Gerard Weatherby wrote:

There's an article on sailnet (
http://www.sailnet.com/collections/a...2%20%20&tfr=fp
or http://tinyurl.com/h9z6 ) which claims it's faster to tack downwind on broad
reaches instead of running straight downwind. (Assuming you want to get dead
downwind.) Have those of you who sail found this to be true? Let's assume
there's no spinnaker since I don't have one.

S/V Cat's Meow
http://www.catsmeow.org

FWIW, given that much of this will not apply to the rest of the
mundane craft here...

THe light shcooner; a light, overcanvassed, planing gaff
schooner, not very weatherly and so needing to make up for
winward losses on the downhill stretch: Unless the wind is
strong, 25kn, a reach was always far, far faster. Sailing "wing
and wing" Only allowed the fore and main sails to operat: the jib
was blanketed, the main staysail couldn't be used, and there was
no "slot" effect. Onto enough of a reach, all four sails could be
in action, and synergising. The speed increase was considerably
more than needed to make up for the greater distance covered.
(We did eventually find out that we could run wing'n'wing'wing,
through something of an aerodynamic freak, eg main to port, main
staysl to stbd, fore to port (didn't bother with jib, as it was a
tricky balancing act by then.)

Lady Kate the catyawl: a displacement, non-paning (heavily
rockered) hull, gaff main. As someone else said, "death
roll"...so we never square run. That ensures, however, that we do
eventually arrive at our destination....

Flying Tadpole

A displacement boat that does not plane will always
arrive at a destination in less time by running directly
downwind to it. Gybing downwind does result in slightly
faster speed through the water in lighter winds but the
extra distance traveled results in a longer time to arrive
at the destination. This is just plain common sense and
physics at work. Anyone who claims something different
is living in Lala Land. You're beginning to sound as
stupid and ignorant as Jeff Morris.


wrote in message ...
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:46:06 -0400, "Simple Simon" wrote:

That is incorrect information for any displacement monohull where
it is always faster to run straight downwind.

Baloney! An under canvassed tank like yours or Bobadil's might benefit quite a
bit from gibeing back and forth rather than going directly downwind. I do better
going strait downwind, because I can put up the mylar main and 170 genoa, or a
spinnaker and take advantage.

BB

I found that to be true of the C&C 27 I sailed with up north. It was odd at
the time since all the fin keelers were favouring to keep up speed by gybing
downwind yet Bill kept his C&C27 wing on wing alongside my Nordica 30. I
attributed it to his skills as a sailor. He could surf above his hull speed
while I did hull speed in moderate winds. A note of consideration is that if
both of us were flying our chutes in light air... I would walk away from
the C&C27 .... probably due to my longer waterline. Also.... I recall the
C&C27 to have a lower PHRF than my Nordica 30... mine was 180.

I would still elect to gybe downwind in light air and/or high wave
heights/confused seas if I was in a rush.... which I usually am not.
Nonetheless... I would say I elect to wing on wing DDW about 90% of the
time.

CM


wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:46:06 -0400, "Simple Simon"
wrote:
|
| That is incorrect information for any displacement monohull where
| it is always faster to run straight downwind.
|
| Baloney! An under canvassed tank like yours or Bobadil's might benefit
quite a
| bit from gibeing back and forth rather than going directly downwind. I do
better
| going strait downwind, because I can put up the mylar main and 170 genoa,
or a
| spinnaker and take advantage.
|
| BB

Talk about living in Lala Land!!!

There is no way a heavy, full-keeled tub like yours is going to
walk away from a C&C 27 in light winds. You must have
been drinking way too much overproof that day.


"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message ...
I found that to be true of the C&C 27 I sailed with up north. It was odd at
the time since all the fin keelers were favouring to keep up speed by gybing
downwind yet Bill kept his C&C27 wing on wing alongside my Nordica 30. I
attributed it to his skills as a sailor. He could surf above his hull speed
while I did hull speed in moderate winds. A note of consideration is that if
both of us were flying our chutes in light air... I would walk away from
the C&C27 .... probably due to my longer waterline. Also.... I recall the
C&C27 to have a lower PHRF than my Nordica 30... mine was 180.

