Matt Pedersen wrote:

The Tartan has a nice reputation but the centerboard doesn't
kick up if you run aground and it can be hard to repair the
mechanism if you ground hard and bend something.

Hello Matt,

Thanks for your great contributions to this thread. I enjoyed pouring
over the many details you provided. I'm glad I'm not the only one with
some reservations about centerboards. The fact that they can break,
and the reduced righting moment are almost deal breakers in my mind.
Granted there will be many places I won't be able to go, but the list
of places I _WILL_ be able to go to is already endless so I don't
think I'll run out of places to go ) My main concern is safety...
under some circumstances a centerboard may be "safer" but overall I
think the balance tips towards a fixed keel.

As I mentioned to Frank on a previous post, one of the things I am
curious about is how different boats behave under bare poles in heavy
winds. Do you know how the Ranger 33 behaves? Or the other boats on
your list? Will they go bow to wind? stern to wind? or lay abeam? I
don't have that much experience under bare poles but I read somewhere
that most designs that lay bow to wind tend to have full keels,
whereas most modern designs will tend to lay abeam. Do you have any
experience in this?

Thanks,

Bob Whitaker
"Free Spirit"



"Matt/Meribeth Pedersen" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Bob Whitaker" wrote in message
om...

Wow, impressive list of boats! Thanks for the post! I'd be interested
in knowing which of these you liked best and which you've had the
opportunity to sail under reduced sail and how they handled. I'm very
interested in your comments, specially about pros and cons of
centerboards. I just thought it might be yet another thing that could
break down so I wasn't considering centerboard boats for my dream trip
(even if it meant missing out on shallow anchorages). I may start a
new thread on this topic one of these days, seeing as the original
post turned into mud-slinging central.

I think the Morgan 34 (and the CCA era M33, not the Out Island) are
pretty good boats. The Tartan has a nice reputation but the
centerboard doesn't kick up if you run aground and it can
be hard to repair the mechanism if you ground hard and bend something.
The Morgan 34 CB doesn't kick up either, but if you do break
something it is relatively easy to fix since it's a cable mechanism.

I have sailed on the Alberg 35, Ericson 35, C&C 34 (deep keel),
Ranger 33 and Yankee 30. All of them are decent boats but the C&C
is more squirrely than I like going dead downwind. I think the
Ranger 33 is probably the best sailing boat of the bunch, it really
has no vices. I extensively crewed on a Ranger 33 for a number
of years, racing in all weathers. It was my first experience with a
keel boat that stayed on its feet in heavy air downwind.. A friend
who owned one swears by them..
You might get arguments from owners of the Ericson 35 that they
are just as good as the Ranger, but I don't have the heavy air miles
on one to confirm the opinion ( and I'm thinking of the Bruce King
designed Mark II version here). The Yankee 30 also has a good
rep but again my only experience with them is in relatively light
air. They are popular in San Francisco, which tells me they
do pretty well in a breeze. I do like the Ericson 35 a little more
for cruising than the Ranger, the interior and engine access is just
marginally enough nicer that it tips the scales to the Ericson.

All the boats listed will not be a floating condo - don't expect a lot of
room, and some may seem even smaller than the Cal 34.

Random thoughts on the boats I haven't sailed:

The Allied Seawind was the first fiberglass boat to do a circumnavigation,
and I like Tom Gilmer as a designer so it's got to be a good boat

The Luders 34 and Alberg 37 are really pretty boats, but I can't comment
on their handling.

I haven't sailed on the Douglas 32 but it's reportedly a good light air boat
and I think Ted Brewer thought it was one of his better designs.

I have a friend with a Mercator 30 who has taken it to Alaska several
times. Nice boat, enormous V-berth, has a little weather helm.
They are not well known outside of the Pacific Northwest, but at least
one has done a circumnavigation. They could use a little more sail
area, but do make nice cruisers.

