|
tiller vs. wheel......
what's better & why??
|
~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
what's better & why?? For what kind of boat, doing what kind of sailing? It may be easier to figure out if you go back to first principles... the problem is that a lot of people don't know how, or have a number of strange superstitions where applied physics should be. Fast and/or heavy boats develop more force on the helm than slow and/or light ones. How big a boat are you comfortable steering with a tiller in 25 knot winds and 8'+ quartering seas? With a tiller you can get somewhat faster reaction & more feel, but at some point, even a strong human is going to not have the muscles (or just plain get tired). Tillers are certainly cheaper, too. And if designed to be unshipped or pivoted up out of the way, they leave the cockpit much clearer. Wheels can be very cool, though. Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
Agreed, and also depends on how well the boat is balanced.
A spade rudder can be "balanced " itself, which can lighten the helm considerably, as opposed to a rudder hinged to the trailing edge of the keel. "DSK" wrote in message ... ~^ beancounter ~^ wrote: what's better & why?? For what kind of boat, doing what kind of sailing? It may be easier to figure out if you go back to first principles... the problem is that a lot of people don't know how, or have a number of strange superstitions where applied physics should be. Fast and/or heavy boats develop more force on the helm than slow and/or light ones. How big a boat are you comfortable steering with a tiller in 25 knot winds and 8'+ quartering seas? With a tiller you can get somewhat faster reaction & more feel, but at some point, even a strong human is going to not have the muscles (or just plain get tired). Tillers are certainly cheaper, too. And if designed to be unshipped or pivoted up out of the way, they leave the cockpit much clearer. Wheels can be very cool, though. Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
anyone ever used a trim tab on a rudder? like
we have on rudders and elevators in airplanes? this allows the pilot to "dial in" a certain amount of balance... |
"~^ beancounter ~^" wrote in
ups.com: what's better & why?? I like to use the remote hand-held controller because you can move around and see better than you can with the main controls on the control panel.... It just works better that way and the coil cord keeps it neat....(c; One of these little harbor cruises, I'm gonna drag out Amel's emergency rudder gear up on deck and put the pole down into the top of the rudder post through the watertight hole in the aft cabin top. The tiller hooks on to the top of it and steers under the mizzen boom, just missing the mizzen gear. The handle on it is about 5' long so should be able to steer the ketch quite well, in spite of her natural bad weather helm. I'd hate to be stuck at sea and have to control her in the big waves with it from the aft cabin roof. That would suck.... Amel's steering gear is two large push-pull cables to a big bellcrank on top of the rudder post. It's like a large version of an outboard motor steering cable, but two of them, one pushing and one pulling when you turn the big wheel in either direction. The wheel, instead of being in the way on a pedestal, is flat against the forward bulkhead making it easy to get to the various electronics I have installed. The cable gear is inside the overhead cabinet over the galley sink and work counter. This same little cabinet is where all the electricals come to Amel's DC panel, where the Perkins control panel back is very easy to get to and where I've installed the master electronics contactor, multiplexer and terminated all the electronics. The Raymarine gyro is on a bulkhead, but I have the compass sensor located elsewhere nearer CG away from all this current. The wheel is stainless, 3-spoke and about 3 turns lock to lock. It will tired you out good after 8 hours fighting 8-12 ft waves trying to hold a course. Been there, done that. B&G Pilot is useless in these conditions, I've found. It just can't keep up. I think, in spite of its own compass sensor being positioned so it receives a minimum of movement, the compass sensor sloshing around is why it gets so confused. Switching to the computer helps a lot, but its reaction time isn't fast enough to suit us. -- Larry |
On 23 Sep 2005 13:28:39 -0700, "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote: what's better & why?? You have to learn more before you ask questions like "Your wife or a rubber dolly...which is better and why"? Not to be harsh, but seriously... R. |
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 16:48:17 -0400, DSK wrote:
