|
how necessary is a windlass
"Jessica B" wrote in message
... 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 |
how necessary is a windlass
In article , jessicab47
@hush.com says... 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. I guess I agree that ugly is relative. That's a valid point for open ocean cruising. The faster voyage will also reduce the supplies you have to carry. Of course, you can take the speed thing a bit too far and end up with a boat that will be dangerous in moderately heavy weather---particularly if operated with a small crew. I was think more of coastal cruising, particularly in trawler yachts. In those boats, I often cruise at about 3 to 5 knots as opposed to the 8 to 9 that the boat will do at full cruise. The result is that I spend 5 hours a day between anchorages instead of 2.5 and use less than half the fuel I would if traveling the same distance at the faster speed. The scenery looks just as nice and the boat is a lot quieter. I get twice the time to react to floating logs and other hazards. Of course, the cruising I do here in the Pacific Northwest is a bit different than that in Florida and the Caribbean. The basic principles here a 1. If the weather is nice there won't be enough wind to sail (80% of the sailboats I see have their engine running.) 2. When the weather is rainy enough to have some wind, the wind will be coming down the fjord when you are going up, and vice-versa. 3. The current is always against you--and generally over 2 knots. 4. If you insist on sailing, you will not make it through Dodd Narrow on this afternoon's slack. 5. Ferry boat skippers will generally not run over sailboats waiting for wind. But they will surely be unhappy. 6. Gill nets are REALLY hard to see at 5 knots in good weather. If there's enough wind to sail at 7 knots, there is a good probability that you will really **** off some fisherman because you won't see the net until you are too close. I saw some really exciting jibes and tacks North of Campbell river last summer. If your goal is to go long distances, or to spend as much time as possible at anchor, by all means, get the fastet boat you can afford! ;-) Mark Borgerson |
how necessary is a windlass
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:39:11 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "Jessica B" wrote in message .. . 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) |
how necessary is a windlass
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:28:09 -0800, Mark Borgerson
wrote: In article , jessicab47 says... 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. I guess I agree that ugly is relative. That's a valid point for open ocean cruising. The faster voyage will also reduce the supplies you have to carry. Of course, you can take the speed thing a bit too far and end up with a boat that will be dangerous in moderately heavy weather---particularly if operated with a small crew. I was think more of coastal cruising, particularly in trawler yachts. In those boats, I often cruise at about 3 to 5 knots as opposed to the 8 to 9 that the boat will do at full cruise. The result is that I spend 5 hours a day between anchorages instead of 2.5 and use less than half the fuel I would if traveling the same distance at the faster speed. The scenery looks just as nice and the boat is a lot quieter. I get twice the time to react to floating logs and other hazards. Of course, the cruising I do here in the Pacific Northwest is a bit different than that in Florida and the Caribbean. The basic principles here a 1. If the weather is nice there won't be enough wind to sail (80% of the sailboats I see have their engine running.) 2. When the weather is rainy enough to have some wind, the wind will be coming down the fjord when you are going up, and vice-versa. 3. The current is always against you--and generally over 2 knots. 4. If you insist on sailing, you will not make it through Dodd Narrow on this afternoon's slack. 5. Ferry boat skippers will generally not run over sailboats waiting for wind. But they will surely be unhappy. 6. Gill nets are REALLY hard to see at 5 knots in good weather. If there's enough wind to sail at 7 knots, there is a good probability that you will really **** off some fisherman because you won't see the net until you are too close. I saw some really exciting jibes and tacks North of Campbell river last summer. If your goal is to go long distances, or to spend as much time as possible at anchor, by all means, get the fastet boat you can afford! ;-) Mark Borgerson Even off shore very few cruising yachts can average 5 k for an entire trip (we are assuming a boat that the average man can afford :-). That would be 144 mile days and something to brag about at the pub. The usual average is more in the 100 mile per day region, or sometimes less :-) Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
