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