Never run downwind?
 

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

Never run downwind?
 

That is incorrect information for any displacement monohull where
it is always faster to run straight downwind. It only applies to
multi-hulls and planning hulls that can, using a strong wind, move
faster than their theoretical hull speed.


"Gerard Weatherby" wrote in message ...
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

Never run downwind?
 

A lot of people for better or for worse do call it tacking down
wind, but I agree with you.

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...
No, it's faster to gybe downwind.

Cheers MC

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

Never run downwind?
 

It certainly is faster... but it's not always quicker.


CM

"Gerard Weatherby" wrote in message
...
| 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

Never run downwind?
 

'Always' has such a sense of finality to it doncha think?

Cheers MC

Capt. Mooron wrote:
It certainly is faster... but it's not always quicker.


CM

"Gerard Weatherby" wrote in message
...
| 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

Never run downwind?
 

Yes....

CM

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...
| 'Always' has such a sense of finality to it doncha think?
|
| Cheers MC
|
| Capt. Mooron wrote:
| It certainly is faster... but it's not always quicker.
|
|
| CM
|
| "Gerard Weatherby" wrote in message
| ...
| | 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
|
|
|

Never run downwind?
 

I'd say that the judgement call typically comes in at about force 4. But
you should also not forget to factor in the seas that may extend the
wind strengths where reaching down wind is faster. Holding the period of
surfing for longer is a big boost.

Cheers MC

Donal wrote:
"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.


It depends on the strength of the wind.


In light air, it will often be quicker to gybe. Once the wind gets up to
the point where you can goose wing easily, then you will be quicker going
dead downwind!


I should add - "IMHO".


Regards


Donal
--

Never run downwind?
 

Most polar diagrams will indicate the optimum downwind angle for a given wind speed. In
the case of my old Nonsuch, 180 is always the optimum angle, but for many other boats,
tacking downwind works. especially in lighter air.



"Gerard Weatherby" wrote in message
...
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

Never run downwind?
 

nonsense, as usual.

The San Juan may plane, but I doubt it does in 6 knots of wind:
http://www.sanjuan28.org/polar.htm

Here's a different article:
http://www.sailnet.com/collections/a...eid=leonar0021

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
That is incorrect information for any displacement monohull where
it is always faster to run straight downwind. It only applies to
multi-hulls and planning hulls that can, using a strong wind, move
faster than their theoretical hull speed.


"Gerard Weatherby" wrote in message
...
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

Never run downwind?
 

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

Never run downwind?
 

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

Never run downwind?
 

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

Never run downwind?
 

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

Never run downwind?
 

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

Never run downwind?
 

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
|
|

Never run downwind?
 

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

Never run downwind?
 

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.

Never run downwind?
 

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

Never run downwind?
 

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

Never run downwind?
 

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
|
|
|
|

Never run downwind?
 

75 miles off and return in 3 days? That's 50 miles a day?
Wow, now that's fast!

"CANDChelp" wrote in message
...
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.

Nope...two weeks after that is our 'Cruise" straight out offshore. We only
have
3 days, but I'm hoping we can get 75 miles offshore at least.

RB

Never run downwind?
 

Polars are the fare of armchair sailors. Anyone who has actually sailed
downwind against a faster boat when said faster boat was jybing downwind
and getting further and further behind realizes that in real life sailing dead
downwind is faster for a keelboat that is restrained by a theoretical hull
speed. The bottom line is 15 degrees does not make a boat go all that
much faster because sail area is effectively reduced. The main, blankets
the jib or genny where running dead downwind leaves both the genny
and mail totally exposed to the wind.

Show me an America's cup where on a dead downwind leg boats are
jybing downwind and coming out ahead and I might give a little credence
to your nonsense. The races I've watched show these cutting edge vessels
running straight downwind and only turning slightly now and then to
keep boats upwind of them from blocking their wind.

Racing cats and tris, now that's a different story. Given strong winds these
craft are close hauled or close reaching on all legs of a race course because
they do, indeed, have the capability to tack downwind and complete the
course faster.



"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ...
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

Never run downwind?
 

Booby has to do about 30 miles first to get past Sandy Hook. That includes Hell Gate, the
East River, NY Harbor, Verrazano Narrows, etc. This will be more challenging than going a
few miles offshore.


