In-Mast Furling
 

For a cruising boat 35-40 feet, how much performance is lost with an in-mast
mainsail furling system. What are the specific losses.

Thanks for any info.

RB

In-Mast Furling
 

Then
there is the loss of money. Finally there is the
loss in dignity.

Same as marriage, right???

RB

In-Mast Furling
 

Depends upon whom one marries. Loco and Stevie,
for example, have wives who are a financial liability
as well as a blow their dignity while your beautiful
woman not only looks sexy and fine but makes
good money.

Then there is that fool Mike Fulmoron who married
Petunia Pig. Bwaahahhahahhahahahhaha! Bring home
the bacon has a whole new meaning.


"Bobsprit" wrote in message ...
Then
there is the loss of money. Finally there is the
loss in dignity.

Same as marriage, right???

RB

In-Mast Furling
 

Oh nonsense; you get a ton more performance from a rolling mainsail becuase
YOU WILL ALWAYS USE IT; how often do you see people on short evening cruises
with only headsails out b/c their main is too much of a bother to hoist?

Do it.

Mike

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Just like wind-up headsails, the major loss is in
reliability. Also, there is a loss in safety. Then
there is the loss of money. Finally there is the
loss in dignity.

Don't even THINK about wind-ups.

Keep it simple, keep it seamanlike.


"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
For a cruising boat 35-40 feet, how much performance is lost with an
in-mast
mainsail furling system. What are the specific losses.

Thanks for any info.

RB

In-Mast Furling
 

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, "Donal" wrote:

. . . an in-mast furling main sail . . .

. . . which, comparatively speaking, might be used more of the time
than one that requires more work to hoist and take down, . . .

. . . will usually be considerably smaller
than a standard sail, due to the lack of roach.

As a general matter, this is often true (but compare some
vertically-battened moderen in-mast furling mains).

But even when correct, it disregards the reality (especially for newer
computer-assisted designs) that modern hull shapes and (newer) boat
design/fabrication also frequently favors comparatively early reefing
but at no loss of sailing performance.

In other words, at many windspeeds and related weather conditions,
the,
"Is 'performance' always 'better'?"
question is often almost wholly (and, in some cases, entirely) moot.

Relatedly, HOWEVER, I most certainly am NOT arguing that This compared
with That sail is always "better" (much less "best") for all persons
on all boats ("cruising" or otherwise) in all conditions (or vice
versa). As in all else in sailing, its an "it depends ..." and "there
always are trade-offs" kind of Thing (re. which, f'rinstance, the
original posting in this thread does not specify whether the boat in
question will have a shoal or finned-compared-with-bulbed or mid-size
or deep keel, among other performance-affecting variables).

In-Mast Furling
 

There's extra weight aloft and greater windage, due to the
furling mechanism. They're still relatively unreliable, esp.
as compaired to jib furlers, you could have lots of trouble
furling when not directly into the wind. They have the potential
of binding if the sail isn't perfectly straight as it goes in. It's your
primary means of propulsion (well, for most people). Why mess
with it? Also, on a 35-40 foot boat? Do it manually. It's not that
hard.

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
For a cruising boat 35-40 feet, how much performance is lost with an
in-mast
mainsail furling system. What are the specific losses.

Thanks for any info.

RB

In-Mast Furling
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, "Donal" wrote:

. . . an in-mast furling main sail . . .

. . . which, comparatively speaking, might be used more of the time
than one that requires more work to hoist and take down, . . .

If health reasons made getting a sail up and down difficult, then I might
consider a furling main. As it is, I'm not sure that it takes any longer
to hoist. I use lazyjacks to drop my main into the sailbag. It only takes
about 3 mins to flake it out and zip up the bag. So I agree that taking the
sail down will take a bit longer. However, I find it difficult to accept
that anyone would forego the use of the main because it was too difficult to
hoist on any boat under 40'.




. . . will usually be considerably smaller
than a standard sail, due to the lack of roach.

As a general matter, this is often true (but compare some
vertically-battened moderen in-mast furling mains).

I haven't seen these. They sound like they might suffer from jamming.


But even when correct, it disregards the reality (especially for newer
computer-assisted designs) that modern hull shapes and (newer) boat
design/fabrication also frequently favors comparatively early reefing
but at no loss of sailing performance.

In other words, at many windspeeds and related weather conditions,
the,
"Is 'performance' always 'better'?"
question is often almost wholly (and, in some cases, entirely) moot.


