how necessary is a windlass
 

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:13:54 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Jessica B" wrote in message
.. .
snip

JMB just e-mailed me. She sounds like an organized person and a go-getter.
I
CC'd you my reply to her. Things are looking good. She's got some firm
dates
in mind so check your inbox. Sounds like she's planning to rent a car at
the
airport so you two should coordinate your flights if you can so you can
ride
together. It sure would save me time going back and forth twice to the
airport. In exchange I've offered to get you guys a room while you're here
so you can have all the luxuries you're used to and a safe place for your
luggage. Sounds like a deal to me. ;-)

You're an EXCELLENT person!

Thanks, I guess it takes one to know one. LOL! You're a real sweetheart,
Jessica B! You deserve excellence.

I promise to be better about email and such. I've just been swamped
with job and personal stuff.

I understand (now). Good to have you back. ;-)


snip



I'm picky... I only want the best... someone said that.. not sure who.

how necessary is a windlass
 

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:22:35 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Jessica B" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 19:23:55 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Jessica B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:25:41 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:
snippage


I've seen way more sailors who use their engine as a crutch in lieu of
learning how to handle their boat under sail. I've even had some of the
Rubes in this very group try to say it's irresponsible to anchor under
sail
if there are other boats anchored. They say such nonsense because they
never
learned how to anchor under sail and if they tried they would most
likely
ram somebody. If they weren't so inept or inexperienced they would
discover
that a sailboat has better steering functionality under a balanced
sailplan
than under engine power alone.


I'd imagine that if the sailor is experienced in anchoring when
sailing that it wouldn't matter if there were rocks or other boats
around. I don't think I could do it, but ....

You could do it, Jessica, once you familiarized yourself with the
characteristics and handling of your sailboat, the ground tackle, bottom
conditions and wind/current. Like anything else it just takes some
experience and some understanding of how things work. With your analytical
mind, you'd be anchoring under sail with the best of them in no time. It's
more about finesse than muscle. Even a big strong man simply cannot muscle
a
four-ton sailboat into place. On the contrary, one must know what the boat
is going to do and let the boat do it in the direction and velocity one
desires. A sailboat is like a woman. You gotta let her do what she wants
but
you have to know what she wants to do and then everything goes as
expected.


I hope we're going to get a lesson! I'm up for it if you have a pair
of gloves I can use.

I do. They might be a little large but they'll work. You'll like my ground
tackle. The anchors aren't too big and they aren't all rusty and the length
of chain is nice polished stainless steel. I get those gloves with the
little rubber dots on the palm side for better grip as the stainless steel
tends to be slippery when wet. I'll be sure to have an extra pair or two at
the ready for you ladies.


I've gotta get to the gym. Then, I'll email you more, but let me know
you got the last one!!

Work on the abs and biceps. You probably already have the legs being a track
star. An anchor full of mud weighs about a hundred pounds. LOL! Just
kidding.


Wilbur Hubbard



Definitely get some gloves! 100 lbs? No prob.

how necessary is a windlass
 

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:44:36 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 06:55:15 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

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@4 ax.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)

I can't imagine that having a good boat and proceeding at as fast as
possible to avoid bad weather would somehow be more dangerous.

Sorry, but I just don't understand the logic.

Nor do I think that you have done much sailing.

If you are going someplace you set forth using all the sails that the
wind will allow. As time passes you alter that sail spread as the
winds allow. It is not really a matter of going as fast as YOU want to
go, rather going as fast as you CAN go.

Cheers,

Bruce

how necessary is a windlass
 

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:03:25 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Jessica B" wrote in message
.. .
trimmed all of Bruce's gibberish

I can't imagine that having a good boat and proceeding at as fast as
possible to avoid bad weather would somehow be more dangerous.

Sorry, but I just don't understand the logic.