how necessary is a windlass
|
Cruising speed. Was: how necessary is a windlass
|
how necessary is a windlass
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:56:10 -0800, Mark Borgerson
wrote: In article , says... Jessica B wrote: 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. I guess I agree that ugly is relative. Depends on how much water you have left at 7 days... Water??? I'd be more concerned with the beer and wine supplies. ;-) Mark Borgerson LOL! |
how necessary is a windlass
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 . .. 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. |
how necessary is a windlass
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:28:09 -0800, Mark Borgerson
wrote: In article , jessicab47 says... 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. I guess I agree that ugly is relative. That's a valid point for open ocean cruising. The faster voyage will also reduce the supplies you have to carry. Of course, you can take the speed thing a bit too far and end up with a boat that will be dangerous in moderately heavy weather---particularly if operated with a small crew. Ok, but I don't understand the taking it too far comment. Are you talking about pushing the limits of speed the boat can take and still be safe? I was think more of coastal cruising, particularly in trawler yachts. In those boats, I often cruise at about 3 to 5 knots as opposed to the 8 to 9 that the boat will do at full cruise. The result is that I spend 5 hours a day between anchorages instead of 2.5 and use less than half the fuel I would if traveling the same distance at the faster speed. The scenery looks just as nice and the boat is a lot quieter. I get twice the time to react to floating logs and other hazards. OIC. Even then, if you're trying to make it someplace for dinner, it would still make sense to be able to go a bit faster. I guess then you can just go ahead and waste fuel. I thought the discussion was about sailing not using an engine. Of course, the cruising I do here in the Pacific Northwest is a bit different than that in Florida and the Caribbean. The basic principles here a 1. If the weather is nice there won't be enough wind to sail (80% of the sailboats I see have their engine running.) 2. When the weather is rainy enough to have some wind, the wind will be coming down the fjord when you are going up, and vice-versa. 3. The current is always against you--and generally over 2 knots. 4. If you insist on sailing, you will not make it through Dodd Narrow on this afternoon's slack. 5. Ferry boat skippers will generally not run over sailboats waiting for wind. But they will surely be unhappy. 6. Gill nets are REALLY hard to see at 5 knots in good weather. If there's enough wind to sail at 7 knots, there is a good probability that you will really **** off some fisherman because you won't see the net until you are too close. I saw some really exciting jibes and tacks North of Campbell river last summer. If your goal is to go long distances, or to spend as much time as possible at anchor, by all means, get the fastet boat you can afford! ;-) Mark Borgerson I can afford a Honda. LOL |
for 143 lines, I can afford a Honda. LOL ??
#### ## ## #### ###### ## ## ### ## ## ## ## ### #### ## ## ## ## ### ## #### ## ##### ### ## ### ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## #### ## ## #### #### ###### #### ###### #### ## ## ## ## ## # ## # ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##### ## ## ## ###### ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ###### #### #### #### ## ## |
The guy at the Windows 7 Pro Generator Key store just told me Windows 7 Ultimate 64 Bit Key Starter is easier to use and it Win 7 Cd Key you how to use the programs, and it's Win 7 64 Bit Key complicated.In what way is it less complicated to use than Microsoft Windows 7 Update Key? I still don't get the difference.
|
The guy at the Win 7 Activation Key store just told me Windows 7 32bit Key Starter is easier to use and it Windows 7 64bit Key you how to use the programs, and it's Windows 7 Enterprise 64 Bit Key complicated.In what way is it less complicated to use than Win 7 Cd Key? I still don't get the difference.
|
The guy at the Windows 7 Pro Generator store just told me Microsoft Windows 7 Generator Key Starter is easier to use and it Windows 7 Pro 32 Bit you how to use the programs, and it's Windows 7 Home Basic Code complicated.In what way is it less complicated to use than Win 7 Update Key? I still don't get the difference.