The Nich 32 is stout, lots of room for a 32'er and even with her bluff
bow will do pretty well going to windward.

As far a centerboard boats go, for a trip in the Gulf/Florida/Bahamas
I think it's almost a requirement. Not so much for some of the Caribbean.
The big disadvantage is of course the added maintenence of the board
and it's raising/lowering mechanism. That and they can clunk around
in the slot in a seaway, which I always found disconcerting. They
do help you go to windward if your sails are up to it, but there
are many people who glass the board in place and forget about
sailing close winded. I wouldn't, but then I hate sailing boats
that don't go to weather well.

Of course, seaworthiness is always an issue with centerboard boats.
Deep keels have more favorable wieght distribution for resisting
and recovery from capsize. A competent, well prepared crew
should be able to make a centerboarder work for the type of trip
your thinking of though. It wouldn't be my choice for a
circumnavigation, but would be for for Gulf cruising.

AFter the Fastnet storm of 79, there was a lot of research done
on characteristics that help or hinder capsize. One fallout of that
was a capsize screen formula. It is

Beam (feet) divided by displacement^.3333 (displacement to
the 1/3 power, displacement in cubic feet). The result of
this formula should be a value less than 2. I have always
argued that the formula is a little simplistic because it doesn't
take into account ballast placement (you could have 4000
pounds of lead at the top of the mast and the formula would
say you have a seaworthy boat). However, for the boats
under discussion it should give good results.

That's about it for now. Follow up if you'd like, and hopefully
the discussion won't go off track like an IOR boat in a breeze again.

Matt

On 18 Mar 2004 01:26:21 -0800, (Bob Whitaker)
wrote:

As I mentioned to Frank on a previous post, one of the things I am
curious about is how different boats behave under bare poles in heavy
winds. Do you know how the Ranger 33 behaves? Or the other boats on
your list? Will they go bow to wind? stern to wind? or lay abeam? I
don't have that much experience under bare poles but I read somewhere
that most designs that lay bow to wind tend to have full keels,
whereas most modern designs will tend to lay abeam. Do you have any
experience in this?

OK, here's some stuff out of left field. I own a Viking 33, a C&C
design commissioned by Ontario Yachts, who did the Niagara 31 and 35s.
This is a well-built racer-cruiser that looks like a C&C 34 on a
strict diet. Beam 9' 10, LWL 27'. and the typical enormous J of the
era at 15'.

Why mention it? Because the guy who got me into sailing lived aboard a
Ranger 33 and claimed that my boat was very similar in handling and
sea-keeping. Certainly the stats of the two boats are not far removed.

So, maybe my answers will help. I would add the Viking 33 to your
list, but it's got low freeboard and not a lot of beam compared to
modern boats...the qualities that make them fast Great Lakes and
coastal cruisers mean they would be a little fatiguing and short of
stowage on the big briny. Or so I think. I know a lot of 'em went from
Lake Ontario down south as far as Trinidad, so maybe I'm wrong.

Anyway:

Will they go bow to wind?

Because of the small main and the long J, I find lashing the storm jib
down and fiddling with the tiller can allow me to crab when the wind's
too grim to safely proceed.


stern to wind? If I'm running, I run, in broad reaches if possible.
Dead downwind is tricky and not particularly fast and can get wet.


or lay abeam?

With 4500 lbs of keel on a 10,000 lb. boat, she stays on her feet
pretty well. But boats like mine and I would think the Ranger 33 do
exhibit an unpleasant "whip" in beam seas. So I tend to avoid them
where possible. It won't hurt the boat, but it's hard on the crew,
something that could be said of a lot of C&C designs.

I
don't have that much experience under bare poles but I read somewhere
that most designs that lay bow to wind tend to have full keels,
whereas most modern designs will tend to lay abeam. Do you have any
experience in this?

I have been out under reefs in sustained 40 knots in the square waves
of Lake Ontario (9-10 feet and breaking). I have never thought it
politic to stay still in such weather, and find that my boat sails
well and safely under reduced sail, although I have been quite glad
for the buoyancy in the bow surfing off some of those waves.

