In-mast vs in-boom furling

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This is a common misconception.



A bigger percentage of high end European cruising boats have in-mast furling, than production boats. You cannot buy an Amel -- a purpose-built ocean crosser -- without in-mast furling, and it is almost impossible to buy an Oyster or Hallberg-Rassy without in-mast furling. Do you think these boats -- Amels, Oysters, HR's -- are aimed at "customers with limited experience or day-sailors"?! Really?

That's very misleading in that all the manufacturers you mention build to the owner's specs. Before we purchased our boat, we spoke with many of them and they consistently asked what we wanted - not what they want or prefer.



They told us that many buyers simply have no clue how advantageous in-boom furling is compared with mast furling. The 'more money than brains' club isn't a good indicator of what people should do.


Parenthetically, Amel could be commissioned with a furling boom. A friend has one.

[barnakiel]

In boom is often used on big boats where in mast is no longer an option. In mast is used on smaller boats.


Depending on your skills and style you may opt out and have normal slabs.


b.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Carlos Molinelli

Everything you said make sense to me.
However, the main reason against in-mast reefing is the need to ensure that you can drop or reef the main when it is needed and the danger when you cannot.
About the performance, I do not know about performance of in-reef sails under reef, but it is sure worst without the reef, which happens most of the time.
And as you said, with light winds, being the mainsail flatter and without horizontal battens, it would have less power to compensate for a strong current.

The most important issue is to use the system that makes you happier...

Not being able to reduce the mainsail area in a blow would be a scary thing. There are reported cases of that happening with in-mast furling mains, but it can happen with any type of mainsail actually. My conventional mainsail in my previous boat jammed once in bad -- before I had the batt-cars -- the top slug was worn and got stuck in the slot, and I had a hell of a terrifying time getting it down. Fortunately there were three of us on board, so we turned downwind and I went up the mast and cut the sail where the slug was, but in bad sea conditions I don't know what we would have done.



Stuff does happen. I have actually more confidence that I can reduce my mainsail in bad weather with this Selden in-mast system, than I did with the previous boat. The huge plus here is that with in-mast, you don't need to head up, which can be even impossible in really bad weather. People who own in-mast furling, particularly a better system like the Selden one, do not typically worry too much about this. Which does not mean that it cannot happen of course, but with experience one learns how reliable the system is. The risk of not being able to get rid of the sail exists, but it is pretty small with a reasonably well maintained system with decent sails. And this risk exists to some extent with every type of mainsail.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by nilespf

Quite the discussion we have going. I have a bene361 with In-Mast which dates back to 2002 new. The main is original and as such would probably be considered "blown out". The act of furling has become harder but far from difficult. I'm not a racer so the sail shape arguments don't resonate.

I think you will notice a big difference if you were to replace the main with a good quality dacron sail, we certainly did.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

That's very misleading in that all the manufacturers you mention build to the owner's specs. Before we purchased our boat, we spoke with many of them and they consistently asked what we wanted - not what they want or prefer.

They told us that many buyers simply have no clue how advantageous in-boom furling is compared with mast furling. The 'more money than brains' club isn't a good indicator of what people should do.


Parenthetically, Amel could be commissioned with a furling boom. A friend has one.

So you think that buyers of Oysters, Halberg Rasseys, and Amels are all "more money than brains" people? At least, the 99% who order their boats with in-mast furling? Seriously?



Your experience was not at all mine. I'm guessing your experience must have been decades ago; the world has moved on a lot since then. I spent about a year trying to buy a used Oyster through the Oyster company, then based in Ipswich. I had just come from the States and had never used in-mast furling and had hardly even seen it used, and I didn't think it sounded like a good idea. I was amazed at first that you couldn't buy an Oyster without it, other than special ordering it for a new build. I was skeptical when the Oyster people praised it as by far the best mainsail system for a cruising boat, even a performance cruising boat, and after insisting I actually talked to someone in Rob Humphreys' office, who said the same thing, and moreover, said that if I planned to sail in the Channel and North Sea and beyond rather than going to milder places, they strongly recommend not ordering something other than in-mast furling.

