| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Round the world
Another e-mail from a mate who is "part way 'round" regarding engine use. He gets a little heretical at the end but he is a bit outspoken :-) Hello Bruce, To get from Langkawi to where I am now, I have used 1385 liters of diesel and I've traveled 8735 nautical miles. A small economical trawler may have used 6550 liters. I have probably done the steep uphill part of this journey now as from now on, I will have trade winds and favorable currents to go with although I envision using the engine a lot in the Caribbean. I could have done it for less if I waited in the shallows for the favorable wind before leaving places, drifted offshore when becalmed and used a transport ship to carry me up the Red Sea and through the Suez Canal. The fast sailing Clippers, which were built to obtain tea from Ceylon and get it back to England, etc. in a record breaking time was put out of work when the Suez Canal was built as steam ships could go that route much faster instead of around the cape. The Clippers couldn't make it up the Red Sea. Most people who have circumnavigated using the "milk run" from east to west usually spend about 10 years doing it. One reason for so long is that they do a lot of sight seeing but also it is due to needing more rest at each place because of fatigue from "working" their way (tacking & tacking) to get anywhere (sometimes no where). In addition there are many places nowadays that do not allow engineless passages, Singapore straits, Suez Canal to name a couple. And having an outboard hanging off the stern or using a dinghy powered by an outboard tied alongside the yacht defeats the act of sailing totally by wind. Also, I am now convinced that most stories told about trips have been glorified a lot. People just don't admit using their engines. Most of the famous guys like Joshua Slocam, Bernard Mansurie, Bruce Roberts, George Beuller made/make their money from book sales so they have had to stretch & modify the truth. :-) Regards .... Wayne -- Cheers, Bruce |
Round the world
"Bruce" wrote in message
... Another e-mail from a mate who is "part way 'round" regarding engine use. He gets a little heretical at the end but he is a bit outspoken :-) Hello Bruce, To get from Langkawi to where I am now, I have used 1385 liters of diesel and I've traveled 8735 nautical miles. A small economical trawler may have used 6550 liters. trim to end Good grief! More proof of which I speak. The VERY FIRST THING the Rube mentions is how much diesel fuel he's burned. As if that's something to be proud of. Like I have always maintained, there is something about diesel fumes that is addictive and/or corrodes the brain to the point where people actually BRAG about how much air pollution they produce during their selfish endeavors. Wilbur Hubbard |
Round the world
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote "Bruce" wrote To get from Langkawi to where I am now, I have used 1385 liters of diesel and I've traveled 8735 nautical miles. A small economical trawler may have used 6550 liters. trim to end Good grief! More proof of which I speak. The VERY FIRST THING the Rube mentions is how much diesel fuel he's burned. As if that's something to be proud of. Like I have always maintained, there is something about diesel fumes that is addictive and/or corrodes the brain to the point where people actually BRAG about how much air pollution they produce during their selfish endeavors. I think he's bragging about how little he used. And unless you plan to paddle your boat(s) around, you have to burn some fuel. |
Round the world
On 11/10/2012 1:12 PM, Bruce wrote:
Another e-mail from a mate who is "part way 'round" regarding engine use. He gets a little heretical at the end but he is a bit outspoken :-) Hello Bruce, To get from Langkawi to where I am now, I have used 1385 liters of diesel and I've traveled 8735 nautical miles. A small economical trawler may have used 6550 liters. I have probably done the steep uphill part of this journey now as from now on, I will have trade winds and favorable currents to go with although I envision using the engine a lot in the Caribbean. I could have done it for less if I waited in the shallows for the favorable wind before leaving places, drifted offshore when becalmed and used a transport ship to carry me up the Red Sea and through the Suez Canal. The fast sailing Clippers, which were built to obtain tea from Ceylon and get it back to England, etc. in a record breaking time was put out of work when the Suez Canal was built as steam ships could go that route much faster instead of around the cape. The Clippers couldn't make it up the Red Sea. Most people who have circumnavigated using the "milk run" from east to west usually spend about 10 years doing it. One reason for so long is that they do a lot of sight seeing but also it is due to needing more rest at each place because of fatigue from "working" their way (tacking & tacking) to get anywhere (sometimes no where). In addition there are many places nowadays that do not allow engineless passages, Singapore straits, Suez Canal to name a couple. And having an outboard hanging off the stern or using a dinghy powered by an outboard tied alongside the yacht defeats the act of sailing totally by wind. Also, I am now convinced that most stories told about trips have been glorified a lot. People just don't admit using their engines. Most of the famous guys like Joshua Slocam, Bernard Mansurie, Bruce Roberts, George Beuller made/make their money from book sales so they have had to stretch & modify the truth. :-) Regards .... Wayne That cost of diesel is really ****ing me off too but there are days here in the Med where there is no wind period. Full stop. Even with my new u-beaut take-off-in-under-ten-knots sails we can't move. I've got too much to see before I die to let time slip by. |
Round the world
"paulthomascpa" wrote in message
