In-mast vs in-boom furling

[Rumbottle]

Inmast furling: Generally good. The sail-shape is not as good because it is limited by the lack of battons (unless vertical battons are used). As a surveyor I have seen several cases where sails, generally older ones that have stretched, have jammed and were unable to be furled or let out. If this happens when a heavy squall occurs it can result in the sail blowing to pieces (also seen during a survey). On an ocean passage this would be a real pain.


Boom furling: Full length battons can be fitted for proper sail shape. Some boom furlers are excellent and provided the boom topping lift or telescopic vang is properly set they work very well. Some of the older types aren't so good. However if the sail is set up with slab-reefing on longer passages the main can be furled if the boom reefing jams or fails. This only needs to have the 3rd (or upper) reefing line inserted when hoisting the main so that the main can be manually reefed if required, or pulled down to insert the first and second reefing lines.

Hope this assists.

[CarlF]

jmschmidt - 30 minutes to get your mainsail down? While being lashed by waves? It sounds like an advertisment for in-mast furling.

It is quick and easy to reduce sail and stow it with an in-mast or in-boom furler. There's also no need to leave the cockpit to go forward to the mast or try to get gaskets around the flogging canvas.

As I said, the great majority of European monohull cruising sailboats built in the last 15 years have come with in mast furling. These systems are greatly improved from the first units 25 years ago. I would guess that the majority of European circumnavigating monohull cruising boats now have them and are the safer for it.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Training Wheels

Because on square top sails the top barren runs diagonally. How are you going to roll that up?

If it’s diagonal I don’t guess you would.
I’d guess you would furl until you would get to that, and to completely furl the sail you would remove it.
However if your completely furling the sail, you have to go up there and remove the Halyard anyway don’t you, and put a cover over the boom to protect from UV?
Of course it doesn’t seem that all Cats have square topped sails do they?
I guess your saying that no Cat can have a furling main sail, or that Cat owners don’t have to get to the boom?

[nortonscove]

Originally Posted by LittleWing77

The reason you can't find much info is that both systems are known to be highly problematic (when they work, they seem great, but they rarely work well - or for long) and have essentially gone the way of the dodo.

Perhaps get yourself a Doyle stackpack...

Good luck - it's exciting at the beginning of your sailing journey.

Warmly,
LittleWing

WHAT. And dare I say WHAT again. Really? Both have gone the way of the dodo? I'd say in mast has gone the way of the headsail furler.

[Oceansailor]

Originally Posted by Medved

So the only thing that does not make sense is how come expensive ocean sailing yachts like Discovery, Amel, Oyster use in-mast. At those prices I am sure they can afford to provide an in-boom, and yet that is not what they choose to do. This is what is not connecting for me.

The reason is that they in some cases refuse to deliver in-boom as they do not want to end up in endless discussions with customers who have problem using the system.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Medved

So the only thing that does not make sense is how come expensive ocean sailing yachts like Discovery, Amel, Oyster use in-mast. At those prices I am sure they can afford to provide an in-boom, and yet that is not what they choose to do. This is what is not connecting for me.

There is no incentive for yacht builders to use in-boom furling systems. Even if it provides better sail shape and size and less weigh aloft, few buyers find those points persuasive. Further, as has been said, in-boom furling takes a bit more care or skill to use due to the need to keep the boom perpendicular to the sail while furling, and owners having problems might tend to call the builders and complain.

On the other hand, in mast is easier for many sailors and if it is less effective as a sail, who cares?

Builders are not purists, they will build what buyers want and expect and buyers these days are not purists either, in fact damn few are even sailors.

[daletournier]

I think people overestimate the performance loss regarding inmast vs normal. Yes it's not as a powerful but the ease at which it is deployed and furled often make up the performance, you use it often, and adjust it often because it's easy.

If your racer ok ,it maybe important but in the long distance cruising world the difference from what I've experienced is insignificant.

I think DH elaborated on this earlier.

[mikedefieslife]

Originally Posted by daletournier

If your racer ok ,it maybe important but in the long distance cruising world the difference from what I've experienced is insignificant.

I think DH elaborated on this earlier.

Isn't long distance cruising when the performance is more important?

An extra quarter of a knot (if it is that much) over 10,000 miles is a massive difference. Whether it matters to the owners or not is another issue.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by CarlF

Last three boats have been Doyle Stack Pack (on a Sabre) , Selden InMast (a Discovery), Schaefer InBoom (Shannon).

I've like the Schaefer in-boom the best. The sail was designed by Mack with a lot of roach, full length horizontal battens - even a slightly square top. It's a very powerful sail compared to my old in-mast sail which even had vertical battens. The Schaefer articulating mast track makes it easy to reef on a run. This is a huge improvement over the Leisurefurl boom. I use an electric winch and a small snubbing winch to keep tension on both lines. This makes everything wind neatly. This is no big deal. It's no different than keeping some tension on your genoa sheets when furling to get a neat wrap - or when unfurling the genoa keeping some tension on the furling line as it goes out so it doesn't make a mess in the furling drum. If you can't afford an electric winch for the halyard, in-boom isn't the system for you.

. . .

The only real issue with the in-boom is leach control. It's really easiest to have a permanently set vang to keep the boom-to-mast angle just right. This means you need a sailmaker with a lot of experience with these sails. They need a double layer of cloth on the leach to keep it from stretching. And you adjust the leach tension by furling the sail a few inches - but only if the sailmaker cut it that way. I think this is another reason the boom furlers are less popular in Europe because the local sailmakers don't have much experience with these sails.

But as to the question of in-mast or in-boom, I'd be happy with either. There are many more important choices when buying a boat.