Tillers are certainly cheaper, too. And if designed to be unshipped or pivoted up out of the way, they leave the cockpit much clearer. Wheels can be very cool, though. More to break and harder to access on a smaller boat (say, under 30 feet), however, and they take up a lot of room in some cockpits (most of which are better small, anyway) and they put the helmsman usually right at the aft end. Again, not necessarily ideal. Autopiloting with a tiller can be done with a piece of thick shock cord/thin line and a "tiller tamer". With a wheel, the solution is usually electrical and expensive. Lastly, with a tiller extension, I can shift my weight to high side and see around the boat while I continue to steer. I can also steer with my legs...ok, with my backside...as I handle the cabintop mainsheet. I can even grind a winch with a foot pinning the extension. So I like tillers for feel, convenience, simplicity, the saved space when at dock, cost and flexibility to move practically onto the toerail on a 33 footer and still steer using a little stick screwed into the bigger stick. But after 35 feet or so, things can get heavy, particularly in ocean sailing. And some people feel more confident behind a wheel. And if you like gadgets, it's easier in some ways to adapt wheel steering to autohelming than a tiller, although it's pretty simple to adapt a tiller to a windvane, and all the parts stay visible. After 25 years of wheel-mania, however, things may be changing, just a bit. I saw that a brand new Jenneau SO 32 http://www.cruisingworld.com/article...=395&catID=565 with a lovely heavily varnished tiller! I asked the owner about it, and he said pretty well what I did, but with the added point that with a "sugar scoop" stern, a wheel would ruin one of the more attractive options of someone who had mastered stern-in docking: the ability to walk directly into the boat without stepping up or down. But to each their own. I dislike Hunters, but I thought that Hunter 50 "concept boat" with a tiller was brave and logical, given the light weight and the (presumed) racer-cruiser aspect. R. |
"rhys" wrote in message ... On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 16:48:17 -0400, DSK wrote: Tillers are certainly cheaper, too. And if designed to be unshipped or pivoted up out of the way, they leave the cockpit much clearer. Wheels can be very cool, though. More to break and harder to access on a smaller boat (say, under 30 feet), however, and they take up a lot of room in some cockpits (most of which are better small, anyway) and they put the helmsman usually right at the aft end. Again, not necessarily ideal. Autopiloting with a tiller can be done with a piece of thick shock cord/thin line and a "tiller tamer". With a wheel, the solution is usually electrical and expensive. Lastly, with a tiller extension, I can shift my weight to high side and see around the boat while I continue to steer. I can also steer with my legs...ok, with my backside...as I handle the cabintop mainsheet. I can even grind a winch with a foot pinning the extension. So I like tillers for feel, convenience, simplicity, the saved space when at dock, cost and flexibility to move practically onto the toerail on a 33 footer and still steer using a little stick screwed into the bigger stick. But after 35 feet or so, things can get heavy, particularly in ocean sailing. And some people feel more confident behind a wheel. And if you like gadgets, it's easier in some ways to adapt wheel steering to autohelming than a tiller, although it's pretty simple to adapt a tiller to a windvane, and all the parts stay visible. After 25 years of wheel-mania, however, things may be changing, just a bit. I saw that a brand new Jenneau SO 32 http://www.cruisingworld.com/article...=395&catID=565 with a lovely heavily varnished tiller! I asked the owner about it, and he said pretty well what I did, but with the added point that with a "sugar scoop" stern, a wheel would ruin one of the more attractive options of someone who had mastered stern-in docking: the ability to walk directly into the boat without stepping up or down. But to each their own. I dislike Hunters, but I thought that Hunter 50 "concept boat" with a tiller was brave and logical, given the light weight and the (presumed) racer-cruiser aspect. R. Since you mentioned autopiloting, would add that tillerpilots are about half the cost of wheelpilots and a LOT easier to install. John Cairns |
Duh
That is why I put quotation marks around balance when I was speaking to rudder balance., to indicate a different concept. Rudder balance has a dramatic affect on how light or heavy the helm is, which was the original question. "Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:45:08 -0400, "Garland Gray II" said: Agreed, and also depends on how well the boat is balanced. A spade rudder can be "balanced " itself, which can lighten the helm considerably, as opposed to a rudder hinged to the trailing edge of the keel. Someone on the CS mailing list recently pointed out that boat balance and rudder balance are two different things entirely. Boat balance is primarily determined by the distance between the center of effort of the wind and the center of lateral resistance. A change in the rudder balance will only affect boat balanced marginally, if at all. Dave |
After 25 years of wheel-mania, however, things may be changing, just a
bit. I saw that a brand new Jenneau SO 32 http://www.cruisingworld.com/article...=395&catID=565 nice info "R"...i always pictured a tiller as a firmly attached antenna protruding up, and out of the rudder...throwing out all sorts of useful information...i guess on boats under 35 feet, or so....tillers would be better, coupled w/a great auto pilot system.... |
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 00:53:15 GMT, "John Cairns"
