|
how necessary is a windlass
Jessica B wrote:
At first someone claimed that the waterline difference would be tiny. I found to be what seems a recent photo where that's not the case, and now you're claiming it's a relic? I don't get that. Either it can be a factor or it can't be. If I may again... Compare a Catalina 27 and My Catalina 26. My waterline is 3 inches longer. That's because the 27 has significant overhangs on both ends. Overhangs are the part of the hull above the waterline forward or aft of the waterline/hull point. If there is a lot of hull forward of where the water meets the hull then you have a long bow overhang. Same for the stern. Heeled 30 degrees (quite a bit actually) the 27's waterline length just about matches my 26's. Any less heel and the 27 is shorter than the 26. Waterline length that is... So, what does it mean as far as speed goes? Three inches is 1/4 of a foot. So.. 1.33 * sqrt (.25) = ? 1.33 * .5 = .665 knots difference In theory, at least. Which can be easily hidden by sail trim, rudder position, sea state, etc Yes, I get that current is only a real help in a few instances. What about the gulf stream example? I don't think that changes direction does it? Current is not tide. Tides change direction. Currents usually do not. -- Richard Lamb |
how necessary is a windlass
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... -- Richard Lamb email me: web site: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb |
how necessary is a windlass
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... Sorry Jessica That was supposed to be 500 miles -- Richard Lamb email me: web site: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb |
how necessary is a windlass
|
how necessary is a windlass
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:16:58 -0500, CaveLamb
wrote: Three inches is 1/4 of a foot. So.. 1.33 * sqrt (.25) = ? 1.33 * .5 = .665 knots difference In theory, at least. 27^.5=5.2 27.25^.5=5.22. Three hundredths of a knot difference. Casady |
how necessary is a windlass
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 05:04:01 -0500, Richard Casady
wrote: On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:16:58 -0500, CaveLamb wrote: Three inches is 1/4 of a foot. So.. 1.33 * sqrt (.25) = ? 1.33 * .5 = .665 knots difference In theory, at least. 27^.5=5.2 27.25^.5=5.22. Three hundredths of a knot difference. Casady Hmmm. HP calculator? --Vic |
how necessary is a windlass
Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 05:04:01 -0500, Richard Casady wrote: On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:16:58 -0500, CaveLamb wrote: Three inches is 1/4 of a foot. So.. 1.33 * sqrt (.25) = ? 1.33 * .5 = .665 knots difference In theory, at least. 27^.5=5.2 27.25^.5=5.22. Three hundredths of a knot difference. Casady Hmmm. HP calculator? --Vic Sorry guys :) Just late and not paying attention to the numbers. Half a knot for 3 inches does seem a little funny, doesn't it... -- Richard Lamb email me: web site: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb |
how necessary is a windlass
"Jessica B" wrote in message
... On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:39:14 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:35:30 -0500, CaveLamb wrote: Jessica B wrote: Hmmm... well, I looked up theoretical boat speed... 1.34 x the root of LWL. But, I read that when the boat leans (heels) then the LWL would get longer, so the theoretical speed would go up right? Also, what about the water moving. If it's going in the same direction, then that would decrease the time you spend traveling. But how MUCH longer does the waterline get? Seldom more than a few inches at most. As for the other, it's called current. And if you are going against it, slower than the current is running, you go backwards... What fun, huh? The long overhangs was a relic of one of the old racing rules that penalized long waterlines. So, the crafty people built a boat with a very short waterline and sailed it heeled and had a effective waterline much longer then what was measured for handy cap rating. Current is only a real help in the few instances where it always runs the same way. The more usual conditions have it going one way for a half a day and the other way for the other half. Net help = Zero. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) At first someone claimed that the waterline difference would be tiny. I found to be what seems a recent photo where that's not the case, and now you're claiming it's a relic? I don't get that. Either it can be a factor or it can't be. Yes, I get that current is only a real help in a few instances. What about the gulf stream example? I don't think that changes direction does it? The Gulf Stream proper always sets the same direction. The only thing that can and does change is the loop currents which are eddies off the sides that gyre around and can even set in the opposite direction of that in the axis of the Stream. Bruce is often confused. He's even confused about the tides in my part of the world and probably in his part of the world as well. There are two high tides and two low tides a day here. That means in areas where there is a tidal flow the current switches approximately every six hours - not twice a day as Bruce said. Furthermore, his conclusion about net help = zero is also flawed for a couple of reason. 