|
how necessary is a windlass
In article , jessicab47
@hush.com says... On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:28:09 -0800, Mark Borgerson wrote: In article , jessicab47 says... 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. I guess I agree that ugly is relative. That's a valid point for open ocean cruising. The faster voyage will also reduce the supplies you have to carry. Of course, you can take the speed thing a bit too far and end up with a boat that will be dangerous in moderately heavy weather---particularly if operated with a small crew. Ok, but I don't understand the taking it too far comment. Are you talking about pushing the limits of speed the boat can take and still be safe? I was thinking more of the ultra-light boats with the big rigs. They're very fast, but can be dangerous in heavy weather with a small crew. I was think more of coastal cruising, particularly in trawler yachts. In those boats, I often cruise at about 3 to 5 knots as opposed to the 8 to 9 that the boat will do at full cruise. The result is that I spend 5 hours a day between anchorages instead of 2.5 and use less than half the fuel I would if traveling the same distance at the faster speed. The scenery looks just as nice and the boat is a lot quieter. I get twice the time to react to floating logs and other hazards. OIC. Even then, if you're trying to make it someplace for dinner, it would still make sense to be able to go a bit faster. I guess then you can just go ahead and waste fuel. I thought the discussion was about sailing not using an engine. In the Pacific Northwest, even the sailboats use their engines a lot of the time. Of course, the cruising I do here in the Pacific Northwest is a bit different than that in Florida and the Caribbean. The basic principles here a 1. If the weather is nice there won't be enough wind to sail (80% of the sailboats I see have their engine running.) 2. When the weather is rainy enough to have some wind, the wind will be coming down the fjord when you are going up, and vice-versa. 3. The current is always against you--and generally over 2 knots. 4. If you insist on sailing, you will not make it through Dodd Narrow on this afternoon's slack. 5. Ferry boat skippers will generally not run over sailboats waiting for wind. But they will surely be unhappy. 6. Gill nets are REALLY hard to see at 5 knots in good weather. If there's enough wind to sail at 7 knots, there is a good probability that you will really **** off some fisherman because you won't see the net until you are too close. I saw some really exciting jibes and tacks North of Campbell river last summer. If your goal is to go long distances, or to spend as much time as possible at anchor, by all means, get the fastet boat you can afford! ;-) Mark Borgerson I can afford a Honda. LOL Mark Borgerson |
how necessary is a windlass
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 ... 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. 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. 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. 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) |
how necessary is a windlass
On Mar 6, 8:52*pm, Frogwatch wrote:
OK, I have not hauled my anchor in the last 6 months but then it was not too hard (28' 8000lb boat). *Am I missing something? *Does hauling the anchor (slowly) get that much harder as one gets older (I am 55). Generally, I haul her in slowly allowing the boats momentum to do most of the work until the rode is vertical. *That is when it requires a bit of pull. *I also use 1/2" nylon rode with 30' of chain so I am not hauling all chain. Does it get that much harder with a larger boat? In place of a windlass, why not mount an old manual winch on the bow and use it to help haul it in? There is an excelletn book by Earl R. Hinz I cant remember the title that will tieach you everything needed to design your own ground tackle. He also published a book titled, Heavy Weather Tactics Using Sea Anchors & Drogues. THis is also the only book you shoudl read regarding that topic. Youre asking the wrong question. Its not how big a windless or How big an anchor you need? The quesion you need to anser FIRST is 1) How much does your boat weigh: 29,000 lbs 2) How much wind (drag) + bottom type+ depth are you going to want to anchor. Those factors above will determ rode type rode lenght anchor type/size windless needed to pick up your location specific designed ground tackle. If its too much to pull up by hand Id say size the windless to your needs. Just to run off my mouth Id say 1/2 nylon + 30 feet chain is EXTREALY undersized for a 29K boat... that is unless youre at the dock and will never opreate in an area where winds over 20K exist. Read Hinz anchoring book and let me know what you decide. Bob |