wrote: Since you mentioned autopiloting, would add that tillerpilots are about half the cost of wheelpilots and a LOT easier to install. Yes, that's true. Mechanically simpler, as well. The downside, and it's easily remedied, is that the pilot is often "outside" in the elements, somehow attached to a locker hatch or something. Even a plastic bag will help if it's absolutely ****ing/soaking out, although they are supposed to be more or less waterproof. I just found a discarded Autohelm 1000 that I will attempt to revive and/or cannibalize because I have a working...if antique...Autohelm 1000 that is adequate to my needs (holds a course or keeps the boat head-to-wind with the engine on, that sort of thing.) R. |
On 24 Sep 2005 06:42:01 -0700, "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote: After 25 years of wheel-mania, however, things may be changing, just a bit. I saw that a brand new Jenneau SO 32 http://www.cruisingworld.com/article...=395&catID=565 nice info "R"...i always pictured a tiller as a firmly attached antenna protruding up, and out of the rudder...throwing out all sorts of useful information...i guess on boats under 35 feet, or so....tillers would be better, coupled w/a great auto pilot system.... Better for some, not for others. There's nothing wrong with a wheel even on a 27 footer or so, but the tendency has been to install wheels in all cruisers and some racers without actually thinking of the solid advantages a tiller possesses, and ignoring some of the potential downsides of a wheel. That said, if my boat had come with a wheel and not a tiller, I highly doubt I would have torn it out. My biggest ergometric problem is that I have to crouch a bit and blindly feel for the gear shift when I'm docking, as the engine controls are low in the side of the port cockpit locker. With a wheel, they are almost always immediately at hand. R. |
Not sure you can ask that question, because so much depends on the situation
and boat. I teach on both. I think you get a better feel for the boat if it has a tiller (but not always), and I enjoy driving from the low side when single- or short-handing with a wheel. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote in message ups.com... what's better & why?? |
yea...i guess it really depends on the size and weight
of the sailboat....i guess any boat over, say 32 feet or so will have or "come with" a wheel....i am l@@kin' at ericsons 32 - 38, late 80's to early 90's.....thanx everyone for the thoughts and comments.... |
I'm not a big fan of Ericsons.. talked to an owner recently. He and his wife
thought they were nice, but tender, and nothing he would want to be on in over 20 kts of wind. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote in message ups.com... yea...i guess it really depends on the size and weight of the sailboat....i guess any boat over, say 32 feet or so will have or "come with" a wheel....i am l@@kin' at ericsons 32 - 38, late 80's to early 90's.....thanx everyone for the thoughts and comments.... |
On 23 Sep 2005 16:02:04 -0700, "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote: anyone ever used a trim tab on a rudder? like we have on rudders and elevators in airplanes? this allows the pilot to "dial in" a certain amount of balance... Yes. My rudder trim tab, designed by Larry Pardy, allows me to set the tab - for example to offset prop walk (from the single prop, when underway forward). Cheers |
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you actually should do it.
Just about any boat can be modified to do a circumnavigation, but why not just get one that's got most of what you should have to begin with... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Red Cloud®" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:47:41 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: I'm not a big fan of Ericsons.. talked to an owner recently. He and his wife thought they were nice, but tender, and nothing he would want to be on in over 20 kts of wind. That must have been quite a hindrance for all the circumnavigators. rusty redcloud |
Capt. JG....that's interesting...thanx for the info...i thought
ericsons were considered a bit on the overbuilt and heavy side....not as light as, say cal's, catilinas, etc... |
Bill...that's interesting...what is the control like, just a simple
knob or small wheel??....Do you use the trim tab while under sail, or primarly under power?? |
On 27 Sep 2005 07:24:01 -0700, "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote: Bill...that's interesting...what is the control like, just a simple knob or small wheel??....Do you use the trim tab while under sail, or primarly under power?? The trim tab has its own miniature tiller. And the mini-tiller can be fixed to a nut running on a threaded rod that runs athwartships. The threaded rod can be rotated, so the angle of the mini-tiller and hence the trim tab can be set finely. Under power, the angle of the trim tab can be set to balance the prop walk. Under sail or when motor-sailing, the mini-tiller becomes a self-steering machine after being released from the nut so it can be driven by either a tiller-pilot or a wind vane - see the manufacturer's website at http://www.freehandsteering.com Cheers |
thanx for the info & url Bill...