1) off soundings (in deep water) there are no tidal currents as they are a shallow water phenomena. 2) an experienced sailor departs and arrives 'on the tide' which means with a favorable tidal current (astern) so there can be significant gains especially in real parts of the sailing world where there are diurnal tides (two highs and two lows a day). Bruce is talking about semi-diurnal tides. He thinks pretty much like your typical lubber, I'm afraid. Bruce is also misinformed about the great ocean currents (of which the Gulf Stream is a notable example) most of which always set in the same direction day in and day out, year in and year out. The changing tides don't affect these currents or affect them very little; they most certainly don't affect the direction of flow. Your instincts are good, Jessica B. Don't let Bruce pull the wool over your eyes. Wilbur Hubbard |
how necessary is a windlass
"Jessica B" wrote in message
... 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. You go, girl! Right again, Jessica B. You definitely have the potential to make a fine first mate. Bruce can be such a trouble-maker. Always with the obfuscation and confusion because he refuses to admit when he lost because he's up against his betters. Again, you are totally correct about even a 2mph speed differential. It amounts to a lot of extra distance covered on an ocean voyage or even a coastal cruise and can make a real difference, like in my part of the world where much of the year some pretty severe thunderstorms can pop up in the late afternoons. I'd sure rather be hunkered down in a snug harbor because my boat was a couple knots faster than the next guy's when the thunder and lighting and gust fronts roll through than still struggling to fetch the inlet. I'm talking gusts up to 40 or 50 knots in some of the roll clouds. And, lots of heavy lightning strikes. You can't sail in that kinda stuff. You just have to take down and secure all sails and heave-to until it passes. And lightning often likes to strike the one lone boat silly enough to still be in harm's way with a nice metal mast sticking up into the sky to act like a lightning rod. Wilbur Hubbard |
how necessary is a windlass
"Jessica B" wrote in message
... On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 05:57:04 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: snippage A beautiful try Willie-boy; unfortunately you missed it. You 'mericans are not the final arbitrator of the English language. See the extract from the dictionary below: phoney ~ noun very rare 1. a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives phoney ~ adj very rare 1. fraudulent; having a misleading appearance As I said, if you keep your mouth shut nobody will ever notice how ignorant you are. That seems pretty desperate. You should admit when you're wrong about something especially if it's a small thing. BINGO! Very rare? Bruce must confuse steaks with phony. lol |
how necessary is a windlass
"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 |
how necessary is a windlass
"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 |
how necessary is a windlass
"CaveLamb" wrote in message
... Mark Borgerson wrote: In article , says... Jessica B wrote: At first someone claimed that the waterline difference would be tiny. I found to be what seems a recent photo where that's not the case, and now you're claiming it's a relic? I don't get that. Either it can be a factor or it can't be. If I may again... Compare a Catalina 27 and My Catalina 26. My waterline is 3 inches longer. That's because the 27 has significant overhangs on both ends. Overhangs are the part of the hull above the waterline forward or aft of the waterline/hull point. If there is a lot of hull forward of where the water meets the hull then you have a long bow overhang. Same for the stern. Heeled 30 degrees (quite a bit actually) the 27's waterline length just about matches my 26's. Any less heel and the 27 is shorter than the 26. Waterline length that is... So, what does it mean as far as speed goes? Three inches is 1/4 of a foot. So.. 1.33 * sqrt (.25) = ? 1.33 * .5 = .665 knots difference In theory, at least. Which can be easily hidden by sail trim, rudder position, sea state, etc Yes, I get that current is only a real help in a few instances. What about the gulf stream example? I don't think that changes direction does it? Current is not tide. Tides change direction. Currents usually do not. That's both right and wrong in so many ways.... Tides go up and down. Currents caused by tidal differences do change direction---one or more times per day, depending on whether you have diurnal or semi-dirunal tides. Currents in the open ocean--like the Gulf Stream or the Japan Current, do not change directions---at least during the time span of a normal cruise. Mark Borgerson Much better explination of tidal currents, Mark. Thanks Mark sure is more correct than Bruce. LOL! But, then again, perhaps that's not saying much. Wilbur Hubbard |
how necessary is a windlass
"CaveLamb" wrote in message