You don't understand it because it's ignorance that resides behind Bruce's
misconceptions. It's the old justification those who sail slowcoaches use so
they don't become upset at how they bought the wrong boat that is actually
less safe because it won't get out of its own way. While a fast boat like
mine is safe in a protected harbor a slowcoach like Bruce's will be in the
teeth of a storm and could well founder.

Wilbur Hubbard


Gee Willie, I didn't know you had a racer. I thought it was just one
of those Tupperware, popped out of a mold, things built for the silly
people who just want to own a boat.


(are you sure that you have a racing boat, and not an anchor buoy?)
Cheers,

Bruce

how necessary is a windlass
 

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:46:15 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:03:25 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Jessica B" wrote in message
. ..
trimmed all of Bruce's gibberish

I can't imagine that having a good boat and proceeding at as fast as
possible to avoid bad weather would somehow be more dangerous.

Sorry, but I just don't understand the logic.


You don't understand it because it's ignorance that resides behind Bruce's
misconceptions. It's the old justification those who sail slowcoaches use so
they don't become upset at how they bought the wrong boat that is actually
less safe because it won't get out of its own way. While a fast boat like
mine is safe in a protected harbor a slowcoach like Bruce's will be in the
teeth of a storm and could well founder.

Wilbur Hubbard



I'd love to hear the logic if he wants, but I guess he doesn't want.

Actually I was driving from Phuket to Bangkok yesterday.

Cheers,

Bruce

how necessary is a windlass
 

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:45:57 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:39:13 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:44:36 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 06:55:15 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:02:48 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:
Much Bumph snipped


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)

I can't imagine that having a good boat and proceeding at as fast as
possible to avoid bad weather would somehow be more dangerous.

Sorry, but I just don't understand the logic.

Sorry, I was trying to explain why it is illogical to attempt to
outrun weather patterns in a vehicle that thunders through the waves
at 5 miles an hour - A kid on a Huffy can outrun you. Sheehs, a fast
walker can "outrun" you.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

I didn't say out run anything. I thought we were talking about the
difference between 5mph and 7mph over a distance. That's a significant
time difference over a longish distance.

I thought we were talking about the whole concept of trying to outrun
weather in something that slow is an exercise in futility.

Cheers,

Bruce

how necessary is a windlass
 

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:20:20 -0500, CaveLamb
wrote:

Jessica B wrote:

Sorry, but I just don't understand the logic.
Sorry, I was trying to explain why it is illogical to attempt to
outrun weather patterns in a vehicle that thunders through the waves
at 5 miles an hour - A kid on a Huffy can outrun you. Sheehs, a fast
walker can "outrun" you.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

I didn't say out run anything. I thought we were talking about the
difference between 5mph and 7mph over a distance. That's a significant
time difference over a longish distance.

Not really. It's not a different of days, at least.

200 nm at 5 knots = 100 hours
200 nm at 7 knots = 71 hours

And if running from a storm you are running into a lee shore and
shallow water - just before the storm hits?

Pass...


The problem with all these armchair estimates that in a trip of any
length speeds are never that constant. Most people make an estimate of
how many miles they can do a day knowing that it (hopefully) is, at
best, an educated guess.

One trip I did at least once a year for about 10 years was anything
from an overnighter to something like 3 weeks (a bloke who's engine
broke and, as he said, he damned near ran our of food drifting 5 miles
that way and 4 miles back when the tide changed).

Cheers,

Bruce

how necessary is a windlass
 

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:25:41 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Jessica B" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:19:33 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

"Jessica B" wrote in message
...
snip

OIC... well, I guess a really small boat going fast or slow wouldn't
be as safe as a bigger boat in bad weather?

Depends on the seaworthiness of the boat. Any size boat can be seaworthy
as
long as it is built stoutly and has a crew that knows how to handle her in
a
blow. A ships life boat is a good example. The ship founders in a storm
and
the crew takes to the life boats which are very small in comparison and
expects to survive the storm conditions in them. Sometimes small is
better.