|
In article ,
Red Cloud® wrote: On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 23:13:26 -0700, "Capt. JG" wrote: Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you actually should do it. Remember those words the next time you think about posting more of your nonsense. I will! Please be sure to take your own advice! -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
In article .com,
~^ beancounter ~^ wrote: Capt. JG....that's interesting...thanx for the info...i thought ericsons were considered a bit on the overbuilt and heavy side....not as light as, say cal's, catilinas, etc... I thought this as well. I liked the look of his boat, and when I approached him for more info (shopping for a similar size), that's what he told me unprompted. He seemed to have a good deal of experience with boats (on the bay at least), so I tend to believe what he said. I've only sailed on one, and that was years ago, but it seemed ok, although not spectacular. I definitely like cals and, to a lessor degree, cats. The latter have nice layouts, and I have a good friend who owned a 30 until recently. He loved it, but sails in So. Cal., which has much lighter wind. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
In article ,
Red Cloud© wrote: On 27 Sep 2005 07:22:40 -0700, "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote: Capt. JG....that's interesting...thanx for the info...i thought ericsons were considered a bit on the overbuilt and heavy side....not as light as, say cal's, catilinas, etc... JG doesn't know what he's talking about. Ericson/Pacific Seacraft made lots of boats that were quite suitable for crossing oceans and circling the globe. Lots of them have done so. rusty redcloud Come on. They weren't associated with each other until the late 80s, early 90s I believe. Take your advice from before... stop posting nonsense. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
In article ,
Red Cloud© wrote: On 27 Sep 2005 11:53:55 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz) wrote: Come on. They weren't associated with each other until the late 80s, early 90s I believe. And? Check your calendar.. It's now almost 2006! Many of the Ericsons that bean counter might be consdoering WERE built by Pacific Seacraft And, lots were built before the acquisition. If he were going to consider an Ericson, one built after that would be more appropriate for crossing oceans. Instead of screaming at me about not knowing the facts, why don't you ask him which one he's considering. I stand by my statement that I was unimpressed with those boats and the guy who owned one (clearly before the acquisition) wasn't either. Take your advice from before... stop posting nonsense. Jon, You obviously don't know squat about Ericsons. Lots of them have been sailed all over the world. They are fine for crossing oceans. You talked to ONE timid sailing couple who felt that sailing in over 20 knots was scary FOR THEM. You are obviously so full of yourself that you have lost the ability to read. I already said that just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done. I talked to a couple who claimed to have a great deal of experience. Sure they could be lying, but the fact is that the boat in question was not designed for the high winds of the bay, and certainly not for what one might find outside the Gate. Get a life. You're starting to rant. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
"Red Cloud®" wrote in message ... On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:57:42 GMT, "John Cairns" wrote: "Red Cloud©" wrote in message . .. On 27 Sep 2005 11:53:55 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz) wrote: In article , Red Cloud© wrote: On 27 Sep 2005 07:22:40 -0700, "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote: Capt. JG....that's interesting...thanx for the info...i thought ericsons were considered a bit on the overbuilt and heavy side....not as light as, say cal's, catilinas, etc... JG doesn't know what he's talking about. Ericson/Pacific Seacraft made lots of boats that were quite suitable for crossing oceans and circling the globe. Lots of them have done so. rusty redcloud Come on. They weren't associated with each other until the late 80s, early 90s I believe. And? Check your calendar.. It's now almost 2006! Many of the Ericsons that bean counter might be consdoering WERE built by Pacific Seacraft Take your advice from before... stop posting nonsense. Jon, You obviously don't know squat about Ericsons. Lots of them have been sailed all over the world. They are fine for crossing oceans. You talked to ONE timid sailing couple who felt that sailing in over 20 knots was