Boat characteristics are to a point of far less importance than the
ability of the skipper to sail effectively and with proper seamanship.
These days, it's not necessary in most cases to "get caught" by the
weather, and very few situations are "survival". There's a big
knowledge gap, however, in that a lot of recreational sailors come in
around the 20-25 knot mark, because of comfort or fear issues. Between
25-40 knots is in my mind where the best sailing and passagemaking is
found. If you can learn how to keep the boat going without busting
things in that, the make and model becomes less important. Modern
boats are made to provide "fun times" in relatively benign conditions.
I've found that older styled boats lose on this score because
potential buyers see them poking along in 10 knots, instead of the 30
knots of the open ocean with which they leap to life. Figure out the
type of sailing and the area in which you think you are going, and go
from there. Under 35 feet there are real "blue-water" bargains,
because that's too small for a lot of modern tastes, too cramped, too
free of amenities. It's a very manageable size for a single-hander or
couple, however, and is easier to manage in terms of sail wrangling.
But nice seakeeping designs at 30-35 feet tend to look pokey or low or
pudgy and not like the fridge-shaped Hunters and so on that look great
at dock and give me the willies when I think of them in a proper blow.

Good luck and hope this helps.

R.

"rhys" wrote in message
...
On 18 Mar 2004 01:26:21 -0800, (Bob Whitaker)
wrote:

As I mentioned to Frank on a previous post, one of the things I am
curious about is how different boats behave under bare poles in heavy
winds. Do you know how the Ranger 33 behaves? Or the other boats on
your list? Will they go bow to wind? stern to wind? or lay abeam? I
don't have that much experience under bare poles but I read somewhere
that most designs that lay bow to wind tend to have full keels,
whereas most modern designs will tend to lay abeam. Do you have any
experience in this?

OK, here's some stuff out of left field. I own a Viking 33, a C&C
design commissioned by Ontario Yachts, who did the Niagara 31 and 35s.
This is a well-built racer-cruiser that looks like a C&C 34 on a
strict diet. Beam 9' 10, LWL 27'. and the typical enormous J of the
era at 15'.

I'll second that one. Forgot about the Viking 33 but it is a good boat too.

The advice given later in the post is right on. I've never laid under bare
poles except as an experiment on deliveries, and the boats I've done this
in all seemed to end up lying abeam to the seas (they've all been fin
keelers of differing aspect ratios). I haven't done much
cruising in bad weather (that's what heaters, blankets, books, and
anchors are for as far as I'm concerned), and my blue water work has
all been with bigger crews (4 minimum), so we always actively sailed
through the tough stuff.

Bare poles always seemed to be a technique used only in desperate
situations. Whether a boat lies bow to the wind (this being a relative
term, I think you mean something above maybe 60 degrees or so) is
mostly a function of windage. More windage aft and you will lie closer to
the
wind, but I can guarantee that if you have a roller furling headsail or high
freeboard at the bow and low freeboard aft you will never do so.
Way too much windage too far forward.

I think the current thinking is that laying under bare poles is a pretty
risky technique. Most boats tend to lie beam to the seas and this is
the most vulnerable position (Van Dorn says if you are beam to
a breaking wave approximately the beam of your boat you are likely to
be capsized and tank testing has confirmed that). I think the choices
are either active sailing (many boats can actually sail upwind in
big wind and waves under autopilot if the waves are relatively
consistent and the wind doesn't fluctuate too much), or using some
sort of drag device. The Drag Device Database is a good place to
read up on that - lots of good true stories about what works and
what might not. I think the author has a web site at www.dddb.com

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 05:50:50 GMT, "Matt/Meribeth Pedersen"
wrote:


I'll second that one. Forgot about the Viking 33 but it is a good boat too.