how necessary is a windlass
On Mar 14, 6:51*pm, Bob wrote:
On Mar 6, 8:52*pm, Frogwatch wrote: OK, I have not hauled my anchor in the last 6 months but then it was not too hard (28' 8000lb boat). *Am I missing something? *Does hauling the anchor (slowly) get that much harder as one gets older (I am 55). Generally, I haul her in slowly allowing the boats momentum to do most of the work until the rode is vertical. *That is when it requires a bit of pull. *I also use 1/2" nylon rode with 30' of chain so I am not hauling all chain. Does it get that much harder with a larger boat? In place of a windlass, why not mount an old manual winch on the bow and use it to help haul it in? There is an excelletn book by Earl R. Hinz I cant remember the title that will tieach you everything needed to design your own ground tackle. He also published a book titled, Heavy Weather Tactics Using Sea Anchors & Drogues. THis is also the only book you shoudl read regarding that topic. Youre asking the wrong question. Its not how big a windless or How big an anchor you need? The quesion you need to anser FIRST is 1) How much does your boat weigh: 29,000 lbs 2) How much wind (drag) + bottom type+ depth are you going to want to anchor. Those factors above will determ rode type rode lenght anchor type/size windless needed to pick up your location specific designed ground tackle. If its too much to pull up by hand Id say size the windless to your needs. Just to run off my mouth Id say 1/2 nylon + 30 feet chain is EXTREALY undersized for a 29K boat... that is unless youre at the dock and will never opreate in an area where winds over 20K exist. Read Hinz anchoring book and let me know what you decide. Bob Upsss Its a 28 FOOT boat that weighs 8 thousand pounds...... ! In that case putit back on yuor trailor and go home.... |
how necessary is a windlass
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 m... 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. 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? 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. |
how necessary is a windlass
On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 11:17:47 -0800, Mark Borgerson
wrote: In article , jessicab47 says... On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:28:09 -0800, Mark Borgerson wrote: In article , jessicab47 says... 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. I guess I agree that ugly is relative. That's a valid point for open ocean cruising. The faster voyage will also reduce the supplies you have to carry. Of course, you can take the speed thing a bit too far and end up with a boat that will be dangerous in moderately heavy weather---particularly if operated with a small crew. Ok, but I don't understand the taking it too far comment. Are you talking about pushing the limits of speed the boat can take and still be safe? I was thinking more of the ultra-light boats with the big rigs. They're very fast, but can be dangerous in heavy weather with a small crew. OIC... well, I guess a really small boat going fast or slow wouldn't be as safe as a bigger boat in bad weather? I was think more of coastal cruising, particularly in trawler yachts. In those boats, I often cruise at about 3 to 5 knots as opposed to the 8 to 9 that the boat will do at full cruise. The result is that I spend 5 hours a day between anchorages instead of 2.5 and use less than half the fuel I would if traveling the same distance at the faster speed. The scenery looks just as nice and the boat is a lot quieter. I get twice the time to react to floating logs and other hazards. OIC. Even then, if you're trying to make it someplace for dinner, it would still make sense to be able to go a bit faster. I guess then you can just go ahead and waste fuel. I thought the discussion was about sailing not using an engine. In the Pacific Northwest, even the sailboats use their engines a lot of the time. 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? snip |
how necessary is a windlass
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 om... 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. 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. 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) |
how necessary is a windlass
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 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? 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.... |
how necessary is a windlass
We have a winner, folks!