... "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote "Bruce" wrote To get from Langkawi to where I am now, I have used 1385 liters of diesel and I've traveled 8735 nautical miles. A small economical trawler may have used 6550 liters. trim to end Good grief! More proof of which I speak. The VERY FIRST THING the Rube mentions is how much diesel fuel he's burned. As if that's something to be proud of. Like I have always maintained, there is something about diesel fumes that is addictive and/or corrodes the brain to the point where people actually BRAG about how much air pollution they produce during their selfish endeavors. I think he's bragging about how little he used. And unless you plan to paddle your boat(s) around, you have to burn some fuel. 363 gallons is hardly "little" for a trip of probably 800 miles. A well-found sailboat that is not encumbered with a heavy diesel is capable of sailing 800 miles or around the world for that matter while burning no diesel at all. Get a clue. (Sheesh - another motor head!) Wilbur Hubbard |
Round the world
"injipoint" wrote in message
... trim That cost of diesel is really ****ing me off too but there are days here in the Med where there is no wind period. Full stop. Even with my new u-beaut take-off-in-under-ten-knots sails we can't move. I've got too much to see before I die to let time slip by. Try a tour bus while becalmed in port. Stop polluting the air and oceans of the world with diesel oil, diesel fumes, and diesel noise. Enjoy the down time. Real sailors aren't in a hurry. That's motorhead mentality. Wilbur Hubbard |
Round the world
On 11/10/2012 8:40 PM, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
"injipoint" wrote in message ... trim That cost of diesel is really ****ing me off too but there are days here in the Med where there is no wind period. Full stop. Even with my new u-beaut take-off-in-under-ten-knots sails we can't move. I've got too much to see before I die to let time slip by. Try a tour bus while becalmed in port. Stop polluting the air and oceans of the world with diesel oil, diesel fumes, and diesel noise. Enjoy the down time. Real sailors aren't in a hurry. That's motorhead mentality. Wilbur Hubbard Good advice. We already went to Lisbon by bus from Lagos and also to Seville from there. While we were stuck in Ft Lauderdale, we even came down your way through the place that that guy says is your address. We went to Key West but we would have stopped if you'd been around. We went to New York by bus from Baltimore, and to Washington a couple of times too. I hear what you say but there are some times when we need to get some distance done. |
Round the world
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote Try a tour bus while becalmed in port. Stop polluting the air and oceans of the world with diesel oil, diesel fumes, and diesel noise. By riding in a diesel powered bus? WTF is that proving? |
Round the world
"paulthomascpa" wrote in message
... "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote Try a tour bus while becalmed in port. Stop polluting the air and oceans of the world with diesel oil, diesel fumes, and diesel noise. By riding in a diesel powered bus? WTF is that proving? Dozens or more ride a bus while one or two burn about the same amount of diesel aboard a yacht. And, some busses these days are using propane which is much cleaner than diesel which is a primitive engine and a dirty fuel. The pollution level per capita is much much less for a tour bus than for a private yacht. Wilbur Hubbard |
Round the world
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:10:38 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message .. . Another e-mail from a mate who is "part way 'round" regarding engine use. He gets a little heretical at the end but he is a bit outspoken :-) Hello Bruce, To get from Langkawi to where I am now, I have used 1385 liters of diesel and I've traveled 8735 nautical miles. A small economical trawler may have used 6550 liters. trim to end Good grief! More proof of which I speak. The VERY FIRST THING the Rube mentions is how much diesel fuel he's burned. As if that's something to be proud of. Like I have always maintained, there is something about diesel fumes that is addictive and/or corrodes the brain to the point where people actually BRAG about how much air pollution they produce during their selfish endeavors. Wilbur Hubbard You missed the part about floating around waiting for the tide to move you, going up the Red Sea against a 20 - 25K head wind and all the other reasons a fella might want/need to motor. But then, with your experience, you would, wouldn't you. Never having sailed any where and with your "experience" gained from sitting on a tiny boat in a sewage choked bay in Florida and reading sailing magazines your knowledge comes from whatever the magazine editor decided to publish. One hears that you are now so old you are drawing social Security so there is no reason that you can't cruise, other then your fear of the "wine dark sea", as the ancient Greeks termed it. Of course, experience can be gained by simply hauling up the anchor and having at it, as they say. But the fact that you didn't certainly demonstrates your lack of ability. You haven't because you won't and you won't because you are terrified. so much easier to sit on the tiny, yellow, toy and read about it. Willie-boy the armchair sailor. -- Cheers, Bruce |
Round the world
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:36:48 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "paulthomascpa" wrote in message ... "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote "Bruce" wrote To get from Langkawi to where I am now, I have used 1385 liters of diesel and I've traveled 8735 nautical miles. A small economical trawler may have used 6550 liters. trim to end Good grief! More proof of which I speak. The VERY FIRST THING the Rube mentions is how much diesel fuel he's burned. As if that's something to be proud of. Like I have always maintained, there is something about diesel fumes that is addictive and/or corrodes the brain to the point where people actually BRAG about how much air pollution they produce during their selfish endeavors. I think he's bragging about how little he used. And unless you plan to paddle your boat(s) around, you have to burn some fuel. 363 gallons is hardly "little" for a trip of probably 800 miles. A well-found sailboat that is not encumbered with a heavy diesel is capable of sailing 800 miles or around the world for that matter while burning no diesel at all. Get a clue. (Sheesh - another motor head!) Wilbur Hubbard How in the world would you know? Willie-boy the armchair sailor. Yes, yes, I know, you read it inna magazine. -- Cheers, Bruce |
