Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
Some recent posts in another thread advocated getting a big, bigger or
electric windlass when it came to the point whereby a largish 65 pound anchor was difficult or injurious to the crew attempting to weigh said anchor. This is a stupid suggestion. The PROPER thing to do is get a smaller anchor. Get ground tackle that the crew can handle without breaking his or her back or giving themselves a stroke or heart attack. It is a well known fact that a genuine Danforth Hi-tensile or Deep Set anchor or two weighing 25 pounds each can securely anchor a vessel of up to thirty feet LOA. So, the answer is NOT a larger or electric windlass but, rather, a SMALLER BOAT! Many people tend to fall into the trap of believing that bigger is better. Not so! Bigger may be better but only if you are able to handle bigger. When it comes to elderly folks towards or at the end of their useful sailing careers - Bruce in Bangkok comes to mind - the wisest decision would be to take stock of yourself, your much reduced abilities and lack of youthful vigor and then chose a boat you can actually still handle. This means downsizing. This means simplicity. There is many a well-found and seaworthy vessel in the 25-30 foot range and the anchors for such a vessel are not such a great burden that they must be handled with heavy, trouble-prone, mechanical and electrical systems. Because with age often comes not only muscle and bone weakness but weakness of mind, eyesight, and hearing. Consequently, the ability to troubleshoot mechanical and electrical systems may be greatly reduced or non-existent (as is the case with Bruce in Bangkok or it would seem so from his embarrassingly simplistic mechanical and electrical posts). Rather than compound folly by trying to maintain such a large vessel that sailing becomes dangerous or burdensome and a menace to other shipping (as is the case with one Skip Grundlach as well as the captain of the erstwhile 'Red Cloud') it would be better for all concerned if such folks sailed vessels that they could handle comfortably and so enjoy to a greater extent and a longer time because of the reduced stress and wear and tear on the failing old body. Sometimes I think JimC has the right idea. For some people a Mac26X or M might just be an ideal vessel. They are small, light can sail and motor passably well and can even be trailored. They don't strain or stress their crew. And, try as I might I've found it difficult to find a MacGregor owner who was really dissatisfied with his small compromise vessel. Not that I'd dare take a Mac26 on a long ocean voyage but I suppose a body would probably be safer in one provided one knew how to sail her and realized her limitations than in some old steel boat that was for her crew too big, heavy, and ill-conceived and mechanically unsound to the point where her own rudder punched holes in the transom. This would never happen in a MacGregor. The rudders might break completely off without damaging the hull but that would not be a disaster as the outboard motor could then be pressed into service to do the steering. But, I digress somewhat! The point is as you age and near the end of your sailing career, think small. It will extend the days of bliss upon the watery world. After all, isn't that what sailing's really all about. Wilbur Hubbard |
#2
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in
anews.com: Some recent posts in another thread advocated getting a big, bigger or electric windlass when it came to the point whereby a largish 65 pound anchor was difficult or injurious to the crew attempting to weigh said anchor. This is a stupid suggestion. The PROPER thing to do is get a smaller anchor. Get ground tackle that the crew can handle without breaking his or her back or giving themselves a stroke or heart attack. It is a well known fact that a genuine Danforth Hi-tensile or Deep Set anchor or two weighing 25 pounds each can securely anchor a vessel of up to thirty feet LOA. So, the answer is NOT a larger or electric windlass but, rather, a SMALLER BOAT! Many people tend to fall into the trap of believing that bigger is better. Not so! Bigger may be better but only if you are able to handle bigger. When it comes to elderly folks towards or at the end of their useful sailing careers - Bruce in Bangkok comes to mind - the wisest decision would be to take stock of yourself, your much reduced abilities and lack of youthful vigor and then chose a boat you can actually still handle. This means downsizing. This means simplicity. There is many a well-found and seaworthy vessel in the 25-30 foot range and the anchors for such a vessel are not such a great burden that they must be handled with heavy, trouble-prone, mechanical and electrical systems. Because with age often comes not only muscle and bone weakness but weakness of mind, eyesight, and hearing. Consequently, the ability to troubleshoot mechanical and electrical systems may be greatly reduced or non-existent (as is the case with Bruce in Bangkok or it would seem so from his embarrassingly