212 lines |
how necessary is a windlass
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) |
how necessary is a windlass
OIC... well, I guess a really small boat going fast or slow wouldn't
be as safe as a bigger boat in bad weather? Dear Jessibur B Your a woman think of it in terms of a cock; really small going fast or bigger and faster. What has your experince been my dear? Robert Pennington Rexroth |
how necessary is a windlass
"CaveLamb" wrote in message
m... We have a winner, folks! 212 lines We have a loser, folks! A net nanny loser. Wilbur Hubbard |
how necessary is a windlass
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
... On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:02:48 -0700, Jessica B wrote: snip 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. No Jessica is NOT. For example, my fast, blue water yacht, "Cut the Mustard" made a passage from Mobile Bay to Egmont Key (Tampa Bay). The time from sea buoy to sea buoy was 36 hours. The distance was 300 miles. 300 divided by 36 = 8.3 mph average! The LWL of my fine yacht is 22 feet. Theoretical hull speed is only about seven knots. But, as you can see, the theory doesn't always describe fact. So, Jessica is not talking speeds in excess of normal. If my small yacht can average 8.3mph then imagine the speeds a fast sailing yacht with a LWL of forty feet could average. Now, Bruce, if you had ever sailed a real fast cruising boat and not that big fat rotten old tub you live at the dock in you might have gotten around the world in half the time it took you just to get to Thailand. Wilbur Hubbard |
how necessary is a windlass
"Bob" wrote in message
... OIC... well, I guess a really small boat going fast or slow wouldn't be as safe as a bigger boat in bad weather? Dear Jessibur B Your a woman think of it in terms of a cock; really small going fast or bigger and faster. What has your experince been my dear? Robert Pennington Rexroth Jessica thinks that men who talk about cock size are not very evolved. I have to agree with her. Take a hike, Neanderthal! Wilbur Hubbard |
how necessary is a windlass
"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. 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? Wilbur Hubbard |
how necessary is a windlass
On Mar 17, 10:11*am, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "Bob" wrote in message ... OIC... well, I guess a really small boat going fast or slow wouldn't be as safe as a bigger boat in bad weather? Dear Jessibur B Your a woman think of it in terms of a cock; really small going fast or bigger and faster. What has your experince been my dear? Robert Pennington Rexroth Jessica thinks that men who talk about cock size are not very evolved. I have to agree with her. Take a hike, Neanderthal! Wilbur Hubbard Dear Wilbur, Your own insecurity about penis size is reflected in Jessibur/Willica personona. The thing many men dont want to know about is what women really thinnk when it comes to cock size. Size DOES matter to a woman its just that many woman will only admit it in very hushed conversations while others, more confident and disclosive, will openly declair that a big dick is a VERY interesting thing to contemplate... Jessica apears to be a confident capable character.... therefore she would be very open to a big cock. But there are regional valuse that prohibit proper ladies from discussion such matters in an open forum,,,,, butwhen be hind closed doors with a trusted girlfriend the subtle cues of interest are obvious to those who care to take time and hear. My dear will bur, writing for a characte is a very dificult task requiring a significan writing skills. A skills you are still developing. The author must truely "become" the other person and that is near impossible for you... Why? becaure you are an ill educated, old white typical conservative male. Its not in your nature and you lack the skills to actually want to learn about someone else. in other words you can not walk a mile, let alone a few feet, in another persons (notice i didnot use MAN'S) shoes. Christ man.... just look what youve been doing here for so many years.... ranting venting spewing, in an effort to show case your maritime knowledge BUT seldom do I see any efort on your part to ask questions, seek information, use those communication skills necessary to understand and learn from another person. My dear sir yuo will never have a healty relationship with another person because it is all about Willbur. I emagin you were a single child maybe you had siblings but they were much older than you or you were the "golden child" the spoiled favorite. You were raised with a sense that you could do what you wanted and that you were always right. You were also most likly one of those bright nurdy kids in grade school. Smart but not popular and when you graduated fro HS didnt attend college or if you did never finished. That is why you are such a verbos know-it-all here..... THis is your stage to scream: I AM WILLBUR! I AM SMARTER THAN YOU! Yup, u got lots of frustration willbur. It must be a terible feeling beleiving you are smarter thatn everyone else but no way to prove it and no one to listen............................... except here :( But Ill listen Willbur :) Tell me how bad it feels............... |