Round the world
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:40:36 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "injipoint" wrote in message ... trim That cost of diesel is really ****ing me off too but there are days here in the Med where there is no wind period. Full stop. Even with my new u-beaut take-off-in-under-ten-knots sails we can't move. I've got too much to see before I die to let time slip by. Try a tour bus while becalmed in port. Stop polluting the air and oceans of the world with diesel oil, diesel fumes, and diesel noise. Enjoy the down time. Real sailors aren't in a hurry. That's motorhead mentality. Wilbur Hubbard Ah yes, the armchair sailor KNOWS! (of course you do, you read it in a magazine) -- Cheers, Bruce |
Round the world
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:56:09 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "paulthomascpa" wrote in message ... "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote Try a tour bus while becalmed in port. Stop polluting the air and oceans of the world with diesel oil, diesel fumes, and diesel noise. By riding in a diesel powered bus? WTF is that proving? Dozens or more ride a bus while one or two burn about the same amount of diesel aboard a yacht. And, some busses these days are using propane which is much cleaner than diesel which is a primitive engine and a dirty fuel. The pollution level per capita is much much less for a tour bus than for a private yacht. Wilbur Hubbard What utter Bull ****. A 500 HP bus compared with a 50 HP auxiliary motor. But more to the point.... How would an arm-chair sailor know all this technical information? Read it in a magazine, or course. -- Cheers, Bruce |
Round the world
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 06:49:36 +0700, Bruce
wrote: You missed the part about floating around waiting for the tide to move you, going up the Red Sea against a 20 - 25K head wind and all the other reasons a fella might want/need to motor. snip Willie-boy the armchair sailor. A "sailor" and a "cruiser" are different animals. I have I friend sailor who hates to motor. Even when he "cruises." He'll find an anchorage he likes, drop the hook, and stay awhile. In and out under sail. I crewed on his 40' something-or-other bringing it from Michigan to Monroe harbor in Chicago one cold Memorial Day weekend. Miserable 2 days with the wind dead against us. He didn't seem to mind it. Wouldn't even turn on nav lights because he didn't like using the battery. Only motored pulling into a dock in Waukegan because everybody was exhausted. I left and took the train home. Trip was taking too long and I felt bad about not being with my wife and kids on the holiday. They made it to Monroe harbor the next day in record time because the wind swung strong to northerly. Ripped his spinaker. If I was a fortune teller I would have boarded in Waukegan. |
Round the world
On 10/11/2012 5:12 AM, Bruce wrote:
Another e-mail from a mate who is "part way 'round" regarding engine use. He gets a little heretical at the end but he is a bit outspoken :-) Slocum had an engine in Spray? What sort? Seems odd to me. |
Round the world
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 16:31:40 -0600, slide
wrote: On 10/11/2012 5:12 AM, Bruce wrote: Another e-mail from a mate who is "part way 'round" regarding engine use. He gets a little heretical at the end but he is a bit outspoken :-) Slocum had an engine in Spray? What sort? Seems odd to me. I believe that you miss-read. He was talking about the veracity of sailing writers as they were essentially writing a story in order to sell it. -- Cheers, Bruce |
Round the world
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:12:20 +0700, Bruce
wrote: the famous guys like Joshua Slocam, Bernard Mansurie, Bruce Roberts, George Beuller made/make their money from book sales so they have had to stretch & modify the truth. :-) Slocum had no engine. He ended up being lost at sea, not on the beach drinking royalties. Casady |
Round the world
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 19:07:13 -0500, Richard Casady
wrote: On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:12:20 +0700, Bruce wrote: the famous guys like Joshua Slocam, Bernard Mansurie, Bruce Roberts, George Beuller made/make their money from book sales so they have had to stretch & modify the truth. :-) Slocum had no engine. He ended up being lost at sea, not on the beach drinking royalties. Casady Read up on his round the world voyage. He contacted newspapers in every port he entered to publish a notice that Capt. Slocum and the Spray were in port on a single handed round the world voyage and you could actually go aboard the Spray upon payment of money. He had contacted a publisher and made a deal to write a book before he sailed and the book was an international best seller. He apparently died on a voyage to the West Indies in 1909 although no wreckage or other evidence was ever found. He was declared dead in 1924. The fact that the Spray did not have an engine was hardly an unusual situation in 1895. -- Cheers, Bruce |
Round the world
"Bruce" wrote in message
... On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 19:07:13 -0500, Richard Casady wrote: On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:12:20 +0700, Bruce wrote: the famous guys like Joshua Slocam, Bernard Mansurie, Bruce Roberts, George Beuller made/make their money from book sales so they have had to stretch & modify the truth. :-) Slocum had no engine. He ended up being lost at sea, not on the beach drinking royalties. Casady Read up on his round the world voyage. He contacted newspapers in every port he entered to publish a notice that Capt. Slocum and the Spray were in port on a single handed round the world voyage and you could actually go aboard the Spray upon payment of money. He had contacted a publisher and made a deal to write a book before he sailed and the book was an international best seller. He apparently died on a voyage to the West Indies in 1909 although no wreckage or other evidence was ever found. He was declared dead in 1924. The fact that the Spray did not have an engine was hardly an unusual situation