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
75 miles off and return in 3 days? That's 50 miles a day?
Wow, now that's fast!

"CANDChelp" wrote in message
...
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.

Nope...two weeks after that is our 'Cruise" straight out offshore. We only
have
3 days, but I'm hoping we can get 75 miles offshore at least.

RB

Never run downwind?
 

Booby has to do about 30 miles first to get past Sandy Hook. That includes
Hell Gate, the
East River, NY Harbor, Verrazano Narrows, etc. This will be more challenging
than going a
few miles offshore.

That is why we are all looking forward to it eagerly. I don't have an
Eldridge's here, but I would be interested to work out when he can feasibly
make it through the Narrows from City Island on Friday July 25. Maybe he gets
to Atl Highlands for the first night. Leaves Sat morn and turns around Sunday
dawn. 75 nm will take him 15 hours. Looks tough to do it and get home Sunday.

Never run downwind?
 

It wasn't all about jybing downwind.


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ...
"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

Show me an America's cup where on a dead downwind leg boats are
jybing downwind and coming out ahead and I might give a little credence
to your nonsense. The races I've watched show these cutting edge vessels
running straight downwind and only turning slightly now and then to
keep boats upwind of them from blocking their wind.


This has got to be the dumbest thing you've said in, well, at least a few days.

Perhaps you will recall that they showed the downwind "laylines" - what do you think that
was about?

Never run downwind?
 

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 13:24:13 -0400, "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom
wrote:

Show me an America's cup where on a dead downwind leg boats are
jybing downwind and coming out ahead and I might give a little credence
to your nonsense. The races I've watched show these cutting edge vessels
running straight downwind and only turning slightly now and then to
keep boats upwind of them from blocking their wind.


This has got to be the dumbest thing you've said in, well, at least a few days.

Perhaps you will recall that they showed the downwind "laylines" - what do you think that
was about?

Not to mention the question was specifically regarding boats without spinnakers.

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

Never run downwind?
 

It was about jibing downwind. Here's a rather technical article describing the sail
design for IACC boats.

"While it is impossible to sail directly upwind, it is possible to sail directly
downwind but as shown in Fig. 3, with true wind speeds such as 5 m/s,
the optimum VMG occurs with a true wind angle of 150 degrees."

http://mapp1.de.unifi.it/persone/All...chards2001.pdf

BTW, its either jibe or gybe, not jybe. That's about as silly as saying "ded reckoning."

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
It wasn't all about jybing downwind.


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

Show me an America's cup where on a dead downwind leg boats are
jybing downwind and coming out ahead and I might give a little credence
to your nonsense. The races I've watched show these cutting edge vessels
running straight downwind and only turning slightly now and then to
keep boats upwind of them from blocking their wind.


This has got to be the dumbest thing you've said in, well, at least a few days.

Perhaps you will recall that they showed the downwind "laylines" - what do you think
that
was about?

Never run downwind?
 

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
|
| 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 discuss agility over power.... on a medium that favours power over
agility. Based on your misunderstanding of the basic comprehension of sea
states and variations in the uniformity of wind strength.... you erroneously
come to the conclusion that your lighter vessel can challenge the sheer
brute strength of a solid streamlined full keel cruiser. You speak of
inertia and yet have not seen or felt the acceleration and steadfast force
generated by a true blue water designed vessel. If you had to date been
exposed to such brute muscle... it would squelch your argument regarding the
delusional idea of your coastal cruiser offering any competition. Race boats
are bred for coastal waters and buoy races.... and as displayed by the
AC... have a tendency to fall apart in short order.


|
| 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.

Correct... I did not expect it.... like you, I assumed that lighter and
frailer construction would result in a faster, dinghy like performance......
what I found out is that the cruiser's efficient ability to transform wind
from a finicky, altering state into sheer directional power is what allows
me to easily pass the frailer vessels. The words "Authority", "Supremacy",
"Dominance", "Comfort" & "Security" spring to mind when one is aboard my
vessel. I could not only dispatch you in short order on any given point of
sail..... but I could do it even if we switched vessels.

CM

Never run downwind?
 

