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

"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

"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.

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

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

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

On Apr 13, 12:13*pm, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

the answer is NOT a larger or electric windlass but, rather, a
SMALLER
BOAT!

Wilbur Hubbard


My honored poster,

I agree however I would also suggest an alternative: A much large boat
with a crew. Say 80'+ with a crew to do all the work. The problme as
I see it is the infirm and unable simply want to live beyond their
means. so they get the biggest boat they can not handle. Another case
of unrealistic expectatoins. Such as ," im 57 years old and have the
back of a 30 year old." DENILE............the sinker of boats.
Bob

"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

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:18:48 -0400, "Roger Long"
wrote:

"Bob" wrote

Another case of unrealistic expectations. Such as ," im 57 years old and
have the
back of a 30 year old." DENILE............the sinker of boats.

OK, I'll fess up. I only left Bob and Wilbur in the killfile until after my
next nap. The stress, fatigue, and drugs of my first hospitalization in 45
years had me a bit cranky last week and my perspective was not all it
usually
is. In a group like this, as long as the subject actually is boats and
cruising, we should expect and tolerate some profanity, stupidity, putting
words in others mouths and then attacking them.

I was stunned to find myself agreeing with Wilbur on something, not the
I'm-the-only-real-sailor-here, you're-an-idiot-if-you-don't-agree-with-me,
tone of the OP (and most of his posts) but the essential point about boat
size. After my first season with "Strider", when I realized that I wanted
to go back to my roots and give up flying so I could get her ready to do
extensive cruising in my retirement, I thought about selling her before I
was too deep in the hole with upgrades and getting a larger boat. I quickly
realized though that economically and physically, I would be able to sail
the 32 footer years longer than something in the 40 - 45 foot range and that
was a good trade off for less space and comfort. Lesser boats have gone
around the world with not a significantly smaller success ratio than larger
ones.

This is a personal choice, not an absolute. If you must have refrigeration,
Internet, air conditioning, separate cabins, etc., the years you spend
ashore instead of cruising make the larger boat a valid choice. My choice
is largely colored by having been away from sailing and cruising for nearly
two decades. If I had been sailing and cruising all those years, I might
well feel differently.

As for the quoted portion above, I have never heard of the river in Egypt
sinking boats that weren't actually on it. As one who has professionally
spent more of his professional life studying the loss of sailing vessels
than I'm sure anyone in this group ever even heard of, I would say that
*denial* is a link in may accident chains.

One of the things that annoys me about Wilbur's "Bob" personna, along with
putting his words in to other's mouths and then attacking them, is simply
pretending not to have heard the answers. I previously pointed out that I
misspoke, not being quite as sharp these days as usual. The doctor did not
say that I have the back, or anything else, of a 30 year old; just the spine
and specifically the disks. I do have one damaged disk but he said he sees
those in 20 something fitness buffs. It is quite clear to me that I am a lot
more failure prone and maintenance intensive than I was in youth and will
get more so every year. That's why I agree with Wilbur about boat size.

I have been down to see and contemplate the Titanic. Despite some primitive
features in her construction, she was a more seaworthy and survivable ship
than most vessels that have put to sea since. There are books about
sailing vessel accidents with long index entries after my name referencing
my investigation and analysis of their demise. I have had friends lost at
sea, among them two women that I loved in separate incidents.

Could anyone seriously suggest that I am in denial about the danger and
power of the sea?

I think that the problem lies with the definition of the word
"cruising". What is a cruising boat? Noticeably to a lot of the
denizens of this group it is a boat that you can spend the night on;
make a week, maybe a two week, "cruise" on.

But to a lot of us it is a boat that we can live on for months at a
time and there is a big difference in a boat that you spend Easter
weekend on and a boat that is your home for months.

Try it sometime. Take all the duds you want down to the boat and stow
them. Now move aboard and you can't go home for six months. If it
ain't there you either do without or go and buy a new one.

Ah Ha! This changes the equation just a little. You play the Banjo?
Well, find a place to store it. You might need a pair of clean pants -
find a place to store them. No keeping boat parts at the garage
either. They got to be aboard.

Right at the moment I have my wife's sister and her girlfriend staying
on the boat (in addition to my wife and I) and we damned near have to
go to bed by the numbers. Have you ever sat and watched three women
get ready for bed? The amount of stuff that they smear on their faces
would lubricate my engine for then next six months.

The reason I always tell people that they need a forty foot boat isn't
because it takes forty feet to keep two people's head above water. It
takes forty feet to keep two people AND all the tools, spares, parts,
cooking pots, clothes and the Banjo above water.

You don't believe me? Try it. Move on the boat and don't got home for
six months.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)

"Bob" wrote in message
...
My honored poster,

I agree however I would also suggest an alternative: A much large boat
with a crew. Say 80'+ with a crew to do all the work. The problme as
I see it is the infirm and unable simply want to live beyond their
means. so they get the biggest boat they can not handle. Another case
of unrealistic expectatoins. Such as ," im 57 years old and have the
back of a 30 year old." DENILE............the sinker of boats.
Bob

How right you are, sir! But add the word, "competent." Take my Swan 68, for
example. My crew can handle her and win races with her. But, they do so
because I've chosen them wisely. If they do not demonstrate competence,
strength, endurance and finesse they are not allowed to participate. I
insist upon a crew that delivers what I ship them for - winning. If they
don't win they don't ride!

People get into bad habits. In the typical boating lifespan individuals
(Bobsprit comes to mind) often buy boats that increase in size, purchase
after purchase, simply because the individual is more concerned with
imagined prestige, comfort and convenience than reality. Never mind they
already couldn't competently handle the smaller yacht because it was already
too large for them, they imagine that a larger yacht will solve all their
self-imposed problems while the opposite is true - it magnifies all their
existing deficiencies! It's the water-borne Peter Principle. The owner and
crew rises to the level of greatest ineptitude.

Elderly folks and the infirm need to use good and common sense and at some
point reverse the trend towards larger and larger. The yacht needs to fit
the abilities of the crew and an elderly couple should realize that they
need to downsize at some point or they will find themselves, like Bruce in
Bangkok, stuck in some backwater with their cruising plans on permanent
hold - defeated by size and complexity that's beyond their limited means to
handle.

Wilbur Hubbard