how necessary is a windlass
"Bob" wrote in message
... On Mar 17, 10:11 am, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: "Bob" wrote in message ... OIC... well, I guess a really small boat going fast or slow wouldn't be as safe as a bigger boat in bad weather? Dear Jessibur B Your a woman think of it in terms of a cock; really small going fast or bigger and faster. What has your experince been my dear? Robert Pennington Rexroth Jessica thinks that men who talk about cock size are not very evolved. I have to agree with her. Take a hike, Neanderthal! Wilbur Hubbard :: Dear Wilbur, :: :: Your own insecurity about penis size is reflected in Jessibur/Willica :: personona. :: The thing many men dont want to know about is what women really thinnk :: when it comes to cock size. Size DOES matter to a woman its just that :: many woman will only admit it in very hushed conversations while :: others, more confident and disclosive, will openly declair that a big :: dick is a VERY interesting thing to contemplate... What an idiot you are Bob! You're treating Jessica like she's some kind of dumb bimbo and that's the very thing she hates the most. Get a clue. Pay particular attention to the part not wanting to meet airheads. LOL! From Jessica's MySpace page: About me: Single, White, Female, smart, sexy... Did I mention smart? Who I'd like to meet: No, I don't want to meet you if you're a muscle boy, an airhead, or you just want to get laid. I'd like to meet someone who's polite, nice looking, funny. Say something funny, and at least you'll get my attention instead of a block. I'm still waiting for one actually funny or intelligent message... so far, it's "you're cute" (so?) or "wassup?" (that's all you have to say?) Where are the decent guys??? General Guys :) (no I don't want to see your penis). Things that are important! Reading! Being on the beach with a great book! Music Classic rock, Class jazz, Classic classical Movies You're not going to like it... I like old movies. Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, anything Bogart. Television Don't watch much... :: Jessica apears to be a confident capable character.... therefore she :: would be very open to a big cock. But there are regional valuse that :: prohibit proper ladies from discussion such matters in an open :: forum,,,,, but when behind closed doors with a trusted girlfriend the :: subtle cues of interest are obvious to those who care to take time and :: hear. Read the part where she says she's smart (twice). She's way out of your league, dummy! :: My dear will bur, writing for a characte is a very dificult task :: requiring a significan writing skills. A skills you are still :: developing. The author must truely "become" the other person and that :: is near impossible for you... Why? becaure you are an ill educated, :: old white typical conservative male. Its not in your nature and you :: lack the skills to actually want to learn about someone else. in other :: words you can not walk a mile, let alone a few feet, in another :: persons (notice i didnot use MAN'S) shoes. Christ man.... just look :: what youve been doing here for so many years.... ranting venting :: spewing, in an effort to show case your maritime knowledge BUT seldom :: do I see any efort on your part to ask questions, seek information, :: use those communication skills necessary to understand and learn from :: another person. My dear sir yuo will never have a healty relationship :: with another person because it is all about Willbur. Says the moron who is too dumb to understand that Jessica B is a real girl, not some sock puppet of mine. As for my seeking information and asking quesions about sailing, I'll do that if and when somebody shows up around here who is more experienced and knowlegeable - which will be a long time coming. I am more in my element teaching than asking questions. Somebody has got to push back all this liberal, feel good crap that has resulted in a slovenly and irresponsible attitude toward sailing. :: I emagin you were a single child maybe you had siblings but they were :: much older than you or you were the "golden child" the spoiled :: favorite. You were raised with a sense that you could do what you :: wanted and that you were always right. You were also most likly one of :: those bright nurdy kids in grade school. Smart but not popular and :: when you graduated fro HS didnt attend college or if you did never :: finished. That is why you are such a verbos know-it-all here..... THis :: is your stage to scream: I AM WILLBUR! I AM SMARTER THAN YOU! Yup, u :: got lots of frustration willbur. It must be a terible feeling :: beleiving you are smarter thatn everyone else but no way to prove it :: and no one to listen............................... except here :: :( LOL! Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. Boy, are you dumb. Did it ever occur to you that it is your stupidity that makes others who are intelligent appear to "know it all?" Wilbur Hubbard |