It works out OK next Friday. If he hits the "slack before ebb" at Hell Gate at 7:53AM, he
can ride the ebb out for the next 4 or 5 hours. Coming back on Sunday is harder - he
wants to ride the flood in and get to Hell Gate again at slack before ebb, but now its
9:25 AM or 9:43 PM. He could hit the morning slack if he passes Sandy Hook early, maybe 6
AM


"SkitchNYC" wrote in message
...
Booby has to do about 30 miles first to get past Sandy Hook. That includes
Hell Gate, the
East River, NY Harbor, Verrazano Narrows, etc. This will be more challenging
than going a
few miles offshore.

That is why we are all looking forward to it eagerly. I don't have an
Eldridge's here, but I would be interested to work out when he can feasibly
make it through the Narrows from City Island on Friday July 25. Maybe he gets
to Atl Highlands for the first night. Leaves Sat morn and turns around Sunday
dawn. 75 nm will take him 15 hours. Looks tough to do it and get home Sunday.

Never run downwind?
 

I watched some of the races on TV and they did not gybe downwind.

Btw 'jibing' is incorrect unless one is using a jib to run downwind
which is pretty stupid because a spinnaker works much better.

Jybing or gybing are the corrent terms.

PUTZ!


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ...
It was about jibing downwind. Here's a rather technical article describing the sail
design for IACC boats.

"While it is impossible to sail directly upwind, it is possible to sail directly
downwind but as shown in Fig. 3, with true wind speeds such as 5 m/s,
the optimum VMG occurs with a true wind angle of 150 degrees."

http://mapp1.de.unifi.it/persone/All...chards2001.pdf

BTW, its either jibe or gybe, not jybe. That's about as silly as saying "ded reckoning."

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
It wasn't all about jybing downwind.


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

Show me an America's cup where on a dead downwind leg boats are
jybing downwind and coming out ahead and I might give a little credence
to your nonsense. The races I've watched show these cutting edge vessels
running straight downwind and only turning slightly now and then to
keep boats upwind of them from blocking their wind.


This has got to be the dumbest thing you've said in, well, at least a few days.

Perhaps you will recall that they showed the downwind "laylines" - what do you think
that
was about?

Never run downwind?
 

Ok, what is it about 20nm from City Island to Coney Island? Assume it takes 4
hours with the twists and turns and ferry dodging. That's noon. He is so
concerned about this trip that he will have to stop after that and gather his
wits, so assume he drops anchor behind Sandy Hook for lunch. Say he leaves
Sandy Hook at 3 pm. The 75 mile jaunt should take 30 hours, assuming a 5kn
average. That means he is out and back by, say 10 pm Saturday (a few hours
extra to be conservative), assuming he is not run down by a freighter. He
drops the hook behind Sandy Hook again, and leaves at sunup to catch the flood.

I think he can do it!! And I am willing to take a bet. I know he won't let me
down.


It works out OK next Friday. If he hits the "slack before ebb" at Hell Gate
at 7:53AM, he
can ride the ebb out for the next 4 or 5 hours. Coming back on Sunday is
harder - he
wants to ride the flood in and get to Hell Gate again at slack before ebb,
but now its
9:25 AM or 9:43 PM. He could hit the morning slack if he passes Sandy Hook
early, maybe 6
AM


"SkitchNYC" wrote in message
...
Booby has to do about 30 miles first to get past Sandy Hook. That
includes
Hell Gate, the
East River, NY Harbor, Verrazano Narrows, etc. This will be more
challenging
than going a
few miles offshore.

That is why we are all looking forward to it eagerly. I don't have an
Eldridge's here, but I would be interested to work out when he can feasibly
make it through the Narrows from City Island on Friday July 25. Maybe he
gets
to Atl Highlands for the first night. Leaves Sat morn and turns around
Sunday
dawn. 75 nm will take him 15 hours. Looks tough to do it and get home
Sunday.

Never run downwind?
 

There is, indeed, one area where big, heavy, full-keeled
boats do excel and are superior to lightweights - longevity
and the ability to abide and even thrive on the efforts of
Mother Nature to take them apart.

Only a fool would prefer to go to sea for a circumnavigation
with speed as the primary reason. It is much better to have
a nice, slow but solid boat under you when off soundings.

Even better than a big, heavy full-keeler such as yours,
however, is a middle-weight that has positive flotation
such as mine. I have a more nimble boat and a safer one.

