"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
anews.com...
Some recent posts in another thread advocated getting a big, bigger or
electric windlass when it came to the point whereby a largish 65 pound
anchor was difficult or injurious to the crew attempting to weigh said
anchor.

This is a stupid suggestion. The PROPER thing to do is get a smaller
anchor. Get ground tackle that the crew can handle without breaking his or
her back or giving themselves a stroke or heart attack. It is a well known
fact that a genuine Danforth Hi-tensile or Deep Set anchor or two weighing
25 pounds each can securely anchor a vessel of up to thirty feet LOA.

So, the answer is NOT a larger or electric windlass but, rather, a SMALLER
BOAT!

Many people tend to fall into the trap of believing that bigger is better.
Not so! Bigger may be better but only if you are able to handle bigger.
When it comes to elderly folks towards or at the end of their useful
sailing careers - Bruce in Bangkok comes to mind - the wisest decision
would be to take stock of yourself, your much reduced abilities and lack
of youthful vigor and then chose a boat you can actually still handle.
This means downsizing. This means simplicity.

There is many a well-found and seaworthy vessel in the 25-30 foot range
and the anchors for such a vessel are not such a great burden that they
must be handled with heavy, trouble-prone, mechanical and electrical
systems. Because with age often comes not only muscle and bone weakness
but weakness of mind, eyesight, and hearing. Consequently, the ability to
troubleshoot mechanical and electrical systems may be greatly reduced or
non-existent (as is the case with Bruce in Bangkok or it would seem so
from his embarrassingly simplistic mechanical and electrical posts).

Rather than compound folly by trying to maintain such a large vessel that
sailing becomes dangerous or burdensome and a menace to other shipping (as
is the case with one Skip Grundlach as well as the captain of the
erstwhile 'Red Cloud') it would be better for all concerned if such folks
sailed vessels that they could handle comfortably and so enjoy to a
greater extent and a longer time because of the reduced stress and wear
and tear on the failing old body.

Sometimes I think JimC has the right idea. For some people a Mac26X or M
might just be an ideal vessel. They are small, light can sail and motor
passably well and can even be trailored. They don't strain or stress their
crew. And, try as I might I've found it difficult to find a MacGregor
owner who was really dissatisfied with his small compromise vessel. Not
that I'd dare take a Mac26 on a long ocean voyage but I suppose a body
would probably be safer in one provided one knew how to sail her and
realized her limitations than in some old steel boat that was for her crew
too big, heavy, and ill-conceived and mechanically unsound to the point
where her own rudder punched holes in the transom. This would never happen
in a MacGregor. The rudders might break completely off without damaging
the hull but that would not be a disaster as the outboard motor could then
be pressed into service to do the steering.

But, I digress somewhat! The point is as you age and near the end of your
sailing career, think small. It will extend the days of bliss upon the
watery world. After all, isn't that what sailing's really all about.


Wilbur Hubbard


I guess a Coronado 26 would be fine if you only cruised mosquito infested
Florida swampland.