Whether in-boom furling has any great advantages over in-mast -- I have no idea -- not having tried it. But I have known different naval architects, and never heard one express such an opinion. I'm sure boom furling has its virtues, but if it were vastly better, I'm sure it would catch on, but it hasn't.



And if in-mast furling sucked as much as some of those who have never owned it boldly insist, or even half as much, it would not be sold in such numbers, and those who have it, would not love it, like 99% of those who actually have it, do. If it jammed all the time or sailed poorly, people would simply refuse to buy it on the next boat, but they do not. Especially not buyers of high end boats, who in contrast to buyers of mass produced boats, are almost never buying their FIRST boat, but their second, third, or fourth.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Whether in-boom furling has any great advantages over in-mast -- I have no idea -- not having tried it.

I guessed that.

And if in-mast furling sucked as much as some of those who have never owned it boldly insist, .

I guessed you dismissed the opinions of those who, like me, posted their experience. They have, in large number of cases, owned furler masts and had problems. And those who don't like in-mast furlers for valid reasons shouldn't be dismissed either simply because they wouldn't want one.


My point was/is that simply because some high(er) end builders offer mast furlers doesn't mean anything. And certainly not that mast furlers are preferable.



Personally, I wouldn't let my family sail on a boat with one and anyone who claims they are problem-free should always end that sentence with the words 'so far'.

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

That's very misleading in that all the manufacturers you mention build to the owner's specs. Before we purchased our boat, we spoke with many of them and they consistently asked what we wanted - not what they want or prefer.



They told us that many buyers simply have no clue how advantageous in-boom furling is compared with mast furling. The 'more money than brains' club isn't a good indicator of what people should do.


Parenthetically, Amel could be commissioned with a furling boom. A friend has one.

How many miles have you sailed with a inmast furler?, you may have already mentioned this.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by daletournier

How many miles have you sailed with a inmast furler?, you may have already mentioned this.

Frankly, I’m not sure but know we sailed to/from St Lucia three times in the past 10 years from Florida and Newport not that it matters. The problems encountered are what prompted us to have our current boat equipped with a boom furler.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

I guessed you dismissed the opinions of those who, like me, posted their experience. They have, in large number of cases, owned furler masts and had problems. And those who don't like in-mast furlers for valid reasons shouldn't be dismissed either simply because they wouldn't want one.

I dispute this. In my experience, 90% (or more) of people who dislike in-mast furling have never owned it, they've merely heard about it, speculated about it from their armchairs, or had a single bad experience on a charter or on someone else's boat. 90% (or more) of people who have owned it and lived with it, like it, and trust it.



I don't "dismiss" the opinions of anyone -- everyone is entitled to like whatever he likes. I have also said that in-mast furling is positively not good for many use cases. I might not even order it on my own next boat. But I think it's important and useful to counter misconceptions and stereotypes spread by people without direct knowledge.

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

My point was/is that simply because some high(er) end builders offer mast furlers doesn't mean anything. And certainly not that mast furlers are preferable.

They don't merely offer them; they put them on virtually every boat they sell. There's a big difference.


It doesn't mean in-mast furling is preferable for everyone, but the system has certainly gotten an immense amount of traction among the most sophisticated boat buyers of the best and most expensive boats. It's quite a twist to imagine that all these people are idiots.

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Personally, I wouldn't let my family sail on a boat with one and anyone who claims they are problem-free should always end that sentence with the words 'so far'.

No one that I ever heard claimed that they are problem-free. No item of equipment on any sailboat is problem-free. What was claimed is that used with skill and reasonably well maintained, in-mast furling extremely reliable, and those who own this system generally prefer it for the most challenging conditions.