Ok. That makes sense. I read somewhere about big ships breaking up
because the weight of the boat is suspended between waves.


It can happen! Seas that can destroy a ship often succour a disgarded light
bult.



snip

I believe you. I just thought this was about sailing not using an
engine. What about on a slightly longer trip.. wouldn't you want to
use sail power as much as you can, so you don't run out?


One would think so, but . . .

Most of the people posting here NEVER sailed a boat that didn't have an
engine. An engine on a sailboat is supposed to be an auxiliary which means
a
secondary means of power. Sadly, most of the Rubes here run their diesels
even when the sails are up. And should the wind die and they can't do hull
speed, they 'supplement' the sails with the diesel. It's shameful! Why
don't
people like that just admit to themselves that they are not interested in
sailing and just sell the poor sailboat to somebody who would appreciate
it
for what it was designed to do and buy a motorboat such as a trawler?

That's what my friend with the Catalina said... an auxiliary powered
vessel... right when he started the engine! :)


I've seen way more sailors who use their engine as a crutch in lieu of
learning how to handle their boat under sail. I've even had some of the
Rubes in this very group try to say it's irresponsible to anchor under sail
if there are other boats anchored. They say such nonsense because they never
learned how to anchor under sail and if they tried they would most likely
ram somebody. If they weren't so inept or inexperienced they would discover
that a sailboat has better steering functionality under a balanced sailplan
than under engine power alone.

Wilbur Hubbard


Willie-boy, YOU are the one talking about possible needing their
engine. Now you are back to barking at folks who have said exactly the
same thing.

Have you learned how to spell Phoney yet?

Cheers,

Bruce

how necessary is a windlass
 

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:13:00 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:20:20 -0500, CaveLamb
wrote:

Jessica B wrote:

Sorry, but I just don't understand the logic.
Sorry, I was trying to explain why it is illogical to attempt to
outrun weather patterns in a vehicle that thunders through the waves
at 5 miles an hour - A kid on a Huffy can outrun you. Sheehs, a fast
walker can "outrun" you.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

I didn't say out run anything. I thought we were talking about the
difference between 5mph and 7mph over a distance. That's a significant
time difference over a longish distance.

Not really. It's not a different of days, at least.

200 nm at 5 knots = 100 hours
200 nm at 7 knots = 71 hours

And if running from a storm you are running into a lee shore and
shallow water - just before the storm hits?

Pass...


The problem with all these armchair estimates that in a trip of any
length speeds are never that constant. Most people make an estimate of
how many miles they can do a day knowing that it (hopefully) is, at
best, an educated guess.

One trip I did at least once a year for about 10 years was anything
from an overnighter to something like 3 weeks (a bloke who's engine
broke and, as he said, he damned near ran our of food drifting 5 miles
that way and 4 miles back when the tide changed).

Cheers,

Bruce

Logically you would always use an average, so I don't understand what
would be wrong with estimates.

how necessary is a windlass
 

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:05:51 +0700, Bruce
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:45:57 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:39:13 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:44:36 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 06:55:15 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:02:48 -0700, Jessica B
wrote:
Much Bumph snipped


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)

I can't imagine that having a good boat and proceeding at as fast as
possible to avoid bad weather would somehow be more dangerous.

Sorry, but I just don't understand the logic.

Sorry, I was trying to explain why it is illogical to attempt to
outrun weather patterns in a vehicle that thunders through the waves
at 5 miles an hour - A kid on a Huffy can outrun you. Sheehs, a fast
walker can "outrun" you.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

I didn't say out run anything. I thought we were talking about the
difference between 5mph and 7mph over a distance. That's a significant
time difference over a longish distance.

I thought we were talking about the whole concept of trying to outrun
weather in something that slow is an exercise in futility.

Cheers,

Bruce

Ok, but I thought we were talking about an opportunity to sail vs. not
sail because of a particular time between bad weather. I never said
anything about outrunning anything, and I didn't see any mention of
that until recently.