simplistic mechanical and electrical posts). Rather than compound folly by trying to maintain such a large vessel that sailing becomes dangerous or burdensome and a menace to other shipping (as is the case with one Skip Grundlach as well as the captain of the erstwhile 'Red Cloud') it would be better for all concerned if such folks sailed vessels that they could handle comfortably and so enjoy to a greater extent and a longer time because of the reduced stress and wear and tear on the failing old body. Sometimes I think JimC has the right idea. For some people a Mac26X or M might just be an ideal vessel. They are small, light can sail and motor passably well and can even be trailored. They don't strain or stress their crew. And, try as I might I've found it difficult to find a MacGregor owner who was really dissatisfied with his small compromise vessel. Not that I'd dare take a Mac26 on a long ocean voyage but I suppose a body would probably be safer in one provided one knew how to sail her and realized her limitations than in some old steel boat that was for her crew too big, heavy, and ill-conceived and mechanically unsound to the point where her own rudder punched holes in the transom. This would never happen in a MacGregor. The rudders might break completely off without damaging the hull but that would not be a disaster as the outboard motor could then be pressed into service to do the steering. But, I digress somewhat! The point is as you age and near the end of your sailing career, think small. It will extend the days of bliss upon the watery world. After all, isn't that what sailing's really all about. Wilbur Hubbard Would you be interested in a good government job in our News Media Liason Department. You seem to know your stuff. The more old folks we can get to go sailing in small, unseaworthy boats means more likely loss of life. This could reduce the burgeoning cost of government services to the aged. Scientific studies indicate that the U.S.A. will be crushed economically by the growing tide of aged Americans because of the payment of government entitlements they have been promised. However, what we got here is a ponzi scheme. This house of cards will tumble and fall unless we can flood the country with young illegal aliens and put them to work so they pay Medicare and Soach Security but deny or delay them citizenship so they cannot collect benefits. This will swell the coffers but anything the government can do to increase the retirement age or facilitate the passing on of the elderly will be even more helpful from the standpoint of increasing funds by decreasing payouts. This one/two punch approach will ensure continued healthy and growing government. And a hefty luxury tax should be immediately assessed on every recreational boat sold. The function of any populace is to grow government because a large involved government knows what is best for its citizens. This benefits society in the long run. -- W. Mouch, State Science Institute |
#3
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... Some recent posts in another thread advocated getting a big, bigger or electric windlass when it came to the point whereby a largish 65 pound anchor was difficult or injurious to the crew attempting to weigh said anchor. This is a stupid suggestion. The PROPER thing to do is get a smaller anchor. Get ground tackle that the crew can handle without breaking his or her back or giving themselves a stroke or heart attack. It is a well known fact that a genuine Danforth Hi-tensile or Deep Set anchor or two weighing 25 pounds each can securely anchor a vessel of up to thirty feet LOA. So, the answer is NOT a larger or electric windlass but, rather, a SMALLER BOAT! Many people tend to fall into the trap of believing that bigger is better. Not so! Bigger may be better but only if you are able to handle bigger. When it comes to elderly folks towards or at the end of their useful sailing careers - Bruce in Bangkok comes to mind - the wisest decision would be to take stock of yourself, your much reduced abilities and lack of youthful vigor and then chose a boat you can actually still handle. This means downsizing. This means simplicity. There is many a well-found and seaworthy vessel in the 25-30 foot range and the anchors for such a vessel are not such a great burden that they must be handled with heavy, trouble-prone, mechanical and electrical systems. Because with age often comes not only muscle and bone weakness but weakness of mind, eyesight, and hearing. Consequently, the ability to troubleshoot mechanical and electrical systems may be greatly reduced or non-existent (as is the case with Bruce in Bangkok or it would seem so from his embarrassingly simplistic mechanical and electrical posts). Rather than compound folly by trying to maintain such a large vessel that sailing becomes dangerous or burdensome and a menace to other shipping (as is the case with one Skip Grundlach as well as the captain of the erstwhile 'Red Cloud') it would be better for all concerned if such folks sailed vessels that they could handle comfortably