in 1895. True! Those were the REAL sailors and those where honest times. Too bad the passage of a century and some odd years has turned all too many sailors into engine-addicted non-sailors who write to their pals about a short leg of a voyage and the FIRST thing they proudly proclaim as an accomplishment is how much diesel fuel they've burned in their stink pot engines. Slocum's book about his voyage alone around the world was/is a best-seller because it's interesting. It's all about sailing and the sailing life. All about harnessing the winds and currents and making ones way without fuss around the world. Do you think he could have sold as many books writing a book about his auxiliary sailboat in which the first thing he talked about was how he burned 363 gallons in what amounts to a short hop from port to port? No harnessing the elements and living in harmony with the sea but plenty of bull headed burning of fuel and polluting the air and water? Most certainly not! People would be bored halfway to death as there is nothing interesting about putting an engine in gear, turning on the autopilot and going below to scratch one's ass for days at a time. This is the life of motor heads. Drab, boring, stupid, useless and wasteful. And, BTW, motor-sailers as a class of vessels are little more than sail-assisted motor boats. Might as well get a trawler with a riding sail and at least be honest about it. Wilbur Hubbard |
Round the world
rOn Sun, 14 Oct 2012 12:34:09 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 19:07:13 -0500, Richard Casady wrote: On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:12:20 +0700, Bruce wrote: the famous guys like Joshua Slocam, Bernard Mansurie, Bruce Roberts, George Beuller made/make their money from book sales so they have had to stretch & modify the truth. :-) Slocum had no engine. He ended up being lost at sea, not on the beach drinking royalties. Casady Read up on his round the world voyage. He contacted newspapers in every port he entered to publish a notice that Capt. Slocum and the Spray were in port on a single handed round the world voyage and you could actually go aboard the Spray upon payment of money. He had contacted a publisher and made a deal to write a book before he sailed and the book was an international best seller. He apparently died on a voyage to the West Indies in 1909 although no wreckage or other evidence was ever found. He was declared dead in 1924. The fact that the Spray did not have an engine was hardly an unusual situation in 1895. True! Those were the REAL sailors and those where honest times. Too bad the passage of a century and some odd years has turned all too many sailors into engine-addicted non-sailors who write to their pals about a short leg of a voyage and the FIRST thing they proudly proclaim as an accomplishment is how much diesel fuel they've burned in their stink pot engines. Slocum's book about his voyage alone around the world was/is a best-seller because it's interesting. It's all about sailing and the sailing life. All about harnessing the winds and currents and making ones way without fuss around the world. Do you think he could have sold as many books writing a book about his auxiliary sailboat in which the first thing he talked about was how he burned 363 gallons in what amounts to a short hop from port to port? No harnessing the elements and living in harmony with the sea but plenty of bull headed burning of fuel and polluting the air and water? Most certainly not! People would be bored halfway to death as there is nothing interesting about putting an engine in gear, turning on the autopilot and going below to scratch one's ass for days at a time. This is the life of motor heads. Drab, boring, stupid, useless and wasteful. And, BTW, motor-sailers as a class of vessels are little more than sail-assisted motor boats. Might as well get a trawler with a riding sail and at least be honest about it. Wilbur Hubbard Ah yes. Another report from the Arm-Chair Sailor. So tell us, Oh Great Arm-Chair, about the time you were sailing up the Malacca Straits without an engine and with no wind and had to drift with the tide and anchor every time the tide changed? Or about the time you were becalmed in the middle of the Atlantic, running low on water,or about sailing up the Red Sea and having to sail 100 miles across and then 100 miles back to make 50 miles northing, or about the time you were embayed and couldn't get out for a week. I hate to disillusion you but sitting at anchor hardly qualifies you as a sailor, nor does reading sailing magazines. -- Cheers, Bruce |
Round the world
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote Do you think he could have sold as many books writing a book about his auxiliary sailboat in which the first thing he talked about was how he burned 363 gallons in what amounts to a short hop from port to port? Yup. It's done all the time these days. People buy - key word - what they want, sometimes what they need even. While we all enjoy a good fantasy, the closer-to-home version would be about sailing with some power or motor boating, or some variation in the middle. The reality is that motor power is a necessity these days, and if someone is going to really contemplate boating, then a motor is going to be part of that mix. To deny it is not only foolish, but downright ignorant. To proclaim "it can be done" is going to be harmful to the readers, if not deadly. You can sail without an anchor. After all, the act of sailing relegates the anchor to dead weight off the bow. Just leave it behind. Real sailors don't need no stinkin' anchor. That'd be anchoring, not sailing. No harnessing the elements and living in harmony with the sea but plenty of bull headed burning of fuel and polluting the air and water? On a boat made by destroying the environment, if for no other reason than to get the wood for the hull and mast. Power was used to create that boat, in it's entirety or in part, for every component on it and in it. And unless you compost yoru crap, you pollute the water, and unless you eat raw food, you pollute the air while consumong fossle fuels in the cooking process. Most certainly not! I bet I can sell more books and magazines that is chock full of useful information about how someone can realistically enjoy boating, and all that goes along with it, than you can sell about a spartan lifestyle of "living in harmony" that no one really wants to do. Money talks. People would be bored halfway to death as there is nothing interesting about putting an engine in gear, turning on the autopilot and going below to scratch one's ass for days at a time. And safe boating is....not that. |
