[Tranona]

£2K for a new main for a 40 ft boat ???

Yes, probably underestimate - but the range given would buy a reasonable main. Fully battened, good cars etc will take it outside that range.

 

[Daydream believer]

Yes, probably underestimate - but the range given would buy a reasonable main. Fully battened, good cars etc will take it outside that range.

Be interesting to hear others comments re that

 

[Daydream believer]

deleted

 

[pvb]

Be interesting to hear others comments re that

I paid £1957 for a furling main for my HR352 way back in 2013. I'd expect a new main for a 40ft boat to be well over £2K now.