and so enjoy to a greater extent and a longer time because of the reduced stress and wear and tear on the failing old body. Sometimes I think JimC has the right idea. For some people a Mac26X or M might just be an ideal vessel. They are small, light can sail and motor passably well and can even be trailored. They don't strain or stress their crew. And, try as I might I've found it difficult to find a MacGregor owner who was really dissatisfied with his small compromise vessel. Not that I'd dare take a Mac26 on a long ocean voyage but I suppose a body would probably be safer in one provided one knew how to sail her and realized her limitations than in some old steel boat that was for her crew too big, heavy, and ill-conceived and mechanically unsound to the point where her own rudder punched holes in the transom. This would never happen in a MacGregor. The rudders might break completely off without damaging the hull but that would not be a disaster as the outboard motor could then be pressed into service to do the steering. But, I digress somewhat! The point is as you age and near the end of your sailing career, think small. It will extend the days of bliss upon the watery world. After all, isn't that what sailing's really all about. Wilbur Hubbard I guess a Coronado 26 would be fine if you only cruised mosquito infested Florida swampland. |
#4
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
Strikes me as silly to size your boat to the mass of the maximum anchor
/ rode you can handle when reliable windlasses are easily available. I recommend a different rant - that of sail size. Most people are defeated more by sail handling than anchor handling. BTW, if you wish to further rant on anchors, I suggest you rant on Fortress rather than Danforth hi tensile as the Fortress are even lighter. For those of you who wish information, a Danforth or Fortress is a fine anchor in some conditions such as sand, but not nearly as good in oyster or rock. Personally, I see no issues with an electric windless (or capstan). I've never heard of a boat being permanently anchored due to the windless failing to weigh anchor. Have you? -paul |
#5
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
Paul Cassel wrote:
Personally, I see no issues with an electric windless (or capstan). The worst case scenario that I can think of (and have no idea if it's ever happened) is that the anchor failing to set and the crew unable to pull it up for another try. .... I've never heard of a boat being permanently anchored due to the windless failing to weigh anchor. Have you? Are you going to ask "Wilbur Hubbard" to justify his irrational dislikes & prejudices? What's next, asking him to rationalize his behavior? DSK |
#6
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
wrote in message
... Paul Cassel wrote: Personally, I see no issues with an electric windless (or capstan). The worst case scenario that I can think of (and have no idea if it's ever happened) is that the anchor failing to set and the crew unable to pull it up for another try. .... I've never heard of a boat being permanently anchored due to the windless failing to weigh anchor. Have you? Are you going to ask "Wilbur Hubbard" to justify his irrational dislikes & prejudices? What's next, asking him to rationalize his behavior? DSK I'm trying to remember ever being on a boat that had a windlass that didn't have the ability to use a winch handle and do it manually. I suppose they're out there, but it seems like an inexpensive backup. And, even if it didn't I suppose you could use the biggest winch you have. I just wouldn't use it for breaking free. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
#7
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:08:09 -0400, Gogarty
wrote: One could run the rode back to the primary winches but I don't think they would handle chain very well. The sailing battleships had a hemp rode something like four inches in diameter, They would attach a length of smaller stuff to the rode and lead that to the capstan. Casady |
#8
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
|
#9
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
Gogarty wrote:
My Lumar Concept 1 can let the anchor go in free fall so even if the windlass fails one can anchor the boat. But you can't use a winch handle to bring it back up. With a Delta 35 and all chain rode, we pray a lot that the windlass does not fail. One could run the rode back to the primary winches but I don't think they would handle chain very well. The old square riggers used an endless line on the capstan that attached to the anchor cable via "nippers". Could be done that way with lines on the winch hooked to the chain? |
#10
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