Round the world
"paulthomascpa" wrote in message
... "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote Do you think he could have sold as many books writing a book about his auxiliary sailboat in which the first thing he talked about was how he burned 363 gallons in what amounts to a short hop from port to port? Yup. It's done all the time these days. People buy - key word - what they want, sometimes what they need even. While we all enjoy a good fantasy, the closer-to-home version would be about sailing with some power or motor boating, or some variation in the middle. I disagree. People who mostly motor their boats around know it's boring so why would they want to read about somebody else's boring motoring? The reality is that motor power is a necessity these days, and if someone is going to really contemplate boating, then a motor is going to be part of that mix. To deny it is not only foolish, but downright ignorant. To proclaim "it can be done" is going to be harmful to the readers, if not deadly. A motor is not a necessity theses days. A motor is not needed. A motor is a convenience in a sailboat. Anybody who really knows how to sail and knows his sailboat's perforamance can do anything under sail that he can do using a motor. It is rare that there is no wind at all. On those rare occassions when there is absolutely no wind one can drift deep water or anchor if necessary in shallow water. Readers need to understand what auxilliary means. Readers need to be weaned off the false notion that a motor is a necessity in a sailboat. You can sail without an anchor. After all, the act of sailing relegates the anchor to dead weight off the bow. Just leave it behind. Real sailors don't need no stinkin' anchor. That'd be anchoring, not sailing. An anchor is used to stop and stay put. A motor is used to move. BIG difference. Sails are for moving, too so a motor is redundant. An anchor is not redundant so you have, in effect, created a straw man argument here. No harnessing the elements and living in harmony with the sea but plenty of bull headed burning of fuel and polluting the air and water? On a boat made by destroying the environment, if for no other reason than to get the wood for the hull and mast. So, by your reasoning, if some pollution is necessary to produce a boat then more pollution running a diesel is then justified. LOL. That's not even logical. Power was used to create that boat, in it's entirety or in part, for every component on it and in it. And unless you compost yoru crap, you pollute the water, and unless you eat raw food, you pollute the air while consumong fossle fuels in the cooking process. So, one needs to stop breathing, food prep, eating, defecating? OMG. You dare compare these NECESSARY things with burning diesel which pollutes both air and water in huge amounts compared to the crew's bodily necessities? Bottom line is your argument is a non sequitur. Most certainly not! I bet I can sell more books and magazines that is chock full of useful information about how someone can realistically enjoy boating, and all that goes along with it, than you can sell about a spartan lifestyle of "living in harmony" that no one really wants to do. Go buy a few sailing magazines and mostly all you will see regarding accounts of voyages and cruising are what I call 'tales of woe'. These are compendiums of how NOT to sail or cruise as they consist of a compendium of incompetent ways and means resulting in mishaps and disasters in many cases exacerbated by trying to use a motor to 'brute force' one's way to a destination instead of 'finessing' one's way under sail eschewing the deadlines and schedules that motor heads get themselves in trouble with. A good book describing harmonious voyaging and cruising under sail will outsell those describing the disharmony of motoring. Motoring is for dullards and lubbers who value destinations over time enjoyably, reasonably and responsibly spent getting to a destination. For motor heads the cruise begins at the arrival. For the sailor the cruise ends at the destination. Time spent on the motor boat cruise is something to get over with as quickly as possible. Time spent on a sailboat is something to enjoy and savor in and of itself. That is perhaps the major difference between sailing and motoring. Sailing is rejecting schedules, deadlines, brute force, pollution, noise, vibration, fumes, maddening crowd, expensive marinas and all the other negatives motoring entails. Sailing is living in harmony with the environment and motoring is being at odds with and selfishly abusing the environment. Books about living in harmony with the environment will sell better than books about being at odds with and ultimately destroying the environment. Wilbur Hubbard |
Round the world
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 14:19:18 -0400, "paulthomascpa"
wrote: "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote Do you think he could have sold as many books writing a book about his auxiliary sailboat in which the first thing he talked about was how he burned 363 gallons in what amounts to a short hop from port to port? Yup. It's done all the time these days. People buy - key word - what they want, sometimes what they need even. While we all enjoy a good fantasy, the closer-to-home version would be about sailing with some power or motor boating, or some variation in the middle. The reality is that motor power is a necessity these days, and if someone is going to really contemplate boating, then a motor is going to be part of that mix. To deny it is not only foolish, but downright ignorant. To proclaim "it can be done" is going to be harmful to the readers, if not deadly. You can sail without an anchor. After all, the act of sailing relegates the anchor to dead weight off the bow. Just leave it behind. Real sailors don't need no stinkin' anchor. That'd be anchoring, not sailing. No harnessing the elements and living in harmony with the sea but plenty of bull headed burning of fuel and polluting the air and water? On a boat made by destroying the environment, if for no other reason than to get the wood for the hull and mast. Power was used to create that boat, in it's entirety or in part, for every component on it and in it. And unless you compost yoru crap, you pollute the water, and unless you eat raw food, you pollute the air while consumong fossle fuels in the cooking process. Most certainly not! I bet I can sell more books and magazines that is chock full of useful information about how someone can realistically enjoy boating, and all that goes along with it, than you can sell about a spartan lifestyle of "living in harmony" that no one really wants to do. Practical Boat Owner, an English publication is exactly that. Advertised, I believe, as "Britain's best selling yachting magazine". -- Cheers, Bruce |
