"Sails full and by(e)" ..definition?

[Guest]

\"Sails full and by(e)\" ..definition?

I've seen it written both ways in PBO and YM -- James Jermain uses it in his excellent boat reviews -- but what does it really mean? Which is correct, "by" or "bye", although I suspect the latter ...

While on the subject on nautical terminolgy, why is it "Heads" in the UK and "Head" in the USA? Any ideas?

Humperdinck

Email: HJ@Seacracker.org
Website: www.seacracker.org<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by humperdinck on Tue Apr 30 17:10:01 2002 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[ToMo]

Re: \"Sails full and by(e)\" ..definition?

Possibly our American cousins don't believe in comunial toilets!

 

[pugwash]

Head for wet jobs

Stgrictly speaking the Yanks are right. It should "head" here too. My sailors' word book dated 1867 has this to say: Head is ... the whole forepart of a ship from its analogy to that of a fish; the head opens the column of water through which the ship passes when advancing, heace we say head-way, head-sails, etc. Also, in a confined sense, that part on each side of the stem outside the bows proper, which is appropriated for the use of the sailors for wringing swabs, or any wet jobs, for no wet is permitted inboard after the decks are dried...

the same book says "by" is on or close to the wind, while "Full and by " means not lifting or shivering the sails. Not bye, which is something to do with cricket.

 

[davidhand]

Re: \"Sails full and by(e)\" ..definition?

The term "full and by" used to be heard a lot in protest meetings or at the Y.C bar after a race, one dosen't hear it much any more. It stemed from the rule that said a yacht that is tacking or gybing shall stay clear of a yacht that is on a tack. When you are "full and by" you are again on a tack and the approaching yacht becomes the overtaking vessel.

 

[peterb]

It\'s a lot older than that!

According to the Met office's book "Meteorology for Mariners", Beaufort's original wind scale (1808) defined forces 5 to 9 in terms of the sails which a "well conditioned man-of-war" "could just carry in chase 'full and by'". So the term must have been in common use in 1808, which predates any set of racing rules I'm aware of.

Incidentally, forces 1 to 4 are defined in terms of the speed made by the same man-of-war with all sail set. In force 4, it would make 5-6 knots, about the same as a modern 35ft yacht, except of course that the modern yacht would sail much closer to the wind. Anyone fancy taking on Victory?

 

[Guest]

Re: \"Sails full and by(e)\" ..definition?

According to my book of Boat Words (Denny Desoutter) the following definition is given (extract)
' A nice point about a point of sailing. The 'by' implies that the boat is being sailed 'by the wind' and not by a compass course. In fact she is sailing close to the wind, but the sails are kept comfortably full so she makes a good speed. In sailing 'full and by' the aim is to make the best possible progress to windward - what our modern instrumentised skippers would call best Vmg - the best balance between high pointing and fast footing.

Simple!

An Ron Beag

 

[ParaHandy]

Re: \"Sails full and by(e)\" ..definition?

Would JJ's reviews not be more excellent if he resorted to plain English?! Then we wouldn't have to consult the Oxford dictionary of Nautical terms to understand what he's on about. Another term, "stink pot", is defined in that dictionary as a 17th c bomb which gave a noxious cloud and smell....hmm...not much changes then?

 

[pugwash]

Re: \"Sails full and by(e)\" ..definition?

You mean non-nautical terms like "parking" and "zig-zagging" and "strings" and "left or right side" and "frontwards"...? Give us a break! Full and by is a perfectly proper term that has been in frequent use since 1808 at least. Nothing unplain or unEnglish about that. As for stinkpots, had 40-knot plastic waterski boats been around in the 17thC I wonder what Jack Aubrey would have called them?

 

[jsl]

Re: \"Sails full and by(e)\" ..definition?

I have an idea that the phrase has shifted meaning because it has an attractive resonance and is therefore memorable. Originally, I suggest, it described two points of sailing: 'both full [i.e. downwind] and by [i.e. close-hauled]'. The late great Patrick O'Brian seems to concur.

 

[ParaHandy]

Re: \"Sails full and by(e)\" ..definition?

You’re obviously a devotee of O’Brians works of fiction and that’s where such terms belong.

There’s nothing wrong in saying left instead of port (or is it starboard?). It is actually very difficult to work during the week and then acquire a nautical persona at the weekend complete with unique and arcane vocabulary. On our boat, I said to my wife “let go for’ard” to which I received the tart reply that she was not Mrs For’ard and had a name, thankyou. (Like you, she is also a writer) In fact, I think such terms were used because they were descriptive of themselves by which I mean that the words painted a picture and perhaps helped uneducated people understand what was required several hundred years ago? Problem is that the context has changed, has it not, which means such terms are no longer relevant but wonderful to read in O’Brian’s books which is why I say that is where they belong.

 

[jamesjermain]

Re: \"Sails full and by(e)\" ..definition?

JackAubry would have loved them. He would have careered around the Med, his mainof blond hair flying with a piratical grin on his face and woe betide and stick-and-string stick-in-the-mud who dared claim he was sailing full and by and claimed right of way.