You have to think out of the box if you really wish to be
a sailor par excellence. It is odd that nobody but Etap makes
a decent production monohull with positive flotation from
the factory. It says a lot about the mentality of sailors who
think because their boat is built like an anvil that it will not
sink like an anvil. The only thing worse than a heavy boat
like yours is a super lightweight that will sink about as fast
if holed but will be holed much faster and easier every time.

The very best of both worlds is a boat like my Coronado
27 that is a middle-of-the-roader that has had closed cell
urethane foam poured in the spaces between the component
(liner) and hull and three watertight bulkheads glassed in or
foamed in place. Nobody on this group has a more seaworthy
boat than "Cut the Mustard" and that's a fact. Few people on
this group have a faster boat and that's also a fact. In your case
you have neither.

To quote Ole Thom. I'LL DRINK TO THAT!


"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message ...

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
|
| 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 discuss agility over power.... on a medium that favours power over
agility. Based on your misunderstanding of the basic comprehension of sea
states and variations in the uniformity of wind strength.... you erroneously
come to the conclusion that your lighter vessel can challenge the sheer
brute strength of a solid streamlined full keel cruiser. You speak of
inertia and yet have not seen or felt the acceleration and steadfast force
generated by a true blue water designed vessel. If you had to date been
exposed to such brute muscle... it would squelch your argument regarding the
delusional idea of your coastal cruiser offering any competition. Race boats
are bred for coastal waters and buoy races.... and as displayed by the
AC... have a tendency to fall apart in short order.


|
| 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.

Correct... I did not expect it.... like you, I assumed that lighter and
frailer construction would result in a faster, dinghy like performance......
what I found out is that the cruiser's efficient ability to transform wind
from a finicky, altering state into sheer directional power is what allows
me to easily pass the frailer vessels. The words "Authority", "Supremacy",
"Dominance", "Comfort" & "Security" spring to mind when one is aboard my
vessel. I could not only dispatch you in short order on any given point of
sail..... but I could do it even if we switched vessels.

CM

Never run downwind?
 

"Simple Simon" wrote:
I watched some of the races on TV and they did not gybe downwind.

Then you have an exceptionally bad eye. The rest of the world watched them jibe downwind,
turning through rather substantial angles. Even when they where headed apart, they were
nowhere close to dead downwind.


Btw 'jibing' is incorrect unless one is using a jib to run downwind
which is pretty stupid because a spinnaker works much better.

Jybing or gybing are the corrent terms.


On which planet is "jybing" used? It doesn't appear in the online dictionaries
referenced by dictionary.com. Google shows only 108 occurrences on the web, as opposed to
over 10,200 for "jibing" and "gybing" has 5800 hits. Bowditch, BTW, uses "gybing."





"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
It was about jibing downwind. Here's a rather technical article describing the sail
design for IACC boats.

"While it is impossible to sail directly upwind, it is possible to sail directly
downwind but as shown in Fig. 3, with true wind speeds such as 5 m/s,
the optimum VMG occurs with a true wind angle of 150 degrees."

http://mapp1.de.unifi.it/persone/All...chards2001.pdf

BTW, its either jibe or gybe, not jybe. That's about as silly as saying "ded
reckoning."

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
It wasn't all about jybing downwind.


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

Show me an America's cup where on a dead downwind leg boats are
jybing downwind and coming out ahead and I might give a little credence
to your nonsense. The races I've watched show these cutting edge vessels
running straight downwind and only turning slightly now and then to
keep boats upwind of them from blocking their wind.


This has got to be the dumbest thing you've said in, well, at least a few days.

Perhaps you will recall that they showed the downwind "laylines" - what do you
think
that
was about?

Never run downwind?
 

Like the author of "Cruising the Racer and Racing the Cruiser" says "the only
reason to buy a full keel boat is if you expect to be able to visit remote
islands and need to be able to lay it on it's side during low tide to paint the
bottom"
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
Trains are a winter sport

Never run downwind?
 

Simple,

Your statement is absolutely wrong and completely off the wall. It is
wrong in theory and it is wrong in actuality.