scary FOR THEM. rusty redcloud Ah, don't know how to break the news to ya, read the fine print he http://www.pacificseacraft.com/cgi-b...p?0010,ericson Now, maybe you can post a link to show us any Ericsons for sale that were built between 1990-2006? John Cairns Sure! http://yachtworld.com/core/listing/p...02&slim=quick& That's just one of several 1989 and 1990 models I found in about 5 seconds of looking on one website. And, meanwhile, there were also many Ericsons built before that which were EXCELLENT ocean going yachts. PS bought Ericson specifically because they were a competitor in the offshore yacht market. rusty redcloud Never said they weren't offshore capable, only tried to point out that none of the boats you're linking to were built by Pacific Seacraft. None. 1989 never even comes into the equation as PS, which is now privately owned by the Japanese, didn't purchase the assets of the company until 1990. John Cairns |
In article ,
Red Cloud® wrote: On 27 Sep 2005 14:04:11 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz) wrote: In article , Red Cloud© wrote: On 27 Sep 2005 11:53:55 -0700, lid (Jonathan Ganz) wrote: Come on. They weren't associated with each other until the late 80s, early 90s I believe. And? Check your calendar.. It's now almost 2006! Many of the Ericsons that bean counter might be consdoering WERE built by Pacific Seacraft And, lots were built before the acquisition. If he were going to consider an Ericson, one built after that would be more appropriate for crossing oceans. Instead of screaming at me about not knowing the facts, why don't you ask him which one he's considering. I stand by my statement that I was unimpressed with those boats and the guy who owned one (clearly before the acquisition) wasn't either. I stand by my statement that you are ignorant of these boats and their capabilities. Before the aquisition, Ericson made tons of boats that were excellent for crossing oceans, and they have proved it. Were you even aware of how many of them were fairly heavy full keelers? I didn't think so. You really look like a jackass when you attempt (unsuccessfully) to answer your own questions. I suggest you refrain. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
In article ,
Red Cloud® wrote: On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:57:42 GMT, "John Cairns" wrote: Ah, don't know how to break the news to ya, read the fine print he http://www.pacificseacraft.com/cgi-b...p?0010,ericson Now, maybe you can post a link to show us any Ericsons for sale that were built between 1990-2006? John Cairns Sure! http://yachtworld.com/core/listing/p...02&slim=quick& That's just one of several 1989 and 1990 models I found in about 5 seconds of looking on one website. And, meanwhile, there were also many Ericsons built before that which were EXCELLENT ocean going yachts. PS bought Ericson specifically because they were a competitor in the offshore yacht market. Rusty is on the edge John. Don't push him too much. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
In article ,
Red Cloud® wrote: Poor, beaten, BOATLESS, jon. He had a Cal 20 for a while, which was a cast off piece of trash he got for free. He even had to sell that. Yep, a real boat expert! Can't win with facts, so you're reduced to insults. I think it's time to stop responding to your idiocy. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
My comment was a follow-up to Doug's statement about causes of a heavy helm.
The balance of the boat is quite relevant to the helm. Regretably, I failed to indicate the precise point in Doug's message that I was addressing, thinking it would be understood. "Dave" wrote in message ... snip In that case I fail to see the relevance of your first sentence below. "Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:45:08 -0400, "Garland Gray II" said: Agreed, and also depends on how well the boat is balanced. A spade rudder can be "balanced " itself, which can lighten the helm considerably, as opposed to a rudder hinged to the trailing edge of the keel. |
Red Cloud® wrote:
I stand by my statement that you are ignorant of these boats and their capabilities. And we all believe you, since you've proved yourself to be the expert on ignorance. ... Before the aquisition, Ericson made tons of boats that were excellent for crossing oceans, and they have proved it. Were you even aware of how many of them were fairly heavy full keelers? I didn't think so. Excuse me? Are you saying that Pacific Seacraft built full keel Ericsons?? Fresh Breezes- or whatever- Doug King |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:22 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com