Cruisers Forum

Join CruisersForum Today

Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 17-03-2007, 20:15   #16
Registered User

Join Date: May 2003
Location: East Coast & Other Forums!
Posts: 913
Trim...thanks. The furler is a Schaeffer. I like it a LOT and feel it really makes for additional safety at sea as well as being convenient without the drawbacks of in mast furling. We can sit in the sheltered CC enclosure and trim our sails in heavy weather to any level of reefing without leaving the cockpit.
The only drawback I can cite is the expense....both for furler, new main and power winch. You can get by without the power winch but it is too much work and kinda defeats the purpose. I needed a new main so that was no big deal. If you can handle the costs...the shaeffer works well on and off the wind and the brass at Schaeffer took a personal interest in my installation and satisfaction that I found refreshing. Good product.
If I were more $$ constrained I would have gotten a Stack-pack.

camaraderie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2007, 04:25   #17
Registered User
swagman's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Winter land based UK New Forest. Summer months away. Making the transition from sail to power this year - scary stuff.
Boat: Super Van Craft 1320 Power Yacht
Posts: 2,175
Images: 10
Send a message via Skype™ to swagman
Hi Coot,

I'd agree only that if an aft cockpit yacht had same high transom as the Beneteau pictured, it also would never get pooped.

But I'm concerned that this apparent risk forms part of the choice and worry that some less experienced might be making judgements based on perceived risk - as opposed to whats fact.

As stated, I've had both.

They have obvious pros and cons, and I've no axe to grand on anyones choice.

But to make a choice on the two over something that happens so rarely (ie being pooped) is somehow not right. You can get wet in both cockpits - and its mainly the capeability of the helmsman that increases or decreases how damp you get!

I've raced / sailed a lot over 30 years often in big following seas - and never once been 'pooped', and several of the boats were wide open transom designs with low cockpit floors - plus of course the one centre cockpit Adams 40 (which itself did have very small drains).

We always found the greatest occurance of heavy water into either cockpit came when we were hit by big quartering seas when reaching off - and in both instances we got wet!

So all I'm suggesting is choose on reasons other than this 'pooping' idea....and enjoy the choice once its made


Don't take life too seriously. No ones going to make it out alive......Go see our blog at
swagman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-03-2007, 13:50   #18
Registered User
eskfreedom's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 98
The main reason for my decision to go cc is that big nice aft cockpit. I think I like the sailing characteristics of the aft cockpit better though. I ask this same question to a man and his family leaving the next morning on their Hunter 44 to circimnavagate the world. He replied, simply "because I like to sail".
This is your life ending one minute at a time.
eskfreedom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-03-2007, 00:17   #19
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 976
Images: 6
Have an aft ,gone to a centre. Have got 4 very serious drains in the cockpit , so serious in fact that all the internal drains of the boat go out through them. (No through hull fittings.). Unless you have a walk through transom l cannot see what the difference is. The relationship between the height of the cockpit sides, its overall volume and the height of the companionway, dictates how much water you can have go down below. The size of the cockpit drains decides how quickly this situation will stop. It is a good exersise to calculate the volume of your cockpit in litres : remember thats close enough to the extra weight in kilos. measure your drains and find (on the internet) a water flow chart per pipe size. You may be supprised just how long it will take to drain, regardless of where it is on the boat. Well fitting water tight stormboards make all the difference. ......oh sorry for the rant...The reason why centre cockpit.....l have teenagers..
cooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-03-2007, 14:25   #20
Registered User
SydneyTim's Avatar

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Cruising USA & Caribbean
Boat: Passport 51 - Matsu
Posts: 56
Buy a Passport 51, it has both! Big centre cockpit and a little owners cockpit at the back, if you hanker for that aft feel just put on the emergency tiller and hand steer your heart away
SydneyTim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-03-2007, 15:21   #21
Senior Cruiser
SkiprJohn's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Kea'au, Big Island, Hawaii
Boat: Cascade, Sloop, 42 - "Casual"
Posts: 14,192
So, what did you get? Aft cockpit or center cockpit? You mentioned cc aft cockpit. I thought cc stood for center cockpit. Did you mean C&C aft cockpit? Here I am all confused again.

SkiprJohn is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Water Bladder under Aft Bunk? Lynx Plumbing Systems and Fixtures 18 13-12-2006 23:33
Searching for Berth Comfort Chuteman Monohull Sailboats 18 21-11-2006 20:08
best aft mount for small radome? Latitude9.5 Marine Electronics 11 22-07-2006 11:43
Props aft of the rudder RandyAbernethy Multihull Sailboats 5 04-07-2006 01:23

Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 14:34.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.