... Vic Smith wrote: On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 05:04:01 -0500, Richard Casady wrote: On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:16:58 -0500, CaveLamb wrote: Three inches is 1/4 of a foot. So.. 1.33 * sqrt (.25) = ? 1.33 * .5 = .665 knots difference In theory, at least. 27^.5=5.2 27.25^.5=5.22. Three hundredths of a knot difference. Casady Hmmm. HP calculator? --Vic Sorry guys :) Just late and not paying attention to the numbers. Half a knot for 3 inches does seem a little funny, doesn't it... Since the fudge factor is multiplied by the square root of the LWL, the LWL must be significantly longer than a few inches for the theoretical speed to go up much. But, every little bit counts. Even a clean bottom makes a huge difference and many sailors go around with a fouled bottom not realizing how badly it slows them down. Same goes for those dumb, big, three-bladed fixed props. What a DRAG! Wilbur Hubbard |
how necessary is a windlass
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 07:52:19 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote: On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 05:04:01 -0500, Richard Casady wrote: On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:16:58 -0500, CaveLamb wrote: Three inches is 1/4 of a foot. So.. 1.33 * sqrt (.25) = ? 1.33 * .5 = .665 knots difference In theory, at least. 27^.5=5.2 27.25^.5=5.22. Three hundredths of a knot difference. Casady Hmmm. HP calculator? I refer to my HP 48 as " TheCalculatorThatTakesNoPrisoners " Casady |
how necessary is a windlass
In article s.com,
llid says... "Jessica B" wrote in message ... On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:39:14 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:35:30 -0500, CaveLamb wrote: Jessica B wrote: Hmmm... well, I looked up theoretical boat speed... 1.34 x the root of LWL. But, I read that when the boat leans (heels) then the LWL would get longer, so the theoretical speed would go up right? Also, what about the water moving. If it's going in the same direction, then that would decrease the time you spend traveling. But how MUCH longer does the waterline get? Seldom more than a few inches at most. As for the other, it's called current. And if you are going against it, slower than the current is running, you go backwards... What fun, huh? The long overhangs was a relic of one of the old racing rules that penalized long waterlines. So, the crafty people built a boat with a very short waterline and sailed it heeled and had a effective waterline much longer then what was measured for handy cap rating. Current is only a real help in the few instances where it always runs the same way. The more usual conditions have it going one way for a half a day and the other way for the other half. Net help = Zero. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) At first someone claimed that the waterline difference would be tiny. I found to be what seems a recent photo where that's not the case, and now you're claiming it's a relic? I don't get that. Either it can be a factor or it can't be. Yes, I get that current is only a real help in a few instances. What about the gulf stream example? I don't think that changes direction does it? The Gulf Stream proper always sets the same direction. The only thing that can and does change is the loop currents which are eddies off the sides that gyre around and can even set in the opposite direction of that in the axis of the Stream. Bruce is often confused. He's even confused about the tides in my part of the world and probably in his part of the world as well. There are two high tides and two low tides a day here. That means in areas where there is a tidal flow the current switches approximately every six hours - not twice a day as Bruce said. Furthermore, his conclusion about net help = zero is also flawed for a couple of reason. 1) off soundings (in deep water) there are no tidal currents as they are a shallow water phenomena. 2) an experienced sailor departs and arrives 'on the tide' which means with a favorable tidal current (astern) so there can be significant gains especially in real parts of the sailing world where there are diurnal tides (two highs and two lows a day). Bruce is talking about semi-diurnal tides. He thinks pretty much like your typical lubber, I'm afraid. I'm afraid you've got dirurnal and semi-diurnal tides mixed up. It is semi-diurnal tides that have two highs and two lows per day. Diurnal tides have only a single high and low in a day. "Atlantic Ocean (in Atlantic Ocean: Tides) ....of the Atlantic tide are influenced by a combination of complex factors, which include coastline features, seafloor topography, and wind and current patterns. By far the most prevalent tidal type is semidiurnal, which is characterized by two high and two low tides per tidal day (lasting about 24 hours and 50 minutes). Semidiurnal tides occur along the entire eastern margin of the Atlantic and..." http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...midiurnal-tide "The geometric relationship of moon and Sun to locations on the Earth's surface results in creation of three different types of tides. In parts of the northern Gulf of Mexico and Southeast Asia, tides have one high and one low water per tidal day (Figure 8r-4). These tides are called diurnal tides." Here on the West Coast we get mixed tides: "Many parts of the world experience mixed tides where successive high- water and low-water stands differ appreciably (Figure 8r-6). In these tides, we have a higher high water and lower high water as well as higher low water and lower low water. The tides around west coast of Canada and the United States are of this type." http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/8r.html Bruce is also misinformed about the great ocean currents (of which the Gulf Stream is a notable example) most of which always set in the same direction day in and day out, year in and year out. The changing tides don't affect these currents or affect them very little; they most certainly don't affect the direction of flow. Your instincts are good, Jessica B. Don't let Bruce pull the wool over your eyes. Mark Borgerson |
