Quote:
Originally Posted by Polux
I agree in what regards really big boats to be more problematic for reefing traditional way, not really for reefing put a PITA to stow it properly folded on the bag. Sail lasts longer but a lot more work to stow unless you have one of those booms angled with the neck near the cabin or deck.
For really big boats a very good furler boom is the best and that is what really big yachts have, if they are not sportive and have a conventional reefing. I am not sure if they jam less but that would not prevent to bring the sail down.
I don't understand why you say that you need to head to the wind or to leave the cockpit to reef the sail with a traditional system. Only if I am sailing really downwind I will have to go till a beam reaching or so and only in conditions of strong wind. Much depends on the quality of the cars you will have on the sail and regarding you having a retrieving line on top of the sail or not.
And what i really don't understand is why you say someone has to leave the cockpit to furl on a conventional system. If the system is rigged for it (and all modern boats are) you don't need to leave the cockpit at all.
Regarding in mast furling some on systems you have to winch from the mast and that means leaving the cockpit.
I certainly don't agree that the possibilities of jamming are the same in what regards a conventional system and an in mast furling, specially in what regards the possibility of haven the sail brought down if there is a problem. An in mast furling is much more complicated and have much more possibilities of jamming than a conventional one. Not meaning that it happens frequently.
And finally, most of all, I don't agree with the in mast furling being more adequate for passage sailing or high latitude sailing. I see it as the opposite, being that system more prone to eventual problems it makes more sense to use it if the sail is done coastally, where help is at hand if really a big problem happens.
It seems to be the opinion of really high latitude sailors and what you will find on on the rigs of the boats properly designed for that type of sailing. And normally the ones that sail on remote inhospitable places are very experienced sailors.
|
In your insatiable eagerness to find something to argue with -- as usual -- you completely missed the point I was trying to make.
I wrote
highER latitudes, and did not at all mean polar regions and extreme adventure sailing (even if it's something I have in mind for my next boat). I meant something like 45N -- 65N and probably something similar in the Southern Hemisphere, not polar regions.
My point was that -- in MY OPINION AND EXPERIENCE, and I am not asserting that this
subjective point of view is valid for everyone -- the relative benefits of in-mast furling start to make more sense in windier sailing areas and harsher conditions, and don't make much sense in benign lower latitudes.
What I'm speaking about is actually my own personal experience with in-mast furling -- in
Florida and the
Caribbean, I hated it. In the
English Channel and North Sea, I started to appreciate it.
The lack of roach really kills the fun on hot high pressure calm days when you need every bit of drive you can get.
But you don't miss it so much in windy latitudes when you're mostly reefed down anyway, especially when it's cold and the air is "heavy".
In-mast furling works better in strong wind, than it does in light wind, as someone mentioned -- easier to get a tight furl.
In heavy sea conditions it can be really nice not to
head up or ease the boom to reef. Not to mention going to the mast.
In strong
weather it can be really great to be able to frequently make fine adjustments of sail area.
Another benefit which I didn't mention is that in-mast furling mains, for some reason, actually get flatter as they are furled, so they
work very well when partially furled.
So I've been reasonably happy with my in-mast furling main up here in these waters. I would not have chosen in-mast furling at the time I bought this
boat, if I had had any choice (almost impossible to buy a non-production large
bluewater cruising
boat up here with anything else, unless you're
buying new and special ordering), but I grew to like it ok with time.
I'm not selling them, and my next boat will probably have a normal fully battened main. But I care more about ultimate performance than 90% of cruisers, and so others may have different priorities. For sailing up here, in-mast furling can make a lot of sense for many sailors, and not coincidentally, they are extremely popular up here. That's just my opinion, for whatever it may be worth for someone like the OP who is trying to make a choice. In the
Med I wouldn't dream of it.
Another tip about in-mast furling -- I am glad I listened to my
sailmaker, who told me, when I was ordering new
sails last year, that (a) laminate
sails are thinner and lighter and roll up better, don't blow out to cause jamming risks; and (b) vertical battens now work well, with upside down pockets and very thin carbon construction, despite earlier horror stories.
I've done about 7 000 miles on the resulting new laminate
mainsail with vertical battens, and it looks like he was right. The sail rolls in and out much better, and the battens and straight luff make a huge improvement in performance, compared to the old hollow leech dacron sail.
As to in-boom furling -- I've never tried it, so not really entitled to an opinion. But the lack of any control for foot tension looks like a deal-breaker for me, as much as I would love to have the roach.