I stumbled on a bit of a deal, despite the extensive restoration and
refitting I am gradually doing. I only found out after I learned to
sail it that it's a bit of a hot rod, and yet built "old school"
enough to take pretty brutal conditions. Or, at least, the blessedly
brief, but still significant seas Lake Ontario can generate. A line
squall here is as bad as anywhere, and you want a tough boat if you
decide to stay out for the filling-in wind that follows.

The advice given later in the post is right on. I've never laid under bare
poles except as an experiment on deliveries, and the boats I've done this
in all seemed to end up lying abeam to the seas (they've all been fin
keelers of differing aspect ratios).

It's appropriate for the kind of boats that are pretty rare these
days. I would lie abeam in a Contessa 26 if I thought it would help,
because it's got a hull like a fortune cookie. Fin keelers get slapped
around too much and if they are carrying sail, they can tip brutally.

Bare poles always seemed to be a technique used only in desperate
situations. Whether a boat lies bow to the wind (this being a relative
term, I think you mean something above maybe 60 degrees or so) is
mostly a function of windage. More windage aft and you will lie closer to
the
wind, but I can guarantee that if you have a roller furling headsail or high
freeboard at the bow and low freeboard aft you will never do so.
Way too much windage too far forward.

I agree. I prefer active sailing with a reefed staysail (ideally) or a
storm jib tacked low or on a short (3-5 foot) pendant. For my boat's
design, this is a good tactic. For others, it would be wrong. I find
reading old cruising narratives (Hiscocks, Roth, Moitessier, etc.) and
even racing stuff from the '60s (Chichester, Rose, Knox-Johnson,
Taberly) has helped to shape my heavy-weather ideas. I carry enough
line for warps off the stern, but have never had to slow the boat down
that much. Which I count as a Good Thing.

I think the current thinking is that laying under bare poles is a pretty
risky technique. Most boats tend to lie beam to the seas and this is
the most vulnerable position (Van Dorn says if you are beam to
a breaking wave approximately the beam of your boat you are likely to
be capsized and tank testing has confirmed that). I think the choices
are either active sailing (many boats can actually sail upwind in
big wind and waves under autopilot if the waves are relatively
consistent and the wind doesn't fluctuate too much), or using some
sort of drag device. The Drag Device Database is a good place to
read up on that - lots of good true stories about what works and
what might not. I think the author has a web site at www.dddb.com

Thanks. Even in theory, this stuff gets filed for future reference,
and I do intend to world cruise one day. Odds are, if I recall, only
circa 5-10% that I'll encounter 40 knots plus sustained in any given
passage (I forget where I heard this), and some people cruise for
years and years without ever getting seriously whacked by weather, but
I remember the Scout motto when I am at the tiller...G

R.

This thread has spawned a coupla sub-threads; so I'm gonna just make a
few
general comments here. As always, this is my opinion from my
experiences, YMMV.

Centerboards:

Like most things in life, it's often the execution that's more
important
than the concept. Well designed and well built centerboards are a
great boon
for shallow-water sailing; but a bad centerboard is a nightmare. Well,
a
pain in the ass, at least.

Heavy weather sailing (bare poles, lying ahull, etc.):

What an imtimidatingly broad topic! There are a lotta full-length
books
about this and reducing it to a few paragraphs here will probably lead
to
acrimony because of misunderstandings; but I'll throw out a few
comments
from my personal perspective.

I've raced and cruised on a variety of boats in a variety of weather:
a
full-keel Alden 42 ketch, a "cutaway" keel Challenger 40 ketch, a
folkboat,
and several different fin-keel racer-cruiser sloops, from light air to
a_whole_lotta_wind. [Brief aside: It's been my experience (not to be
confused with objective reality) that really heavy weather experiences
can
be counted on the fingers; but light air happens all the time. My boat
must
be able to survive heavy weather; but I want one which can also sail
in
light air.]