Reference video linked below regarding details of Schaefer's articulating mast track and in-boom furling.

https://www.schaefermarine.com/our-p.../boom-furlers/

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by mikedefieslife

Isn't long distance cruising when the performance is more important?

An extra quarter of a knot (if it is that much) over 10,000 miles is a massive difference. Whether it matters to the owners or not is another issue.

Hi Mike, your not understanding or I'm not communicating clearly what I mean.

The performance difference imho isn't that noticable while long distance cruising, it's often made up for by the ease of sail handling and once the wind picks up the differences become less and less.

I used an example earlier of just completing a 1950nm passage with 2 other boats, a bene 473 and a tayana 52, we anchored within the same hour!!! The beneteau carries a much larger Genoa than I do and both have more powerful mains BUT in reality this is compensated for by how easy I furl and unfurl while they leave a reef in until they are sure of weather consistency.

Also in the lighter winds when their more powerful mains make a difference I throw up my code zero on a continuous line furler and that changes the game.

Keep in mind a lot of long distance cruising is down wind, main sail shape matters less.

I've done approx 9,000nm in the last 12 months with these two boats, I've been able to compare for hrs on end how the boats perform, code zeros vs assymetricals, big mains vs inmast etc, and yes the the fully batterned main is faster in certain conditions all else being equal BUT throw in all the variables of long distance cruising and they aren't, or it's not noticable.

[Alita49DS]

This is a very old chestnut. Yachting Monthly tested all the systems some time ago. The conckusion was that in mast was the safest and easiest with the less than perfect unreefed sail shape being balanced by better reefed profile coupled to better size adjustment.

All systems can jam. With in mast it is invariably due to user error.

In boom is OK but a grind to get the sail up. So budget for an electric winch.

In mast has another huge benefit : when furled away the sail is well protected from the elements so is likely to last longer.

Finally, both in mast and in boom look a lot neater than a sausage stuck on top of a pole!

In sum, there are still those who will argue that a hanked on jib gives a better profile. Maybe. But who enjoys getting soaked on a bouncing foredeck? As against pulling a bit of string from the safety of the cockpit.

[Tillsbury]

I’ve had (new) inmast furling and found it no problem (compared to some older systems I’ve sailed on which were much more finicky. However, I’ve also tried the more modern in-boom systems like Leisurefurl and they are fabulous. Yes, you have to follow procedure, just like you do to get reliable in-mast furling to work repeatedly, but the advantages of good roach, battens, weight low down and the emergency ability to drop the sail are biggies. If i were to order a new boat I would certainly budget for a good in-boom system.

I am surprised, however, that my current well-sorted slab main system is so easy to use single-handed. For that reason my original budget to replace it with in-boom has been delayed indefinitely.

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by Sand crab

A Maine Cat 41 was sold last year with a boom furler. I think I've seen both systems on other cats but don't recall the specifics.

Excellent question.

I've looked at a lot of cats in my area, lazy jacks, yes. None of them had any furling systems, in boom, or in mast.

The local dealer stated "cats wont have an in mast furler because of the sail shape".

I'm sure the sails could be flatter, but the large roach (leech), requires battens which makes in mast problematic.

I'm waiting to buy one for that reason.

[dkenny64]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Really old school from the 1970’s/1980’s, technology have moved on and improved.

so is the wheel.. but we keep using it..


sorry you think its old school..but if the mast and boom already exist.
is an option that doesn't require replacing either.


in the case of my boat.. replacing the mast would 10-15K. not cunting the cost of the interior work change..then the power requirements..

the boom 2-5k? instead the former owners replaced the stackpack type
sail with a roller furler behind the mast..


roller furlers on jibs are still in right..? so what's old school? if it works keep it.


-dkenny64

[saillr]

I have tried to stay out of this but there are times when you just have to say something.
Alita 49DS says -
"In mast has another huge benefit : when furled away the sail is well protected from the elements so is likely to last longer."
So much BS but I assume the person has no idea what boom furling really is. The sail is well protected in both cases but the outer exposed portions of the sail at the slot do need protecting from UV. My Schaeffer system has a little cover that slides over the slot and covers completely the sail. Not sure how they protect the in-mast sail while its furled. I doubt I would call this a "Huge Benefit".
Tillsbury makes a very good point. One of the major things in my mind is weight aloft. The in-mast type mast is much heavier because of the extra beef required to compensate for the slot cut in the entire length of mast. Also when at anchor the entire sail is still aloft so additional weight causing more rock and roll at anchor.
Several have suggested that performance is their main thing about one system over the other. I say simplicity should be the main thing. When you are solo and tired and the conditions are getting tough the last thing I worry about is the main. in my conventional sailing it was always the other way around. Handling that big sail with heavy boom etc in a blow at night was a concern especially short handed. Most long distance sailing is off the wind (or hopefully so). I have done about 20,000 miles solo on my Schaeffer system and it is comforting to know that you can get a few winks and if you wake with the wind rising it is easy to reduce sail without coming head to wind. Just ease the pressure on the sail and roll it in.
Leach control is surprisingly done with halyard tension. The sails are cut quite flat and the draft is reasonably controlled with halyard tension. The foot is fixed it is true and that would be nice to have variable but what the heck! we are cruising not racing. I have the angle fixed by a solid vang and it has not been adjusted in ten years and I still get great even rolls. Again the performance guys are going to shake their head but ease up - its cruising.
Also the other major factor is the jam. It may never come but when it does it is usually at the worst possible time. Everything going wrong. Night - dark - You need to get rid of that sail thrashing and the boom trying to take everything in site out of action. You know the story if you have been there. You will get a jam someday. At least with boom furling you can drop the sail and lash it.