Round the world
On 15/10/12 21:09, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
Readers need to be weaned off the false notion that a motor is a necessity in a sailboat. It's not a necessity, but it can be jolly useful. Leisure sailing is sailing for fun, and everyone has their own idea of fun. Ian |
Round the world
wrote in message
... On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 16:09:05 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote this crap: A motor is not a necessity theses days. A motor is not needed. A motor is a convenience in a sailboat. Anybody who really knows how to sail and knows his sailboat's perforamance can do anything under sail that he can do using a motor. I've got a 35 foot sailboat. How do you propose getting in and out of the dock without a motor? Good GRIEF! What a silly attitude. A 35-foot sailboat can be pushed out of a slip by hand for gosh sake. If wind and current is against you, have you ever heard of warping it out? Duh! Imagine if your lazy attitude was in place 200-250 years ago in the age of sail where very large vessels plied the seas and the ports without the hint of an engine on board. Did freight and passengers not get delivered before the age of steam boats? Not to mention picking up a mooring ball. OMG. I pick up my mooring float all the time with a boat hook totally under sail. It's a matter of sailing up on it on a beat then pinching up, then heading directly into the wind letting the sails luff while the vessel fore reaches up to and comes to a halt at the float. It's a matter of knowning how one's vessel handles under sail. It's a matter of knowing how far she fore reaches prior to coming to a standstill. I can see me now, pulling into a busy harbor with very little wind on a holiday weekend. It can be done, but it's a huge inconvenience to all the other boats going in and out. You should be able to sail your 35-footer in light winds. If you can't then you should be practicing. I sail into harbors more often than not. About the only time I don't sail into harbors is if there is a narrow fairway into them and a headwind that makes it difficult or impossible to beat into the harbor. A real sailor works wind, current and traffic conditions with aplomb. No fuss, no muss. Actually, my boat handles BETTER under sail than under motor power. The power is more balanced instead of being all at the prop which is aft. Can you heave-to under motor power, for example? Hell, I can sail into a harbor, heave-to and drift down into the spot where I wish to anchor. Then I drop an anchor on the upwind side, then I drift back with about 150 feet of rode cleated off. Just before it snubs up hard I then I release the backed headsail and quickly sheet it in on the opposite side. The vessel then sails off on a beam reach which quickly tightens up into a close reach and then a beat until the anchor line pulls the head into the wind. Then I drop another anchor pay out about 100 feet of rode and cleat it off. Then I drop the sails and drift back between the two anchors. Then I pull in the rodes as needed to lie evenly between the anchors, Bahamian style. All without a motor all without having to worry about lines getting wound up on a prop or prop shaft. This is what sailing is all about. -- Sir Gregory |
Round the world
"Rick Morel" wrote in message
... On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:48:16 +0100, The Real Doctor wrote: On 15/10/12 21:09, Wilbur Hubbard wrote: Readers need to be weaned off the false notion that a motor is a necessity in a sailboat. It's not a necessity, but it can be jolly useful. Leisure sailing is sailing for fun, and everyone has their own idea of fun. Ian Wilbur, I don't know why I'm jumping in here and feeding you, but... Well, it IS supposed to be a discussion group, after all . . . Actually, with the exception of very small sailboats, an engine is a necessity in this day and age. There are many places now where it's ilegal to proceed under sail, including going through bridges. You may say those places are to be avoided, but in the real world that's simply impossible or at least nearly so. Some folks would call anything under about 30 feet a 'small sailboat' so small is in the eye of the beholder. Any law that says it's illegal to go through a bridge (I assume you mean a bridge that opens) under sail power is an unconstitutional law and needs to be challenged. There is also the safety factor to consider. I've run into situations in my years of cruising where having an engine was actually a matter of life or death, or at least losing the vessel and serious injury. Transversely there are also a great many instances where the very reason folks get into trouble in the first place is their over reliance on their engine. Engines create a dependency upon their use because, in general, they are quite reliable. So woe be to the individual who takes his engine for granted and believes it will never fail him. Sails just don't break down unexpectedly and often at the worst of times like engines do. I have gone for months without cranking up the engine, except for monthly runs only to "exercise" it. I used the engine when necessary, never to make time or just because I could. Atta boy for not being overly reliant on an engine. Always keep the auxiliary in auxiliary. Wilbur Hubbard |
Round the world
Just a small interjection here...