So, I've never gone to bare poles. I think lying a-hull is a passe
tactic
which probably wasn't even "good" for heavy full-keel boats back when
that's
all there was. My opinion is that experience has shown us that
maintaining
speed and, more significantly, control is a better survival tactic.
But no
one has ever done a rigorous, "scientific," double-blind type
comparison
test. Typically all we have to go on are anecdotes; and boats have
survivied, and failed to survive, using every variety of tactic. So,
you're
still kinda left in a position where ya gotta choose your own poison.

I've come to my position after reading most of the works on this
topic,
talking to other sailors since the late 50s, and my own experiences.
My best
recommendation is that, rather than take anyone's advice here, go do
the
same yourself. Heavy weather in mid-ocean while cruising on a heavy
displacement boat is not the same as heavy weather in mid-ocean racing
a
go-fast design. I've done both and come to my conculsions to my own
satisfaction. I'd say you're generally better off following your own
heart,
rather than blindly going through someone else's heavy-weather
checklist.

Beating off a lee sho

Well, here's where you definitely want a fin keel sloop in preference
to a
full-keel ketch. There have been discussions here on Usenet about what
"weatherly" means. If a boat can point high, but makes terrible
leeway, is
it truly weatherly?

Pooping (including surfing, double-enders, and small cockpits):

Except for the fact that he really liked sailing the Ranger, from
reading
his other comments, I'd hafta say that Matt and I are from opposite
ends of
the spectrum. SC31, Tayana, Baba, etc. are boats which I consider
unseaworthy. IMO, modern double-enders and small cockpits are a style
decision, not a functional one. Well, I kinda take that back. If you
have a
typical double-ender, you actually do need a small cockpit because you
(probably) lack reserve buoyancy. And most of the double-enders
mentioned in
this thread are heavy displacement. That means that they resisist
surfing.
That means that they get pooped constantly. Not what I consider fun.
Or a
sensible design decision. But, Man!, they *look* nautical.

Conclusion:

In a sense, Usenet is like real life, maybe just a bit less polite. At
the
end of the day, you still just wind up with opinions. Allow me to
bring up
my favorite demons, the Pardeys. The have about a bazillion sea miles
and as
broad a range of experiences as you'd ever want. Pretty much every
decision
and every recommendation they make is the opposite of what I prefer.
Do I
defer to their superior experience? Absolutely not. I have enough
experience of my own to trust my judgment for me. Besides, I like
having refrigeration and a
radio; and, with my own engine, I don't hafta constantly ask others
for
tows.

YMMV but that's what works for me,

Frank

Frank Maier wrote:
... Tayana, Baba, etc. are boats which I consider
unseaworthy

Now them's fightn' words! I am admitadly biased here, but forgive me if
I and numerous others disagree with you. My boat may not have the
advantage of what has been learned in the last couple of decades, but to
describe her and her sisters as "unseaworthy" is beyond rational, it's
unkind and insulting to a lady whao shows her years more gracefully than
anyone has a right to.

--
Dan Best - (707) 431-1662, Healdsburg, CA 95448
B-2/75 1977-1979
Tayana 37 #192, "Tricia Jean"
http://rangerbest.home.comcast.net/TriciaJean.JPG

I also gotta jump into this as these Perry designs have IMHO sufficient
reserve stern buoyancy due to their quite large 'bustles' .... If you
compare to a Collin Archer type narrow stern hull then I might agree
but not a Perry design 'double ender'.
Nowithstanding that more Perry (full and long keel) design have had
probably the most circumnavigations than any other design house - has
to say something.

;-) TY37 #423

In article , Dan Best
wrote:

Frank Maier wrote:
... Tayana, Baba, etc. are boats which I consider
unseaworthy

Now them's fightn' words! I am admitadly biased here, but forgive me if
I and numerous others disagree with you. My boat may not have the
advantage of what has been learned in the last couple of decades, but to
describe her and her sisters as "unseaworthy" is beyond rational, it's
unkind and insulting to a lady whao shows her years more gracefully than
anyone has a right to.