how necessary is a windlass
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
"CaveLamb" wrote in message m... We have a winner, folks! 212 lines We have a loser, folks! A net nanny loser. Wilbur Hubbard Hrump, You must be looking in the mirror... -- Richard Lamb email me: web site: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb |
how necessary is a windlass
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message ... On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:02:48 -0700, Jessica B wrote: snip 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. No Jessica is NOT. For example, my fast, blue water yacht, "Cut the Mustard" made a passage from Mobile Bay to Egmont Key (Tampa Bay). The time from sea buoy to sea buoy was 36 hours. The distance was 300 miles. 300 divided by 36 = 8.3 mph average! The LWL of my fine yacht is 22 feet. Theoretical hull speed is only about seven knots. But, as you can see, the theory doesn't always describe fact. So, Jessica is not talking speeds in excess of normal. If my small yacht can average 8.3mph then imagine the speeds a fast sailing yacht with a LWL of forty feet could average. Now, Bruce, if you had ever sailed a real fast cruising boat and not that big fat rotten old tub you live at the dock in you might have gotten around the world in half the time it took you just to get to Thailand. Wilbur Hubbard Tide and current. And a fat head! -- Richard Lamb email me: web site: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb |
how necessary is a windlass
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:07:57 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:02:48 -0700, Jessica B wrote: snip 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. No Jessica is NOT. For example, my fast, blue water yacht, "Cut the Mustard" made a passage from Mobile Bay to Egmont Key (Tampa Bay). The time from sea buoy to sea buoy was 36 hours. The distance was 300 miles. 300 divided by 36 = 8.3 mph average! The LWL of my fine yacht is 22 feet. Theoretical hull speed is only about seven knots. But, as you can see, the theory doesn't always describe fact. So, Jessica is not talking speeds in excess of normal. If my small yacht can average 8.3mph then imagine the speeds a fast sailing yacht with a LWL of forty feet could average. Now, Bruce, if you had ever sailed a real fast cruising boat and not that big fat rotten old tub you live at the dock in you might have gotten around the world in half the time it took you just to get to Thailand. Wilbur Hubbard Ah Willie-boy, didn't your Mama ever tell you that it was a sin to tell lies? Your yellow anchor buoy made a voyage? Only in your overheated imagination. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
how necessary is a windlass
|
how necessary is a windlass
|
how necessary is a windlass
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 11:06:17 -0700 (PDT), Bob
wrote: On Mar 17, 10:11*am, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: "Bob" wrote in message ... OIC... well, I guess a really small boat going fast or slow wouldn't be as safe as a bigger boat in bad weather? Dear Jessibur B Your a woman think of it in terms of a cock; really small going fast or bigger and faster. What has your experince been my dear? Robert Pennington Rexroth Jessica thinks that men who talk about cock size are not very evolved. I have to agree with her. Take a hike, Neanderthal! Wilbur Hubbard Dear Wilbur, Your own insecurity about penis size is reflected in Jessibur/Willica personona. The thing many men dont want to know about is what women really thinnk when it comes to cock size. Size DOES matter to a woman its just that many woman will only admit it in very hushed conversations while others, more confident and disclosive, will openly declair that a big dick is a VERY interesting thing to contemplate... Jessica apears to be a confident capable character.... therefore she would be very open to a big cock. But there are regional valuse that prohibit proper ladies from discussion such matters in an open forum,,,,, butwhen be hind closed doors with a trusted girlfriend the subtle cues of interest are obvious to those who care to take time and hear. My dear will bur, writing for a characte is a very dificult task requiring a significan writing skills. A skills you are still developing. The author must truely "become" the other person and that is near impossible for you... Why? becaure you are an ill educated, old white typical conservative male. Its not in your nature and you lack the skills to