Neal, before you take this into a argument, please look at a copy of the
polar performance curve for mono hulls. You will see that for a wind
blowing 5 knts or less, your vessel cannot exceed the speed of the wind
going dead downwind. Neal, now look at the speed of the vessel sail at a
150 degree angle (30 deg delta) a pick up of a knt and a half. A .583%
increase in speed)

I picked the 30 Deg angle because it is easier to visualize. ( 30x60
triangle) Now visualize a unit of travel directly downwind and the
distance of the vessel at 150 for the same unit of time. You will see
that the vessel at 30 degrees off dead downwind traveled .593 times
farther. Now, I know the base of the triangle isn't quite equal to twice
the distance traveled but close enough for this old beached sailor. So,
the vessel off the wind is .093% farther downwind and time to gybe back
to course. Now sailing a course of 210 deg, traveling 1.593 times faster
and will be back on the original course 18% farther downwind than the
boat slogging along dead downwind.

Now if you had ever raced in the Cruising Class ( No Flying Sail) you
would know this to be true. I know you don't want to agree that a boat
can exceed the speed of the wind going downwind but you are DEAD WRONG.
I've tried before to tell you the things you can do to increase off wind
speed but I see you are still living in the dark about it.

Don't lead the newbees astray with your lack of knowledge and experience
but many,many times I've returned to the Leeward mark with large gains
over boats traveling dead downwind wing and wing.

Ole Thom

Never run downwind?
 

WHAT!!!??? ... you can't careen a fin keeler???.... Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ha!

You fin keelers are so funny....... and insignificant!

CM

"SAIL LOCO" wrote in message
...
| Like the author of "Cruising the Racer and Racing the Cruiser" says "the
only
| reason to buy a full keel boat is if you expect to be able to visit remote
| islands and need to be able to lay it on it's side during low tide to
paint the
| bottom"
| S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
| Trains are a winter sport

Never run downwind?
 

I've careened my shoal draft fin-keeler many a time. Give me
four feet of tide and a good sandbar and I can slap a coat of
bottom paint on in no time.


"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message ...
WHAT!!!??? ... you can't careen a fin keeler???.... Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ha!

You fin keelers are so funny....... and insignificant!

CM

"SAIL LOCO" wrote in message
...
| Like the author of "Cruising the Racer and Racing the Cruiser" says "the
only
| reason to buy a full keel boat is if you expect to be able to visit remote
| islands and need to be able to lay it on it's side during low tide to
paint the
| bottom"
| S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
| Trains are a winter sport

Never run downwind?
 

I'm talking spinnakers here big boy! Only a fool eschews a
spinnaker on a downwind run.


"Thomas Stewart" wrote in message ...
Simple,

Your statement is absolutely wrong and completely off the wall. It is
wrong in theory and it is wrong in actuality.

Neal, before you take this into a argument, please look at a copy of the
polar performance curve for mono hulls. You will see that for a wind
blowing 5 knts or less, your vessel cannot exceed the speed of the wind
going dead downwind. Neal, now look at the speed of the vessel sail at a
150 degree angle (30 deg delta) a pick up of a knt and a half. A .583%
increase in speed)

I picked the 30 Deg angle because it is easier to visualize. ( 30x60
triangle) Now visualize a unit of travel directly downwind and the
distance of the vessel at 150 for the same unit of time. You will see
that the vessel at 30 degrees off dead downwind traveled .593 times
farther. Now, I know the base of the triangle isn't quite equal to twice
the distance traveled but close enough for this old beached sailor. So,
the vessel off the wind is .093% farther downwind and time to gybe back
to course. Now sailing a course of 210 deg, traveling 1.593 times faster
and will be back on the original course 18% farther downwind than the
boat slogging along dead downwind.

Now if you had ever raced in the Cruising Class ( No Flying Sail) you
would know this to be true. I know you don't want to agree that a boat
can exceed the speed of the wind going downwind but you are DEAD WRONG.
I've tried before to tell you the things you can do to increase off wind
speed but I see you are still living in the dark about it.

Don't lead the newbees astray with your lack of knowledge and experience
but many,many times I've returned to the Leeward mark with large gains
over boats traveling dead downwind wing and wing.

Ole Thom

Never run downwind?
 

Give me
four feet of tide and a good sandbar and I can slap a coat of
bottom paint on in no time.

And right over the slime and brown furry stuff I'll bet.


S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
Trains are a winter sport

Never run downwind?
 

,but I still clean it with a little scrub brush
every two weeks just to retain that fine, competitive edge that
allows me to handily beat J/24s and stay even with most 50-
foot cruising boats.


LOL........... Stop!
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
Trains are a winter sport