"Paul Cassel" wrote in message . .. Strikes me as silly to size your boat to the mass of the maximum anchor / rode you can handle when reliable windlasses are easily available. I recommend a different rant - that of sail size. Most people are defeated more by sail handling than anchor handling. BTW, if you wish to further rant on anchors, I suggest you rant on Fortress rather than Danforth hi tensile as the Fortress are even lighter. Sail size is also important. But, it is often stated by competent sailors who write about such things that a man in good physical condition can hand and/or reef individual sails up to 500 square feet each even in strong winds. This size sail can be found on boats up to about forty feet LOA which vessels require anchors in the 50-60 pound range to be held securely in a storm. Therefore, though sail size is a limiting factor, it is not as big a limiting factor as anchor weight. And, I would suggest that more vessels get in trouble due to folks futzing around with anchors that are too heavy for them to handle than with sails that are on the largish end of the spectrum. A "lunch hook" is a trouble hook. Always use an anchor sized for the vessel and sized on the heavy end of the spectrum for added safety even when just anchoring for lunch in seeming benign conditions. It is often truly stated that it's not the water that usually damages or destroys boats but the hard stuff around the water's edge and weather is fickle and unreliable so why trust to luck? But, let's examine the folly of large yachts for the elderly and those others of diminished physical capacity. Large yachts do indeed, require large heavy anchors. These then require large, heavy, high-amperage windlasses, long lengths of heavy chain which in turn require a large heavy battery bank, generator or heavy diesel with heavy alternator, heavy thick wiring etc. All these things are failure-prone in the salt water environment. And, when one has a large heavy generator and auxiliary one usually has large heavy tankage and perhaps one or two large heavy refrigerators/freezers and all sorts of other electrical systems all of which require proper and constant maintenance. Is this how an elderly crew of a too-large vessel wants to spend their majority of their time? Or do they really wish to enjoy sailing in a more pure form. Small yachts allow more sailing time for the buck. They allow more enjoyable sailing because of the reduced physical effort required. In that regard they can be said to be safer because time spent learning how to sail the vessel competently is increased because maintenance and trouble-shooting time is decreased. If you've been following the soap opera that is the Skip Gundlach show you will know exactly what I'm talking about as the bulk of his time seems to be spent as an aground (and sometimes water-borne) grease monkey, electrician, plumber, carpenter, etc. While some of you who are on the younger side of the spectrum find this interesting and challenging, I would argue than elderly folks have been there/done that and would rather be sailing than mucking around with grease up their elbows squinting at things they can hardly see anymore and busting their fragile skin and knuckles on sharp objects or straining their skeletons and musculature attempting to squeeze into awkward positions or lifting heavy objects. On the subject of the Fortress aluminum anchor let me say this. Every real sailor knows that a light aluminum anchor is a joke in anything but ideal conditions. If there is a stout current running which is the case in many anchorages the damned things are worst than useless. They fly like a kite in the current and likely will never grab bottom. People who are sold on Fortress anchors are duffers who are obviously inexperienced lake and calm water sailors. People like that certainly are NOT to be considered qualified blue water sailors for their disregard for prudence and safety is readily apparent. For those of you who wish information, a Danforth or Fortress is a fine anchor in some conditions such as sand, but not nearly as good in oyster or rock. One should carry a variety of anchors suited to a variety of bottom types. That's quite obvious but each and every one should be of a size that a crewman or woman can hand without mechanical/electrical assistance because sooner or later systems will fail and the safety of the yacht compromised. This means a smaller yacht is called for when smaller abilities are contained therein. Light aluminum anchors have no place on a well-found ocean going yacht. They are a joke, an illusion and a travesty. That they continued to be sold is a commentary on how sailing has become just another bastion of the sloppy and inept. Personally, I see no issues with an electric windless (or capstan). I've never heard of a boat being permanently anchored due to the windless failing to weigh anchor. Have you? Permanent, no! Delayed, yes oftentimes. Real sailors brook no delay based on the frivolous or an imagined necessity that, in reality, is little more than a ball and chain? Wilbur Hubbard |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The bigger the boat, the bigger the mess | General | |||
"Jeffrey Boyd" is an anagram of "Midget Runt" in Japanese | ASA | |||
Electric Windlass: How Important? | Cruising | |||
For Peggie: conversion of a Jabsco 37010 Series electric toilets to "Quiet - Flush" | Cruising |