I have a wonderful image of a Sunseeker 65 Predator bristling with 12 pounders and Stephen Maturin playing the fiddle on the flybridge surrounded in gunsmoke and with battered Beneteaus bobbing in its wake.

JJ

 

[jamesjermain]

Nautical words

I agree with both sides of this particular argument except in the case of port and starboard.

When I have inexperienced crew on board, for the sake of clarity I tend to use non-nautical language whenever possible - although kitchen and loo/lavatory/toilet stick in my throat. In fact, there are very few nautical terms which do have a satisfactory non-nautical alternative.

Port and starboard refer to distinct parts/sides of the boat which remain unchanged. Left and right can change according to the orientation of the person talking. While a novice is learning his port and starboard, it may be necessary to use left and right in parenthesis but he/she must be encouraged to get it right as soon as possible.

Similarly, landsmen think it's stupid to say sheet and halyard, but that it the name of a specific piece of line. You could say: 'the rope that hauls up the big flappy thing'. I prefer main halyard.

JJ

 

[bedouin]

Re: \"Sails full and by(e)\" ..definition?

No - that's 'By and Large'!

 

[jamesjermain]

Re: \"Sails full and by(e)\" ..definition?

'Full and by' as stated elsewhere mans with the sails full and sailing 'by' the wind, implying close hauled. In modern parlance (at least this is how I use it), it means not screwing her up as tight as possible to windward, but keeping speed up and an easy hand on the helm.

I reckon both the Americans and British are correct. The head, as in 'the head of the boat' is perfectly acceptable usage. However in the British sense they are heads as in a shortened version of 'cats head', the two shelves which ran outside the bows to the stem and which were used for the appropraite purpose.

JJ

 

[Jeremy_W]

Re: Nautical words

I think the RYA training "Method" used this thinking in the Seventies. Dinghy instructors were meant to talk of, say, "the rope that pulls up the big sail". It was not a success, any more than those wonderfully futile attempts to rationalise English spellings.

You just have to learn the lingo as part of learning to sail. I must admit I associate "full and bye" as a sailing term with more mature (55+) sailors, but it's no less valid for that.

 

[pugwash]

You/re right, but...

...it depends on context. When it comes to addressing Mrs For'ard or giving orders (suggestions?) to novices, I completely agree. Clarity is everything, on any deck. Nautical terms might be archaic but they have a long tradition of usage and accurate definition. Moreover, they are far from irrelevant, as the discussion of "Full and by" demonstrates. After all, nobody has come up with a better term for it. Use of true language enriches experience. That we talk about going down below to the galley rather than going downstairs to the kitchen, or tacking rather than zigzagging, etc, is something to celebrate. As long as the context is genuine and we're not talking about, say, the "galley" of the Old Salts Restaurant. I was dismayed when YM used the word "parking" in its series about how to berth a boat, and the same thing raised the ire of a number of Scuttlebutters here. For that matter, why don't we just call ourselves "gossips."

 

[pugwash]

Jack\'s ammo

Only 12-pounders? Not bazookas and missiles? I think you're right, James. But how many lashes would Jack have served the lubber who called his Predator a boat instead of a ship, or an it rather than a she, or the pointy end instead of the bow? Never enough, IMHO.

 

[ParaHandy]

Re: You/re right, but...

Not having quite either of your vivid imaginations I can, though, see myself being enriched by the experience of being passed by the IoW ferry (steered by either Schumacher or Ryan Giggs – one brooks no interference in his progress and the other does a shimmy thro’ the Swash Channel to confound everybody) whilst yelling “full and by” into the helms ear who’s not more than 6” away. The ferry cap’t leans out of the bridge wing and enquires politely “how Midshipman Hornblower is doing today?”

It’s the context that’s faintly ridiculous. I’m not sailing a 5th rate 36 gun frigate where such language would be appropriate!

 

[pugwash]

Avast, ye lubber!

Mock ye may, but only while you're hull down and out of range. I do admit to faint smiles of bemusement, even contempt, when I hear somebody in a marina cap yelling "Ahoy!" to friends. But as a matter of fact, if the Isle of Wight ferry were coming up your stern and you had right of way and you wanted your helmsman to keep his nerve and hold his course close to the wind but without pinching, and you're CERTAIN that he knows what you're talking about, "Full and by!" is just the right thing to tell him. Hornblower or no, or Swallows and Amazons for that matter, it's a technical term with a specific meaning not open to other interpretations. As are port and starboard or forward and aft and all those other delightful nautical terms. Even left and right are open to misinterpretation unless you qualify them by saying turn right, or whatever. Seriously, I think it's retrograde to consign these delightful and useful words to history. As long as they have a purpose, we should relish them. I bet that even the captain of the IoW ferry would agree. Besides, he wouldn't dare deliver that kind of broadside to Pugwash (Captain)!

 

[LadyInBed]

Re: \"Cat\"

My 'old' book just says:
Cat - Concerned with weighing and lifting of an anchor.
eg cat head, cat davit, cat pennant, cat purchase
Pitty it didn't expand on these, can you fill in the gaps?