how necessary is a windlass
"Mark Borgerson" wrote in message
... In article s.com, llid says... "Jessica B" wrote in message ... On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:39:14 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:35:30 -0500, CaveLamb wrote: Jessica B wrote: Hmmm... well, I looked up theoretical boat speed... 1.34 x the root of LWL. But, I read that when the boat leans (heels) then the LWL would get longer, so the theoretical speed would go up right? Also, what about the water moving. If it's going in the same direction, then that would decrease the time you spend traveling. But how MUCH longer does the waterline get? Seldom more than a few inches at most. As for the other, it's called current. And if you are going against it, slower than the current is running, you go backwards... What fun, huh? The long overhangs was a relic of one of the old racing rules that penalized long waterlines. So, the crafty people built a boat with a very short waterline and sailed it heeled and had a effective waterline much longer then what was measured for handy cap rating. Current is only a real help in the few instances where it always runs the same way. The more usual conditions have it going one way for a half a day and the other way for the other half. Net help = Zero. Cheers, Bruce (bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom) At first someone claimed that the waterline difference would be tiny. I found to be what seems a recent photo where that's not the case, and now you're claiming it's a relic? I don't get that. Either it can be a factor or it can't be. Yes, I get that current is only a real help in a few instances. What about the gulf stream example? I don't think that changes direction does it? The Gulf Stream proper always sets the same direction. The only thing that can and does change is the loop currents which are eddies off the sides that gyre around and can even set in the opposite direction of that in the axis of the Stream. Bruce is often confused. He's even confused about the tides in my part of the world and probably in his part of the world as well. There are two high tides and two low tides a day here. That means in areas where there is a tidal flow the current switches approximately every six hours - not twice a day as Bruce said. Furthermore, his conclusion about net help = zero is also flawed for a couple of reason. 1) off soundings (in deep water) there are no tidal currents as they are a shallow water phenomena. 2) an experienced sailor departs and arrives 'on the tide' which means with a favorable tidal current (astern) so there can be significant gains especially in real parts of the sailing world where there are diurnal tides (two highs and two lows a day). Bruce is talking about semi-diurnal tides. He thinks pretty much like your typical lubber, I'm afraid. I'm afraid you've got dirurnal and semi-diurnal tides mixed up. It is semi-diurnal tides that have two highs and two lows per day. Diurnal tides have only a single high and low in a day. "Atlantic Ocean (in Atlantic Ocean: Tides) ...of the Atlantic tide are influenced by a combination of complex factors, which include coastline features, seafloor topography, and wind and current patterns. By far the most prevalent tidal type is semidiurnal, which is characterized by two high and two low tides per tidal day (lasting about 24 hours and 50 minutes). Semidiurnal tides occur along the entire eastern margin of the Atlantic and..." http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...midiurnal-tide "The geometric relationship of moon and Sun to locations on the Earth's surface results in creation of three different types of tides. In parts of the northern Gulf of Mexico and Southeast Asia, tides have one high and one low water per tidal day (Figure 8r-4). These tides are called diurnal tides." Here on the West Coast we get mixed tides: "Many parts of the world experience mixed tides where successive high- water and low-water stands differ appreciably (Figure 8r-6). In these tides, we have a higher high water and lower high water as well as higher low water and lower low water. The tides around west coast of Canada and the United States are of this type." http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/8r.html My bad, sorry! Wilbur Hubbard |
how necessary is a windlass
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:33:53 -0500, CaveLamb
wrote: 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... Sorry Jessica That was supposed to be 500 miles I'm not sure what you mean by 500 miles, but the difference in days between 100 and 71 hours is more than a day. That could make a difference if there's a predicted storm that coming wouldn't it? I'm sure I would pass on going, but it seems like it would still make a significant difference for some people. |