The guy that I chartered the boat with a furling main from, said that the
furling system meant that he could always reef exactly by the amount that
he wanted, and therefore he could keep up more sail in heavy weather. I
found that the sail shape was dreadful, and that the boat wouldn't perform
well in any conditions. BTW, the boat was a Barvaria 44.



Regards


Donal
--

In-Mast Furling
 

"Donal" wrote in
:


wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, "Donal" wrote:

. . . an in-mast furling main sail . . .

. . . which, comparatively speaking, might be used more of the time
than one that requires more work to hoist and take down, . . .

If health reasons made getting a sail up and down difficult, then I
might consider a furling main. As it is, I'm not sure that it takes
any longer to hoist. I use lazyjacks to drop my main into the sailbag.
It only takes about 3 mins to flake it out and zip up the bag. So I
agree that taking the sail down will take a bit longer. However, I
find it difficult to accept that anyone would forego the use of the
main because it was too difficult to hoist on any boat under 40'.




. . . will usually be considerably smaller
than a standard sail, due to the lack of roach.

As a general matter, this is often true (but compare some
vertically-battened moderen in-mast furling mains).

I haven't seen these. They sound like they might suffer from
jamming.


But even when correct, it disregards the reality (especially for
newer computer-assisted designs) that modern hull shapes and (newer)
boat design/fabrication also frequently favors comparatively early
reefing but at no loss of sailing performance.

In other words, at many windspeeds and related weather conditions,
the,
"Is 'performance' always 'better'?"
question is often almost wholly (and, in some cases, entirely) moot.


The guy that I chartered the boat with a furling main from, said that
the furling system meant that he could always reef exactly by the
amount that he wanted, and therefore he could keep up more sail in
heavy weather. I found that the sail shape was dreadful, and that the
boat wouldn't perform well in any conditions. BTW, the boat was a
Barvaria 44.


Run away Donie!

there's a good boy.


Good thng the others forced you into retiring, eh fjuckwit?

Ooops!
Better not answer, hothead, the others will spank you and you're already on
the ****list for egging me on. the one or two people who already don't
think you're a complete **** might change their minds if you try and stand
up to the bunyip.

Best hide.

I think one of my other k00ks might have some room under his bed he can
share with you.


Guess this means I win, fjuckwit!

Bwawhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahhahw hahhwhahwhahwhhahhahwhahh
whahwhahwhhahhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahhahwhahhwhahwhah whhahhahwhahhwhahwhahwhha
hhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahhahwhah hwhahwhahwhhahhahwhahhwha
hwhahwhhahhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahhahwhahhwhahwhahwhh ahhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahha
hwhahhwhahwhahwhhahhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahhahwhahhwh ahwhahwhhahhahwhahhwhahwh
ahwhhahhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahh ahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahhahwh
ahhwhahwhahwhhahhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahhahwhahhwhahw hahwhhahhahwhahhwhahwhahw
hhahhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahhahw hahhwhahwhahwhhahhahwhahh
whahwhahwhhahhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahhahwhahhwhahwhah whhahhahwhahhwhahwhahwhha
hhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahhahwhah hwhahwhahwhhahhahwhahhwha
hwhahwhhahhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahhahwhahhwhahwhahwhh ahhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahh!


Bertie

In-Mast Furling
 

(Bobsprit) wrote:
For a cruising boat 35-40 feet, how much performance is lost with an in-mast
mainsail furling system. What are the specific losses.


Frank and Ronnie Maier wrote:
Well, hell; since no one is replying seriously

Well, look who's asking.


Citing specific loss requires a specific situation. Generally
speaking, you'll lose *some* efficiency; this is why some designers
have tried wrap-around sails in the past. Ya want a number? I'll say
that you'll be a full knot slower upwind than the same boat without
in-mast furling.

I think that comparing PHRF numbers of boats of the same type with in-mast furling
shows a big loss, like over a minute per mile... and this includes downwind
performance, which will be least affected.



Frank (I've come to accept roller furling headsails but still can't
stomach in-mast furling)

I can stomach it, I just don't see any reason why anybody who isn't planning on
spending a great percentage of their sailing time in very high wind areas would
want it.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

In-Mast Furling
 

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:35:18 -0700, a team of surgeons from
alt.sailing.asa removed the following benign growth from Jonathan
Ganz:

snip-some-tedious-bad-advice

Do it manually. It's not that hard.

You should know.


--
PJR :-)
mhm34x8