actually want to learn about someone else. in other words you can not walk a mile, let alone a few feet, in another persons (notice i didnot use MAN'S) shoes. Christ man.... just look what youve been doing here for so many years.... ranting venting spewing, in an effort to show case your maritime knowledge BUT seldom do I see any efort on your part to ask questions, seek information, use those communication skills necessary to understand and learn from another person. My dear sir yuo will never have a healty relationship with another person because it is all about Willbur. I emagin you were a single child maybe you had siblings but they were much older than you or you were the "golden child" the spoiled favorite. You were raised with a sense that you could do what you wanted and that you were always right. You were also most likly one of those bright nurdy kids in grade school. Smart but not popular and when you graduated fro HS didnt attend college or if you did never finished. That is why you are such a verbos know-it-all here..... THis is your stage to scream: I AM WILLBUR! I AM SMARTER THAN YOU! Yup, u got lots of frustration willbur. It must be a terible feeling beleiving you are smarter thatn everyone else but no way to prove it and no one to listen............................... except here :( But Ill listen Willbur :) Tell me how bad it feels............... Certainly Willie-boy must have been an only child. Can you imagination anyone wanting more like Willie? Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
how necessary is a windlass
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. 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? Wilbur Hubbard Engineless boats? And who was it searching for the cheapest outboard he could find, and has posted pictures of his yellow anchor buoy with the outboard attached? Why, it was Willie-boy, the armchair sailor who must have been reading The Pardys this week. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) |
how necessary is a windlass
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 19:38:06 -0700, Mark Borgerson
wrote: However, part of the problem in that conversion is that you can get a 36' sailboat in decent condition for about half the cost of a 36' trawler. Considering that the trawler probably has more than twice as much livable space and a lot more comfortable, not such a bad deal. :-) |
how necessary is a windlass
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
... On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 19:38:06 -0700, Mark Borgerson wrote: However, part of the problem in that conversion is that you can get a 36' sailboat in decent condition for about half the cost of a 36' trawler. Considering that the trawler probably has more than twice as much livable space and a lot more comfortable, not such a bad deal. :-) It's a bad deal for the environment as marine diesel engines are notorious for the huge amounts of air pollution they spew. And, they drip oil and fuel and foul the bilges which foul bilge water and fuel dregs are then pumped into the water. I never could understand how anybody in their right mind could be justified in thinking that their fun takes precedence over folks who wish to breathe clean air. It's such a me me me, selfish attitude. It reeks of elitism and hypocrisy. Really, it's no different than Al Gore flying all over the glove in his private jet then complaining about how much pollution and CO2 other people are responsible for. Yah, right! Wilbur Hubbard |
how necessary is a windlass
On 3/18/2011 1:19 PM, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
wrote in message ... On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 19:38:06 -0700, Mark Borgerson wrote: However, part of the problem in that conversion is that you can get a 36' sailboat in decent condition for about half the cost of a 36' trawler. Considering that the trawler probably has more than twice as much livable space and a lot more comfortable, not such a bad deal. :-) It's a bad deal for the environment as marine diesel engines are notorious for the huge amounts of air pollution they spew. And, they drip oil and fuel and foul the bilges which foul bilge water and fuel dregs are then pumped into the water. I never could understand how anybody in their right mind could be justified in thinking that their fun takes precedence over folks who wish to breathe clean air. It's such a me me me, selfish attitude. It reeks of elitism and hypocrisy. Really, it's no different than Al Gore flying all over the glove in his private jet then complaining about how much pollution and CO2 other people are responsible for. Yah, right! Wilbur Hubbard While you're on the subject of ecology Wilbur, would you mind telling us why you think dumping your pee and turds into coastal waters is OK. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:16 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com