I would still elect to gybe downwind in light air and/or high wave
heights/confused seas if I was in a rush.... which I usually am not.
Nonetheless... I would say I elect to wing on wing DDW about 90% of the
time.

CM


wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:46:06 -0400, "Simple Simon"
wrote:
|
| That is incorrect information for any displacement monohull where
| it is always faster to run straight downwind.
|
| Baloney! An under canvassed tank like yours or Bobadil's might benefit
quite a
| bit from gibeing back and forth rather than going directly downwind. I do
better
| going strait downwind, because I can put up the mylar main and 170 genoa,
or a
| spinnaker and take advantage.
|
| BB

Odd.... I've rarely seen a wave train oriented differently than the wind
direction. The "Death Roll" is more common on fin keelers than full keelers.
I have never experienced a death roll scenario on my boat. I have on other
boats. If you have to quarter the wave train dead down wind.... adjust your
set or course to keep the vessel on a heel.


CM

"John Cairns" wrote in message
...
| Can you say "death roll". We got caught running briefly last Saturday, and
| stared to intiate said action. Very uncomfortable, I can assure you.
|
| Finally, a run is dangerous. Those rolls can cause the boom to swing
across
| and smash your crew's heads. A single quick roll can cascade into a
series
| of ever deeper dips, alternately to windward and leeward, ending with a
wild
| broach either to windward or to leeward. This series of events is so
| catastrophic that it's called a death roll.
|
| John Cairns
| Gerard Weatherby wrote in message
| ...
| There's an article on sailnet (
|
|
http://www.sailnet.com/collections/a...d=rousma0082%2
| 0%20&tfr=fp
| or http://tinyurl.com/h9z6 ) which claims it's faster to tack downwind
on
| broad
| reaches instead of running straight downwind. (Assuming you want to get
| dead
| downwind.) Have those of you who sail found this to be true? Let's
| assume
| there's no spinnaker since I don't have one.
|
| S/V Cat's Meow
| http://www.catsmeow.org
|
|

Also.... I recall the
C&C27 to have a lower PHRF than my Nordica 30... mine was 180.

That's a typical rating for the 27, which was slower than my Pearson 30 and
needs minimal chop to do well. It's an okay starter boat, but has no serious
intentions as does the Nordic.
The 27 is a bay boat at best. Next week we're taking C&C 32 to Coney Island to
watch the sharks feed!

RB

Next week we're taking C&C 32 to Coney Island to
watch the sharks feed!

Uh oh, the big open ocean trip. Good luck.

Hey Neal - you're beginning to sound like Jax. What's next - are you going to claim
Einstein proved you can't navigate in the fog?

I wouldn't expect an English major to remember any high school trigonometry (assuming you
ever passed the course) but it only takes a simple calculation to show that you only go 4%
further when you run at 165 degrees instead of 180. You only have to go a little faster
to make this up. In fact, you only have to go 15% faster to make up the difference in
running at 150 degrees. Thus, you can jibe through 60 degrees true and only need a 15%
increase to make it worth while.

Here's a polar for a Catalina 36. I don't think anyone would call this a planing boat,
especially in light air:

http://albertson.sytes.net/~chris/C3...6Polars_al.gif

The chart clearly shows that you can go 25% faster in light air by jibing downwind in
light air.

Are you claiming that all the Polar Diagrams are false?


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
A displacement boat that does not plane will always
arrive at a destination in less time by running directly
downwind to it. Gybing downwind does result in slightly
faster speed through the water in lighter winds but the
extra distance traveled results in a longer time to arrive
at the destination. This is just plain common sense and
physics at work. Anyone who claims something different
is living in Lala Land. You're beginning to sound as
stupid and ignorant as Jeff Morris.


wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:46:06 -0400, "Simple Simon" wrote:

That is incorrect information for any displacement monohull where
it is always faster to run straight downwind.

