| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Shake and Break Part 11 - June 2, 2015
|
|
#3
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
Shake and Break Part 11 - June 2, 2015
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 23:51:23 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 07:06:09 +0700, wrote: It might be interesting to consider that in more than ten years of active cruising among a group of sailors who, to a great extent, sailed at least 500 miles, and more frequently further, just to get here, I have never, let me repeat that NEVER, seen anyone use the so called "Bahamas-style" of two anchors. Never! And, I might add, that in 20 years of observing the Bugis sailors, perhaps the last group to have used commercial sailing ships, I never saw them using a two anchor mooring. === There's an old saying that two anchors are no substitute for a single good one. There are lots of old sayings that are little more than another anachronism. The fact is if you don't want your boat tacking around at anchor the best way to keep it from doing so is to cause it to lie to two anchors. One anchor in simply inadequate as the vessel will continue to tack around even on a chain rode. Personally, I'd rather lie with the bow directly to the wind. There are several reasons: 1) halyards don't slap during the extremes of the swing, 2) windscoops work perfectly and don't flutter or collapse, 3) bow stays pointed directly into wind-generated waves and ventilation through the house is facilitated and available each and every minute. 4) chaffing is minimized 5) directional antennas stay directed 6) scrunching, grunching, jerking and snatching are non existent and that most ridiculous and unseamanlike of all devices - the anchor *snubber* - is eliminated. So, you wannabes just go ahead and continue to use your all-chain rodes as you will be the only ones suffering the adverse consequences (ignorance penalty). -- Sir Gregory |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
Shake and Break Part 11 - June 2, 2015
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 14:06:05 -0400, "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq."
wrote: On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 23:51:23 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 07:06:09 +0700, wrote: It might be interesting to consider that in more than ten years of active cruising among a group of sailors who, to a great extent, sailed at least 500 miles, and more frequently further, just to get here, I have never, let me repeat that NEVER, seen anyone use the so called "Bahamas-style" of two anchors. Never! And, I might add, that in 20 years of observing the Bugis sailors, perhaps the last group to have used commercial sailing ships, I never saw them using a two anchor mooring. === There's an old saying that two anchors are no substitute for a single good one. There are lots of old sayings that are little more than another anachronism. The fact is if you don't want your boat tacking around at anchor the best way to keep it from doing so is to cause it to lie to two anchors. One anchor in simply inadequate as the vessel will continue to tack around even on a chain rode. Personally, I'd rather lie with the bow directly to the wind. There are several reasons: 1) halyards don't slap during the extremes of the swing, 2) windscoops work perfectly and don't flutter or collapse, 3) bow stays pointed directly into wind-generated waves and ventilation through the house is facilitated and available each and every minute. 4) chaffing is minimized 5) directional antennas stay directed 6) scrunching, grunching, jerking and snatching are non existent and that most ridiculous and unseamanlike of all devices - the anchor *snubber* - is eliminated. So, you wannabes just go ahead and continue to use your all-chain rodes as you will be the only ones suffering the adverse consequences (ignorance penalty). And however would you know? Has there been a recent article in one of the sailing magazines? ( I understand that in the U.S. you can get magazines free after a certain date. I heard that once the next edition arrives that the news vender will rip the front page off and give them to folks. Is that true?) -- Cheers, Bruce |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
Shake and Break Part 11 - June 2, 2015
On 8/22/2015 9:55 PM, wrote:
( I understand that in the U.S. you can get magazines free after a certain date. I heard that once the next edition arrives that the news vender will rip the front page off and give them to folks. Is that true?) -- Yes and no. The vendor is supposed to rip the cover off & return just that to get credit w/o shipping the entire book / magazine back to the publisher. But he's supposed to destroy the rest. To give it away would violate his agreement with the publisher / distributor. It's a form of theft. -paul --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
|
#6
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
|
Shake and Break Part 11 - June 2, 2015
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:48:03 -0600, Paul Cassel
wrote: On 8/22/2015 9:55 PM, wrote: ( I understand that in the U.S. you can get magazines free after a certain date. I heard that once the next edition arrives that the news vender will rip the front page off and give them to folks. Is that true?) -- Yes and no. The vendor is supposed to rip the cover off & return just that to get credit w/o shipping the entire book / magazine back to the publisher. But he's supposed to destroy the rest. To give it away would violate his agreement with the publisher / distributor. It's a form of theft. -paul Well then, if they won't give the old ones away, I guess that poor old Sir whats-his-name-this-week will have to steal a new copy. -- Cheers, Bruce |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Shake and Break, part 7 | Cruising | |||
| Shake and Break, part 7 | Cruising | |||
| Shake and Break, part 4 | Cruising | |||
| Shake and Break, part 3 | Cruising | |||
| Shake and Break, part 2 | Cruising | |||
Hybrid Mode