I once saw an on-line video of an instructor sailing a dinghy (that would be a small racing sailboat) BACKWARDS through a maze (pilings in a row, zig-zagging between them)... You can do amazing things if you're one with your ship... L8R Skip |
Round the world
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:15:48 -0500, Rick Morel
wrote this crap: Disagree that sails just don't break down unexpectedly. Add in all the rigging and there are failures. Regular inspection and maintenance makes a big difference, but sail/rigging failures do happen. Perhaps no more or no less than a maintained diesel? Agreed. I've my sails rip much more often then having the engine fail. Vote for Romney. Repeal the nightmares. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
Round the world
wrote in message
... On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:15:48 -0500, Rick Morel wrote this crap: Disagree that sails just don't break down unexpectedly. Add in all the rigging and there are failures. Regular inspection and maintenance makes a big difference, but sail/rigging failures do happen. Perhaps no more or no less than a maintained diesel? Agreed. I've my sails rip much more often then having the engine fail. You just admitted: 1) you don't bother looking at, much less maintaining, your sails, 2) you are either too lazy or too ignorant to bend on or reef so as to have the correct sail for the wind and sea conditions, 3) as sails don't last forever they must be replaced prior to being in such a sad state that they expire on the job, you are ignoring reality and acting irresponsibly. I hope this helps. Wilbur Hubbard |
Round the world
On 17/10/12 20:49, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
Any law that says it's illegal to go through a bridge (I assume you mean a bridge that opens) under sail power is an unconstitutional law and needs to be challenged. Really? Which clause of whose constitution, precisely? Ian |
Round the world
On 17/10/12 19:35, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
Good GRIEF! What a silly attitude. A 35-foot sailboat can be pushed out of a slip by hand for gosh sake. If wind and current is against you, have you ever heard of warping it out? Duh! Or you can start the engine. Some people prefer one thing, some the other. So what? Imagine if your lazy attitude was in place 200-250 years ago in the age of sail where very large vessels plied the seas and the ports without the hint of an engine on board. I trust you view fore-and-aft rigs with equal disdain. Ian |
Round the world
"The Real Doctor" wrote in message
... On 17/10/12 20:49, Wilbur Hubbard wrote: Any law that says it's illegal to go through a bridge (I assume you mean a bridge that opens) under sail power is an unconstitutional law and needs to be challenged. Really? Which clause of whose constitution, precisely? Ian "Section 2 of Article III of the United States Constitution gives original jurisdiction in admiralty matters to the federal courts. The federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over most admiralty and maritime claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Under this statute, federal district courts are granted original jurisdiction over admiralty actions "saving to suitors," a right to file suit for most of these actions in state court." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._admiralty_law In other words, any US state or municipality that attempts to control navigation rights over and above those limits placed upon it by the federal courts is acting unilaterally and at odds with federal jurisdiction. All it would take to overturn ANY local law restricting sailing under bridges would be a case filed in federal court. Wilbur Hubbard |
Round the world
"Flying Pig" wrote in message
... Just a small interjection here... I once saw an on-line video of an instructor sailing a dinghy (that would be a small racing sailboat) BACKWARDS through a maze (pilings in a row, zig-zagging between them)... You can do amazing things if you're one with your ship... Agreed! There might just be hope for you as a sailor yet, Skippy! It's a sad state of affairs when confirmed motor heads attempt to tell those of us who know how to handle our boats under sail alone that it can't be done or that it's somehow rude, anti-social or dangerous to do it. Balderdash! Wilbur Hubbard |
Round the world
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:18:42 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote this crap: Disagree that sails just don't break down unexpectedly. Add in all the rigging and there are failures. Regular inspection and maintenance makes a big difference, but sail/rigging failures do happen. Perhaps no more or no less than a maintained diesel? Agreed. I've my sails rip much more often then having the engine fail. You just admitted: 1) you don't bother looking at, much less maintaining, your sails, How did I admit that? My sails are meticulously maintained. I dry them after sailing and fold them carefully. 2) you are either too lazy or too ignorant to bend on or reef so as to have the correct sail for the wind and sea conditions, I reef when the wind is 15 knots or over. 3) as sails don't last forever they must be replaced prior to being in such a sad state that they expire on the job, you are ignoring reality and acting irresponsibly. You are totally blowing smoke out your ass. My mainsail costs $3300 dollars. I keep it in excellent condition. When a rip happens we patch it with sail tape and when getting back to the dock we take it to our sailmaker and we always follow his advice. If he says we need a need a new sail we will get one. I hope this helps. You are an asshole and you don't know what you are talking about. Vote for Romney. Repeal the nightmares. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
Round the world
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:59:18 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote this crap: "The Real Doctor" wrote in message ... On 17/10/12 20:49, Wilbur Hubbard wrote: Any law that says it's illegal to go through a bridge (I assume you mean a bridge that opens) under sail power is an unconstitutional law and needs to be challenged. Really? Which clause of whose constitution, precisely? Ian "Section 2 of Article III of the United States Constitution gives original jurisdiction in admiralty matters to the federal courts. The federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over most admiralty and maritime claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Under this statute, federal district courts are granted original jurisdiction over admiralty actions "saving to suitors," a right to file suit for most of these actions in state court." I don't see sailboats or motors mentioned there. Vote for Romney. Repeal the nightmares. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
Round the world
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:18:42 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:15:48 -0500, Rick Morel wrote this crap: Disagree that sails just don't break down unexpectedly. Add in all the rigging and there are failures. Regular inspection and maintenance makes a big difference, but sail/rigging failures do happen. Perhaps no more or no less than a maintained diesel? Agreed. I've my sails rip much more often then having the engine fail. You just admitted: 1) you don't bother looking at, much less maintaining, your sails, 2) you are either too lazy or too ignorant to bend on or reef so as to have the correct sail for the wind and sea conditions, 3) as sails don't last forever they must be replaced prior to being in such a sad state that they expire on the job, you are ignoring reality and acting irresponsibly. I hope this helps. Wilbur Hubbard And thus speaks Willie-boy, the ultimate Armchair Sailor. Such a knowledgeable chap.... and all from reading magazines he steals from the news stand. -- Cheers, Bruce |
Round the world
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:28:16 -0400, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq."