how necessary is a windlass
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:08:47 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "Jessica B" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 05:57:04 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: snippage A beautiful try Willie-boy; unfortunately you missed it. You 'mericans are not the final arbitrator of the English language. See the extract from the dictionary below: phoney ~ noun very rare 1. a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives phoney ~ adj very rare 1. fraudulent; having a misleading appearance As I said, if you keep your mouth shut nobody will ever notice how ignorant you are. That seems pretty desperate. You should admit when you're wrong about something especially if it's a small thing. BINGO! Very rare? Bruce must confuse steaks with phony. lol Ha.. I see you admitted you were wrong about the tides thing with Mark. So, it seems you aren't desperate to be right even if you're wrong about something. Seems pretty adult and smart to me! |
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. |
how necessary is a windlass
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:59:07 +0700, Bruce
wrote: chop 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 I absolutely have not done much sailing. What point are you trying to make? Have I ever claimed that I was some experienced sailor? We're still talking about averages. I don't think anyone thinks a sailboat speed would be constant. |
how necessary is a windlass
"Jessica B" wrote in message
... On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:08:47 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: "Jessica B" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 05:57:04 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: snippage A beautiful try Willie-boy; unfortunately you missed it. You 'mericans are not the final arbitrator of the English language. See the extract from the dictionary below: phoney ~ noun very rare 1. a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives phoney ~ adj very rare 1. fraudulent; having a misleading appearance As I said, if you keep your mouth shut nobody will ever notice how ignorant you are. That seems pretty desperate. You should admit when you're wrong about something especially if it's a small thing. BINGO! Very rare? Bruce must confuse steaks with phony. lol Ha.. I see you admitted you were wrong about the tides thing with Mark. So, it seems you aren't desperate to be right even if you're wrong about something. Seems pretty adult and smart to me! Thanks. Somebody's got to act mature around here. Bruce is so childish with his constant name-calling. Somebody's also got to provide some balance for Bruce who, even when he's totally wrong, like in spelling phony wrong, even managed to find some antique dictionary that had a 'very rare' spelling of 'phoney' to attempt to justify his erroneous spelling rather than man up and admit he was mistaken. Real sailors don't act like that. LOL! Wilbur Hubbard |
how necessary is a windlass
"Jessica B" wrote in message
... 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 m... 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. Will do, they are cheap at the Dollar Store. I spent all afternoon doing a good spring cleaning in the v-berth. My, but what a disgusting mess in all the nooks and crannies. Mold and mildew and dust and cat hair. I sure hope you and Jimbo aren't allergic to cats. I had to go over everything with bleach and water. Even the little nylon cargo nets that hang along the ceiling (on a boat, ceiling means the walls on the inside of the hull) were dark with mildew. They are supposed to be white but they looked black when I removed all the miscellaneous junk and tossed about half of it into the garbage. I washed them in strong bleach, detergent and water solution and they turned out nice and white again. Tomorrow, I'm working my way aft cleaning and getting rid of a lot of stuff I haven't used in a year or so. I figure if I haven't used it in a year it's time for it to go. Otherwise the boat just gets too cluttered with junk. I've bagged up all the unused crap and tossed it into the dinghy to take it ashore for the dumpster and the dinghy is down on its lines. Must be 100 pounds of crap - mostly old books. Now that I bought a Kindle I don't need to carry a bunch of books. I also have a new digital portable TV you or Jimbo can have if you want it. It's a little, seven inch flat screen HDTV. I bought it a few months ago but it turns out we're too far from Miami here and there's no stations within range without some fancy tall TV antenna. So, it's useless for me. Wilbur Hubbard |
how necessary is a windlass
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:15:06 -0700, Jessica B
wrote: 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. As I told you, estimates are often wrong by a considerable margin - about 21 times as I mentioned above. Cheers, Bruce |
how necessary is a windlass
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:16:11 -0700, Jessica B
