Quote:
Originally Posted by S/V Illusion
A large part of the world exists where wind in prevalent throughout the S Pacific, Australia and my favorite place in the world, Ne Zealand, in which sailing is common rather than the exception. Mast furling is the rare exception there and they have some experience which shouldn’t be ignored. |
I don't know anything about
New Zealand, so will defer to your knowledge about that. It is not surprising that different sailing communities may develop different group preferences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by S/V Illusion
Regardless of venue or opinion, mast furling horror stories are ubiquitous consistent with my experience. If you have data to support your claim they are not prone to problems moreso than other variants or are more reliable, why not share it rather than say it’s “easily accessible”? And I’m referring to efficacy rather than popularity, the latter being meaningless and indistinguishable from the ‘dock queen’ group. |
Do you have data to support the claim that "mast horror stories are ubiquitous"? Maybe ubiquitous around certain armchairs, but not among people who have actually lived with it. You have almost no experience of your own and sail where in-mast furling is rare, so I don't think you have any meaningful information. You've heard this and that from here and there and have formed prejudices based on that.
I, on the contrary, have 10 years of experience living with in-mast furling over tens of thousands of tough ocean miles up to latitude 71N, 300 miles above the Arctic circle, and most of the hundreds of sailors I know up here also have in-mast furling with similar or greater volumes of experience, at least those with
boats bigger than 40 feet and less than 20 years old. THIS sailing community likes in-mast furling. They liked it on their last
boat and order it on their next
boats and their friends who sail with them like it and then also buy boats with it. Failures happen but rarely, and "horror stories" are almost unknown, and people have great confidence in the system, and that is why it is popular.
And how could it be otherwise if everyone keeps using it. Not everyone can be "more
money than brains", or "inexperienced", and now -- "dock queens"
. If it sucked, people might buy it once, but they would demand something different on the next
boat. The Brits, maybe along with New Zealanders, according to what I've heard, are probably the best recreational sailors in the world, sailing in some of the toughest waters in the world --
English Channel, North Sea, Western Approaches, stormy, windy, tide-swept waters, around rocky coasts. "Dock queens"? You should hang out around the Needles on a windy
winter day, when it's blowing F7 or F8 and it's +5C and see the crowds of boats heading out of the Solent into the Channel.
Horror stories do exist, or at least stories of failures -- Sir Ben Ainslie himself, I guess the world's most famous sailor at present, chose in-mast furling for his personal yacht, and managed to jam it on his honeymoon.
But Sir Ben admitted it was user error due to inexperience, and nothing seriously bad with in-mast has ever happened to anyone I know, and I sail where virtually EVERYONE has it. People crossing the North Sea in
winter; people who sail the
English Channel; people who sail
Iceland and
Norway. Tough ocean sailors. Once you're familiar with the system, and you understand how to maintain and operate it, you learn to have confidence in it. No one who has ever lived with it, at least not with a modern well-engineered system like Selden, says the stuff you say about it. Don't you wonder why that's so?
Again -- I'm not selling it, and everyone has the right to like what he likes and dislike what he dislikes. But don't spin stuff about what you don't know anything about -- listen to people who own it and have lived with it. It's not for everyone, it has several serious disadvantages, I might not even have it on my next boat, but it
does not suck -- it is highly reliable when operated with minimal skill and kept in reasonable maintained condition, and for people who have it, it is something you are really glad to have when the SHTF in ocean conditions, among other significant advantages.
If you ignore the blow-hard armchair opinions and focus on comments by people who
have lived with and own the various systems, it's obviously that they all -- slab reefing, in-boom reefing, and in-mast furling --
work very well, and none of them is the cause of any horror. And this is logical if you think about it -- if it were otherwise, the horror-producing system would die out as people change them out for something that works better.
Typical comments on the British site ybw.com:
"I used to condemn in mast reefing for all the reasons given, however, I now have it, for short handed cruising it's the DBs.
"With a well cut vertically battened sail I don't think the performance issues are significant.
"It may take me little longer to get to my destination, but when there I don't have to faff about stowing and protecting the sail.
"A convert writes."
I.e., I hated it before I had actual experience with it, but now I have it, and I think "it's the DB" (i.e., "the dog's bollocks", translated, the best thing since sliced bread).
"I have some considerable experience with a Jeaneau 44 and a Comet 9m with in-mast mainsail furling that gave no problems but I felt with both the batten-less mainsails did not seem very efficient but both were quite old. My in-boom mainsail has full-length battens (that stow precisely parallel to the boom when rolled) and that does drive well.
"However, if I had to start all over again with a modern system (not a retro-fit) I would still seriously consider in-mast as I would think jamming is not likely to be an issue and the advantage to reef off the wind a great asset.
I.e., I have a lot of experience with both in-mast and in-boom, and no problems with either. The in-mast I was using didn't have good sail shape, but the
sails were old. I like the in-boom system I have now, but if I were
buying today I would seriously consider in-mast.
"On the packet 485 in mast is standard. As 50 footers go its not a colossal main but without in mast it is still going to be a challenge single handed. I have been totally problem free, and with big powered winches furling and unfurling is unbelievably quick and safe in all weathers - just what you need for short handed cruising a relatively large yacht."
Posted by someone I know personally, who now has a slab reefing boat (an old one), but previously had in-mast:
"I do think, that with an in-mast system, we used the sails more.... for those, 'is it worth it for 10 minutes' decisions, an in-mast made it so quick and easy, that it was!"
And then says he will gladly have in-mast furling again.
Most people who own the system report that they have never had a jam. Those who do report having had a jam, all attribute it to user error and say it was no big deal:
"We have jammed it a couple of times; but that was down to us being too hasty. If you follow the right procedure and take your time you should be fine."
In mast furling pros and cons - Page 5
You can find hundreds if not thousands of posts on the pros and cons of in-mast versus other systems. With hardly any exception, the posts rubbishing the system are written by people who have never owned it, who have merely heard this and that or had a couple of bad experiences on a
charter boat or someone else's boat, or seen some
charter boat coming in with ripped sails, or whatever. With hardly any exception, the posts by people who have actually owned and lived with the system are positive. The same is true for boom furling, and for that matter, slab reefing. Every mainsail system is a compromise of one type or another, and no system sucks, or it wouldn't still be made and
sold.
Case in point!
Linear Mode
Recent Discussions