On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:02:48 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 18:46:55 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:58:29 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 06:05:28 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 17:10:35 -0800, Jessica B
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 05:36:23 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:39:11 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:
"Jessica B" wrote in message
news:9mqin6hvnl13a7irpbmqh0f221sq0419qe@4ax .com...
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 22:39:40 -0800, Mark Borgerson
wrote:
In article s.com,
says...
"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 08:18:02 -0500, Gogarty
wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 16:37:19 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message
m...
snip
Willie-boy, I keep telling you and telling you that you exhibit
your
lack of knowledge every time you open your mouth. My mate, the
Australian, is 76 years old and sails a 55 ft Ferro boat with a
mechanical anchor windless and gets along quite well single
handing
it.
Of course, he IS a sailor, not a wantabe.
Cheers,
Nothing looks quite a silly as an old man with skinny arms off of
which
the
skin hangs in folds standing on the bow of an overly large and
cumbersome
yacht pulling on the lever of a creaky old mechanical windlass,
slowly
stroking away with one inch of chain coming in at a pull.
If that isn't a good enough argument for downsizing then nothing
will
convince you.
Just goes to show you how little some people know about boats. People
who sail 50' ferro boats don't have an expensive lever operated
Simpson Lawrence winch. they have a geared two speed, local made,
fisherman windlass. the one with the exposed gears. See
http://motivationdocksupply.com/winc...nd-winches.php for an
example.
Wow! I will recommend those windlasses to my freind with the Endeavour
42.
Well... an Endeavour 42 IS a bit more upmarket then a ferrocement
boat, usually :-)
Those things are so S-L-O-W! (and ugly)
S-L-O-W and ugly are relative. Are you in such a big hurry that the
difference between 4Kt and 6Kt makea a big difference?
Mark Borgerson
I just did a simple calculation... say you wanted to go 1000 miles,
1000m/6mph = 7 days vs. 1000m/4mph = 10 days. This seems like a big
difference to me, but what do I know.
Right you are, Jessica. You sure have a good head on your shoulders (for a
girl, LOL!) Often overlooked is the fact that the longer the voyage takes
the greater the chances of experiencing storm conditions. If you have
already arrived and are safe and secure in port while a slower boat is still
two or three days from arriving that boat could get hit by severe weather in
an exposed environment while the faster boat will not be exposed.
That fact alone does not bode well for unnecessarily slow boats like the old
Colin Archer heavy-displacement slowcoaches (Westsail 32, for example). The
only thing that antique design has going for it is it's slow primarily
because it was built in such a way as to be heavy and deep draft and
short-sticked which allows it to better survive heavy weather. But, it's
really kind of stupid in that the very slowness that allows it to survive
heavy weather makes it that much more likely that it will be caught in heavy
weather.
Wilbur Hubbard
And Willie the dummy is heard from again.
You really aren't much of a cruiser are you? Worrying about your slow
boat exposing you to a storm? Oh Vey, and such a brave sailor; you
better stay home and read a book..... but of course that is what you
do.
Cheers,
Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)
Bruce it seems like it would make it more difficult to get places if
you have to go slowly. If there was a big storm coming in and it'll
arrive in 10 days, you could still go if you know you can make it in
7, but if it's close to the limit on how long it'll take, then you'd
have to sit and wait.
I don't know how tight a schedule you can make, but I think I'd want
more time vs less time.
You really don't know much about sailing, do you.
I thought I was Capt. Wil?
If you 'knew' that there was a big storm coming in ten days it would
have to be something pretty special as a depression which was called a
'storm' would have either worsened or decreased considerably in ten
days and if it were severe enough to be called a storm then I suspect
that any prudent sailor would wait it out.
I'm going by what I see on accuweather.com. They predict out to 15
days. Obviously it's not totally accurate, but it seems like it would
give you a good idea what's coming.
Fine, if you are out for the day, but what about a cruise, say from
San Diego to the Hawaiian Islands; or Singapore to India? A proper
voyage, one might say.
Don't know about sailing across an ocean... why would anyone want to
do that on a slow boat? Seems like that would be when you want a fast
boat (or a plane?) lol
Because all sailboats, at least those that are of a size that Mr.
Average can own, are inherently slow. I previously posted you the hull
speeds of various water lengths, and even those are higher speeds then
the average speeds one is likely to encounter on a cruise of any
length.
Secondly if one were cruising any distance, say San Diego - Hawaii
one has little chance to out run any weather pattern. Of course if
one's "cruising' is a day trip down the bay it is a different story,
isn't it.
What about something shorter? How about a 6-day trip? Wouldn't you
want to be able to get there and back without worrying so much?
A six day trip to where? If it was a week "cruise" that I'm doing as
my annual holiday then I'd want to laze along and take my time. If I
have to lay over for weather then that's just the way it goes. If it
were a six day cruise to get somewhere I really want to get to then it
would depend on what was being forecast. But trying to sail in weather
windows and never seeing a "storm" is pretty much wishful thinking.
It seems like you're picking nits... I think you have a better chance
of making a trip in one piece if you can shorten the travel time. Even
if you want to "laze along" what if you need to step things up?
Frankly the opposite is more the truth. It is a very large storm that
is likely to overcome a normal sailing yacht so the "better chance" is
more a matter of how comfortable one wants to be. Very, very, few
yachts are actually sunk by storms. Even in the 1979 Fastnet disaster
when 25 racing boats were sunk or disabled, was primarily a matter of
attempting to race in force 6 - 7 winds. One of the rescue boats
reported encountering a cruising boat on its way to the Med that was
making reasonable progress under reefed sails with no difficulties.
Just as a matter of idle interest a 10 ft. LWL boat has a hull speed
of 4.24 K, 20 ft. = 5.99, 30 = 7.34 and 40=8.47 and given that most
boats will be somewhat longer, on deck, then their water line, the
speeds that you are envisaging to out run your storm are simply not
there.
Assuming a 40 ft. (LOD) boat probably has a LWL of about 30 ft. then
it's probable maximum speed under sail is about 7.34. and 7.34 X 24
hours is abut 170 miles per day under perfect sailing conditions, a
highly unlikely enough condition that, as I've said, makes a good brag
in the pub.
Cheers,
Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)
Ok, but that wasn't what was being talked about. It was a comparison
between two different speeds.
I never said I don't think about out-running any storms.
"Two different speeds" on a small sailing yacht may be the difference
between 1 knot forward and two knots backward, depending on the tide.
Cheers,
Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)
Ok... so if you have boat that'll go 10 mph and the reverse tide is
pulling you at 5 mph vs. you have a boat that'll only go 5 mph....
You are still looking at speeds in excess of what the "normal"
cruising boat is capable of sustaining for any cruise.
Cheers,
Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)