wrote: 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. Well, you wrote: "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." I assumed that you were referring to an attempt to run away from or avoid bad weather by sailing fast, as apposed to sailing slow. Cheers, Bruce |
how necessary is a windlass
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:18:02 -0700, Jessica B
wrote: On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:59:07 +0700, Bruce wrote: chop 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 I absolutely have not done much sailing. What point are you trying to make? Have I ever claimed that I was some experienced sailor? We're still talking about averages. I don't think anyone thinks a sailboat speed would be constant. You are really obtuse. Deliberately so? You say: "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." and I'm simply saying that it is not a matter of going as fast or slow as possible. It is a matter of how hard the wind blows that governs things, something far outside the control of the boat and those in it. Cheers, Bruce |
how necessary is a windlass
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:19:40 +0700, Bruce
wrote: On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:15:06 -0700, Jessica B wrote: 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. As I told you, estimates are often wrong by a considerable margin - about 21 times as I mentioned above. Cheers, Bruce Your logical conclusion seems to be multiply your estimated time of travel by 21?? That's pretty excessive and it seems like you wouldn't be going anywhere. |
how necessary is a windlass
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:24:30 +0700, Bruce
wrote: On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:16:11 -0700, Jessica B wrote: 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. Well, you wrote: "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." I assumed that you were referring to an attempt to run away from or avoid bad weather by sailing fast, as apposed to sailing slow. Cheers, Bruce Sorry for the confusion. I believe I also said somewhere that if there was a window of 10 days, and you had the choice of being on a boat that could easily do it in 7 vs 10, it would be safer to go on the faster boat. |
how necessary is a windlass
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:30:16 +0700, Bruce
wrote: On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:18:02 -0700, Jessica B wrote: On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:59:07 +0700, Bruce wrote: chop 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 I absolutely have not done much sailing. What point are you trying to make? Have I ever claimed that I was some experienced sailor? We're still talking about averages. I don't think anyone thinks a sailboat speed would be constant. You are really obtuse. Deliberately so? You say: "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." and I'm simply saying that it is not a matter of going as fast or slow as possible. It is a matter of how hard the wind blows that governs things, something far outside the control of the boat and those in it. Cheers, Bruce I think you're deliberately twisting the meaning of what I was trying to say. I never said it was "simply" a matter of faster. I said it was a better idea! Well of course it depends on the wind, tides, etc. What does that have to do with anything??? |
how necessary is a windlass
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 18:35:06 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "Jessica B" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:08:47 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: "Jessica B" wrote in message ... On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 05:57:04 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok wrote: snippage A beautiful try Willie-boy; unfortunately you missed it. You 'mericans are not the final arbitrator of the English language. See the extract from the dictionary below: phoney ~ noun very rare 1. a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives phoney ~ adj very rare 1. fraudulent; having a misleading appearance As I said, if you keep your mouth shut nobody will ever notice how ignorant you are. That seems pretty desperate. You should admit when you're wrong about something especially if it's a small thing. BINGO! Very rare? Bruce must confuse steaks with phony. lol Ha.. I see you admitted you were wrong about the tides thing with Mark. So, it seems you aren't desperate to be right even if you're wrong about something. Seems pretty adult and smart to me! Thanks. Somebody's got to act mature around here. Bruce is so childish with his constant name-calling. Somebody's also got to provide some balance for Bruce who, even when he's totally wrong, like in spelling phony wrong, even managed to find some antique dictionary that had a 'very rare' spelling of 'phoney' to attempt to justify his erroneous spelling rather than man up and admit he was mistaken. Real sailors don't act like that. LOL! Wilbur Hubbard Did you see what he just posted? It seems like he's deliberately changing the meaning of what I was talking about. I'm sure i don't know as much as he does about sailing, but I do know something about logic and his comments seems to defy that! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com