As I mentioned, I had a disaster with a normal slab reefing mainsail, which could have been deadly in the kind of conditions I often sail in in the North Sea. I never said that this means that normal mainsails are unreliable or dangerous -- but any piece of gear can break or jam. I installed the Harken system after that experience, but those break too -- rarely, but it happens.

[gonesail]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

the system has certainly gotten an immense amount of traction among the most sophisticated boat buyers of the best and most expensive boats.

that kinda says it all. if you need to replace the mainsail every couple of years .. so it will not sag or get jammed up .. no problem. sophisticated buyers have deep pockets. the rest of us get full battens and a stack pack

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by gonesail

that kinda says it all. if you need to replace the mainsail every couple of years .. so it will not sag or get jammed up .. no problem. sophisticated buyers have deep pockets. the rest of us get full battens and a stack pack

Yes, carbon laminate sails on my boat. One of several use cases for which in-mast furling is definitely not suitable, is those who use dacron sails and want to keep using them after they've lost their shape.


But I think that many keen sailors without particularly deep pockets like to keep good sails on their boats. A baggy, blown-out mainsail may not jam, if you have a conventional main setup, but neither will it sail decently.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

They don't merely offer them; they put them on virtually every boat they sell. There's a big difference.
.

Nonsense. They put them on when and only when the buyer either specifies it. Implying otherwise is misleading.
No builder would dictate sail handling equipment.

Opinions vary but facts not so much.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

.......


But I think that many keen sailors without particularly deep pockets like to keep good sails on their boats. A baggy, blown-out mainsail may not jam, if you have a conventional main setup, but neither will it sail decently.

I guess it depends a lot on the type of cruising you are doing. Many boats on a typical circumnavigation end up putting on a lot of miles on their sails and are unlikely to be buying new ones half way through if they started with sails in good condition. Being half way around and put on 30 or 40,000 miles is not unusual.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Nonsense. They put them on when and only when the buyer either specifies it. Implying otherwise is misleading.
No builder would dictate sail handling equipment.

Opinions vary but facts not so much.

The fact is that virtually all examples of virtually all high end cruising boats made in Northern Europe are delivered with in-mast furling.


This is totally different from "they offer it". No one said anyone "dictates" it. The fact is that those sailors who buy the most expensive boats and use them in the latitudes with the toughest conditions like it, trust it, buy it again, and their friends buy it, to such an extent that you hardly see any other mainsail system.


You had a couple of bad experiences on one boat which you did not own and you did not maintain or buy sails for, and based on this formed an opinion so firm, that you are willing to believe that the whole world of people who use the system successfully are fools and that the whole world of builders who design their boats to use the system are merely catering to inexperience and foolishness.


I'm not selling in-mast furling, which has several significant disadvantages compared to other systems. Everyone is entitled to like what he likes. But in-mast furling does not, inherently, have the qualities you attribute to it. Your extremely narrow experience with what no doubt was one faulty in-mast furler is contradicted by what virtually all people who actually own the system report. You have turned this into mere prejudice which cannot be called knowledge.


Some people who considered themselves "real sailors", and who considered the rest of the world "people with more money than brains", had similar opinions about headsail furlers, back in the day, after experiencing a halyard wrap or furling line override or whatever, on someone else's boat, something which couldn't happen with "proper" hanked on headsails. It is dangerous to assume that you know something, based on such data.

[Sojourner]

My own two cents of small experience, on our Amel with the factory in mast furling, I can and have reefed on pretty much any point of sail without any drama. Of course it's easiest and best to round up, but it hasn't proven to be necessary. And these boats are far from marina queens. Racing, do as you like. Cruising with my home and cats onboard? I sure prefer some sweet pushbutton action while holding my coffee in the other hand when the wind pipes up, reefing to exactly the amount I need instead of predetermined reef points, and holding my course while I do so. Just as I'm not making my crew railmeat, cruising is about ease and simplicity, and for us, in-mast furling is unbeatable.