Hello Frank (and others),

Thanks for your reply. I always read your posts with great interest.
You mentioned many years of experience talking to sailors since the
late 50's. Those of us with less experience welcome the fact that you
are willing to share yours. That is the beauty of Usenet. We can have
"conversations" with experienced sailors without being on the same
dock (so to speak).

You mentioned that this thread has spawned a couple if interesting
sub-threads, and I have another sub-thread for you. What do you think
of cutter vs sloop vs ketch rigs? Years ago my Coast Guard Auxiliary
instructor was "big" on ketch (or yawl) rigs due to the smaller sails
and because a reefed sail on the mizzen mast could act as a weather
vane, pointing the bow to the wind and helping prevent the boat from
lying abeam to the waves. Is this one of those tactics you now
consider "passe"? Do you have any experience or words of wisdom in
that respect?

Bob Whitaker
"Free Spirit"


(Frank Maier) wrote in message . com...
This thread has spawned a coupla sub-threads; so I'm gonna just make a
few
general comments here. As always, this is my opinion from my
experiences, YMMV.

Centerboards:

Like most things in life, it's often the execution that's more
important
than the concept. Well designed and well built centerboards are a
great boon
for shallow-water sailing; but a bad centerboard is a nightmare. Well,
a
pain in the ass, at least.

Heavy weather sailing (bare poles, lying ahull, etc.):

What an imtimidatingly broad topic! There are a lotta full-length
books
about this and reducing it to a few paragraphs here will probably lead
to
acrimony because of misunderstandings; but I'll throw out a few
comments
from my personal perspective.

I've raced and cruised on a variety of boats in a variety of weather:
a
full-keel Alden 42 ketch, a "cutaway" keel Challenger 40 ketch, a
folkboat,
and several different fin-keel racer-cruiser sloops, from light air to
a_whole_lotta_wind. [Brief aside: It's been my experience (not to be
confused with objective reality) that really heavy weather experiences
can
be counted on the fingers; but light air happens all the time. My boat
must
be able to survive heavy weather; but I want one which can also sail
in
light air.]

So, I've never gone to bare poles. I think lying a-hull is a passe
tactic
which probably wasn't even "good" for heavy full-keel boats back when
that's
all there was. My opinion is that experience has shown us that
maintaining
speed and, more significantly, control is a better survival tactic.
But no
one has ever done a rigorous, "scientific," double-blind type
comparison
test. Typically all we have to go on are anecdotes; and boats have
survivied, and failed to survive, using every variety of tactic. So,
you're
still kinda left in a position where ya gotta choose your own poison.

I've come to my position after reading most of the works on this
topic,
talking to other sailors since the late 50s, and my own experiences.
My best
recommendation is that, rather than take anyone's advice here, go do
the
same yourself. Heavy weather in mid-ocean while cruising on a heavy
displacement boat is not the same as heavy weather in mid-ocean racing
a
go-fast design. I've done both and come to my conculsions to my own
satisfaction. I'd say you're generally better off following your own
heart,
rather than blindly going through someone else's heavy-weather
checklist.

Beating off a lee sho

Well, here's where you definitely want a fin keel sloop in preference
to a
full-keel ketch. There have been discussions here on Usenet about what
"weatherly" means. If a boat can point high, but makes terrible
leeway, is
it truly weatherly?

Pooping (including surfing, double-enders, and small cockpits):

Except for the fact that he really liked sailing the Ranger, from
reading
his other comments, I'd hafta say that Matt and I are from opposite
ends of
the spectrum. SC31, Tayana, Baba, etc. are boats which I consider
unseaworthy. IMO, modern double-enders and small cockpits are a style
decision, not a functional one. Well, I kinda take that back. If you
have a
typical double-ender, you actually do need a small cockpit because you
(probably) lack reserve buoyancy. And most of the double-enders
mentioned in
this thread are heavy displacement. That means that they resisist
surfing.
That means that they get pooped constantly. Not what I consider fun.
Or a
sensible design decision. But, Man!, they *look* nautical.