Baloney! An under canvassed tank like yours or Bobadil's might benefit quite a
bit from gibeing back and forth rather than going directly downwind. I do better
going strait downwind, because I can put up the mylar main and 170 genoa, or a
spinnaker and take advantage.

BB

I'm surprised you would bring up the ColRegs episode - it was so embarrassing for you.
Did the CG suspend your license after that?


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
You have an excellent point there. Jeff has proven he knows
even less about sailing a real boat than he knows about the
COLREGS. I've got to give him credit for knowing one thing
better than you and I, however, and that's synchronizing the
RPM's on twin diesels. Bwaaa a a ha haah ha ha hah hah !


"CANDChelp" wrote in message
...
You're beginning to sound as
stupid and ignorant as Jeff Morris.

Jeff owns a multi, Neal. How could he know ANYTHING about proper boat handling?

RB

Such a hopeless dreamer you are. You just can't seem to understand that
carrying your way (momentum) only matters if the way is generated
quickly. A big, heavy, full-keeler not only has more inertia to carry but
it has more inertia to overcome. The bottom line is the lighter the boat,
the faster the boat in light and heavy winds. If this were not the case
race boats would all be big heavy tubs like your Nordica.

You cannot expect your heavy voyaging boat to be fast. It isn't and
it never will be. My Coronado 27 which is a mid-weight boat will leave
your heavy boat behind in any winds of ten knots or less. In heavy winds
going offwind your boat might be a little faster because of its longer LWL.
In heavy winds going upwind yours will definitely be faster because it
has the weight and power to shoulder the seas.

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message ...
In light winds with a chute I maintain a steady overall speed due to
momentum... the C&C is subject to windspeed variations and was not able to
attain the progress I could. In a moderate breeze... lets say 10 to 15
kts.... the C&C had the advantage. Understand that this applied only to the
C&C27... it was stripped and rigged for racing..... any of the other
26/27/30 foot vessels would be left sucking my wake downwind in most
conditions. In winds in excess of 40 knots... all boats assume a position
aft of mine since they are overwhelmed by the conditions.

CM



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
|
|
| Talk about living in Lala Land!!!
|
| There is no way a heavy, full-keeled tub like yours is going to
| walk away from a C&C 27 in light winds. You must have
| been drinking way too much overproof that day.
|
|
| "Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...
| I found that to be true of the C&C 27 I sailed with up north. It was odd
at
| the time since all the fin keelers were favouring to keep up speed by
gybing
| downwind yet Bill kept his C&C27 wing on wing alongside my Nordica 30. I
| attributed it to his skills as a sailor. He could surf above his hull
speed
| while I did hull speed in moderate winds. A note of consideration is
that if
| both of us were flying our chutes in light air... I would walk away
from
| the C&C27 .... probably due to my longer waterline. Also.... I recall
the
| C&C27 to have a lower PHRF than my Nordica 30... mine was 180.
|
| I would still elect to gybe downwind in light air and/or high wave
| heights/confused seas if I was in a rush.... which I usually am not.
| Nonetheless... I would say I elect to wing on wing DDW about 90% of the
| time.
|
| CM
|
|
| wrote in message
| ...
| | On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:46:06 -0400, "Simple Simon"

| wrote:
| |
| | That is incorrect information for any displacement monohull where
| | it is always faster to run straight downwind.
| |
| | Baloney! An under canvassed tank like yours or Bobadil's might benefit
| quite a
| | bit from gibeing back and forth rather than going directly downwind. I
do
| better
| | going strait downwind, because I can put up the mylar main and 170
genoa,
| or a
| | spinnaker and take advantage.
| |
| | BB
|
|
|
|