åke wrote: wrote in message .. . On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:35:35 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote this crap: I've got a 35 foot sailboat. How do you propose getting in and out of the dock without a motor? Good GRIEF! What a silly attitude. A 35-foot sailboat can be pushed out of a slip by hand for gosh sake. If wind and current is against you, have you ever heard of warping it out? Duh! Not a problem if you have a full crew. Suppose it's just you and a friend? Warping can be accomplished single handed. It requires using an anchor or anchors and rowing the dinghy. Besides, I have to back out of the dock, then turn, then stop, then turn again, then go forward then turn again. Nearly impossible without the motor. The wind is usually behind me when I back out. Then get a more suitable slip or dock. Duh! Or, better yet, get a mooring. Your motor boat mentality is on display. Imagine if your lazy attitude was in place 200-250 years ago in the age of sail where very large vessels plied the seas and the ports without the hint of an engine on board. Did freight and passengers not get delivered before the age of steam boats? Those boats usually had a large crew, not to mention a lot of people who worked on the docks. Today you always have tugboats steering the ships into the docks. Small boats have a small crew and large boats have a large crew. Small should not equate to inept. Not to mention picking up a mooring ball. OMG. I pick up my mooring float all the time with a boat hook totally under sail. It's a matter of sailing up on it on a beat then pinching up, then heading directly into the wind letting the sails luff while the vessel fore reaches up to and comes to a halt at the float. It's a matter of knowning how one's vessel handles under sail. It's a matter of knowing how far she fore reaches prior to coming to a standstill. Sure, I can grab the mooring ball with a boat hook, but how do I tie a line onto it? There's four feet of freeboard, dumbass. Even laying on your belly your arms ain't long enough to attach a line to it. I tie a line to the bow cleat, and bring it back to the stern. I have someone stand on the swim platform while I back up to the ball and it's relatively easy to tie onto it. You can't do that under sail, especially in high winds and four foot waves. Psssst. http://www.outdoorgb.com/p/the_handy_duck_mooring_hook/ It looks like you don't sail much if you've never seen one of those or a hand-rigged version of it. I can see me now, pulling into a busy harbor with very little wind on a holiday weekend. It can be done, but it's a huge inconvenience to all the other boats going in and out. You should be able to sail your 35-footer in light winds. If you can't then you should be practicing. I sail into harbors more often than not. About the only time I don't sail into harbors is if there is a narrow fairway into them and a headwind that makes it difficult or impossible to beat into the harbor. The marina I go into has a narrow entrance. On a holiday weekend there are hundreds of boats going in and out each hour. On a big holiday, such a memorial day they have sheriffs directing traffic. To be sailing under those conditions would inconvenience a hundred boats trying to get in and out. BTW, this is Western Lake Erie. If you check a chart you will see that the average depth is five feet. When leaving the marina I have to go through a jetty for about two hundred yards, because that's where it is dredged. Then go another hundred yards to get to deep water to start sailing. To be sailing there is to court running aground. And I've seen lot's of sailboats run aground right in front of the marina. Then get a better marina. Good grief! Why pay good money for an untenable situation? Coming in at night, you have to line up the range lights, then look for the red and green lights at the end of the jetty and steer between them. If you try doing that under sail you risk running aground. The entrance is directly West and the wind is usually from the West. There is no room for tacking. If you have a cat or a tri, it's impossible without a motor. Even for a large sailboat like mine, it's still impossible. I repeat, then get a better marina. A real sailor works wind, current and traffic conditions with aplomb. No fuss, no muss. Actually, my boat handles BETTER under sail than under motor power. The power is more balanced instead of being all at the prop which is aft. Can you heave-to under motor power, for example? Not a problem. I have a 28 horse Yanmar diesel. A real sailor also has courtesy to other boaters. There is a mixture of power boaters and sail boaters using the same lake and same marina. And thus speaks Willie-boy who can't afford a marina berth and expounds out of envy of his betters. -- Cheers, Bruce |
Round the world
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:04:01 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "Flying Pig" wrote in message ... Just a small interjection here... I once saw an on-line video of an instructor sailing a dinghy (that would be a small racing sailboat) BACKWARDS through a maze (pilings in a row, zig-zagging between them)... You can do amazing things if you're one with your ship... Agreed! There might just be hope for you as a sailor yet, Skippy! It's a sad state of affairs when confirmed motor heads attempt to tell those of us who know how to handle our boats under sail alone that it can't be done or that it's somehow rude, anti-social or dangerous to do it. Balderdash! Wilbur Hubbard "We who know how to handle our boats"? Willie-boy, the renowned Armchair Sailor? Who gained his vast knowledge from reading magazines? You have to be joking. -- Cheers, Bruce |
Round the world
|
Round the world
wrote in message
... On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:59:18 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote this crap: "The Real Doctor" wrote in message ... On 17/10/12 20:49, Wilbur Hubbard wrote: Any law that says it's illegal to go through a bridge (I assume you mean a bridge that opens) under sail power is an unconstitutional law and needs to be challenged. Really? Which clause of whose constitution, precisely? "Section 2 of Article III of the United States Constitution gives original jurisdiction in admiralty matters to the federal courts. The federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over most admiralty and maritime claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Under this statute, federal district courts are granted original jurisdiction over admiralty actions "saving to suitors," a right to file suit for most of these actions in state court." I don't see sailboats or motors mentioned there. Too ****ing bad!!! Wilbur Hubbard |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:08 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com