Conclusion:

In a sense, Usenet is like real life, maybe just a bit less polite. At
the
end of the day, you still just wind up with opinions. Allow me to
bring up
my favorite demons, the Pardeys. The have about a bazillion sea miles
and as
broad a range of experiences as you'd ever want. Pretty much every
decision
and every recommendation they make is the opposite of what I prefer.
Do I
defer to their superior experience? Absolutely not. I have enough
experience of my own to trust my judgment for me. Besides, I like
having refrigeration and a
radio; and, with my own engine, I don't hafta constantly ask others
for
tows.

YMMV but that's what works for me,

Frank

On 22 Mar 2004 20:03:58 -0800, (Bob Whitaker)
wrote:

You mentioned that this thread has spawned a couple if interesting
sub-threads, and I have another sub-thread for you. What do you think
of cutter vs sloop vs ketch rigs?

You were asking Frank but as I have some heavy weather experience on a
ketch and they are on my short list (or a cutter, for that matter)...

Years ago my Coast Guard Auxiliary
instructor was "big" on ketch (or yawl) rigs due to the smaller sails
and because a reefed sail on the mizzen mast could act as a weather
vane, pointing the bow to the wind and helping prevent the boat from
lying abeam to the waves.

A similar tactic is used at anchor where a reefed down mizzen can act
as a riding sail (on a sloop it's sometimes a hank-on storm jib set on
the backstay). The mizzen, sheeted tight, keeps the bow into the wind,
reducing the side sheer that can unseat an anchor. Also makes for a
quieter ride in a blow.



Is this one of those tactics you now
consider "passe"?

I don't think anything that works is passe, but some things that
worked on older boats don't on newer designs. Deploying warps vs. sea
anchors (off the bow or stern? what about chafe? etc.) to slow the
boat down is one of those perennial debates that is best solved boat
by boat in 30 knots so that you can gain insight for the off chance
you'll need to know at 60 knots.

Five weeks to launch and this year's MOB drills....G

R.

(Bob Whitaker) wrote:
....snip...
You mentioned that this thread has spawned a couple if interesting
sub-threads, and I have another sub-thread for you. What do you think
of cutter vs sloop vs ketch rigs? Years ago my Coast Guard Auxiliary
instructor was "big" on ketch (or yawl) rigs due to the smaller sails
and because a reefed sail on the mizzen mast could act as a weather
vane, pointing the bow to the wind and helping prevent the boat from
lying abeam to the waves. Is this one of those tactics you now
consider "passe"?

We're starting to get too many subthreads for me to follow. I gave my
standard diatribe about rigs in response to your response to DSK,
where you ask that as a P.S. So, jump over there for several
paragraphs of my opinions. (Worth every penny you paid for 'em!)

I believe that up through the 60s ~ early 70s, survival methods tended
to favor passive styles, e.g. lying a-hull. My interpretation of what
I've read about tactics since then (including Coles et al.) and my
personal experience favors active methods, e.g running off. But as I
said, everything has worked, and also failed to work, for different
people in different circumstances; so I think you'd be hard pressed to
definitively defend any given style of dealing with bad conditions.
Someone can always point to an exception and say, "But what about ..."
Me, I'd say that any opinion opposite mine is a case of abusus non
tollit usum; but I'll bet that those who oppose my positions would say
that *I'm* arguing abusus...

To be blunt, my short answer is, "Yes." Even for full keel, heavy
displacement, low aspect ratio, multi-stick etc. boats, my personal
belief is that passive methods are not as good as active methods. In
shorthand, that'd be "lying a-hull is passe." Like all
generalizations, it's too broadly stated; but again, we're not writing
full-length novels to each other here and we hafta use some shortcuts.

Frank