The answer ISN"T an electric or a bigger windlass
Wilbur Hubbard
electric windlass when it came to the point whereby a largish 65 pound
anchor was difficult or injurious to the crew attempting to weigh said
anchor.
This is a stupid suggestion. The PROPER thing to do is get a smaller anchor.
Get ground tackle that the crew can handle without breaking his or her back
or giving themselves a stroke or heart attack. It is a well known fact that
a genuine Danforth Hi-tensile or Deep Set anchor or two weighing 25 pounds
each can securely anchor a vessel of up to thirty feet LOA.
So, the answer is NOT a larger or electric windlass but, rather, a SMALLER
BOAT!
Many people tend to fall into the trap of believing that bigger is better.
Not so! Bigger may be better but only if you are able to handle bigger. When
it comes to elderly folks towards or at the end of their useful sailing
careers - Bruce in Bangkok comes to mind - the wisest decision would be to
take stock of yourself, your much reduced abilities and lack of youthful
vigor and then chose a boat you can actually still handle. This means
downsizing. This means simplicity.
There is many a well-found and seaworthy vessel in the 25-30 foot range and
the anchors for such a vessel are not such a great burden that they must be
handled with heavy, trouble-prone, mechanical and electrical systems.
Because with age often comes not only muscle and bone weakness but weakness
of mind, eyesight, and hearing. Consequently, the ability to troubleshoot
mechanical and electrical systems may be greatly reduced or non-existent (as
is the case with Bruce in Bangkok or it would seem so from his
embarrassingly simplistic mechanical and electrical posts).
Rather than compound folly by trying to maintain such a large vessel that
sailing becomes dangerous or burdensome and a menace to other shipping (as
is the case with one Skip Grundlach as well as the captain of the erstwhile
'Red Cloud') it would be better for all concerned if such folks sailed
vessels that they could handle comfortably and so enjoy to a greater extent
and a longer time because of the reduced stress and wear and tear on the
failing old body.
Sometimes I think JimC has the right idea. For some people a Mac26X or M
might just be an ideal vessel. They are small, light can sail and motor
passably well and can even be trailored. They don't strain or stress their
crew. And, try as I might I've found it difficult to find a MacGregor owner
who was really dissatisfied with his small compromise vessel. Not that I'd
dare take a Mac26 on a long ocean voyage but I suppose a body would probably
be safer in one provided one knew how to sail her and realized her
limitations than in some old steel boat that was for her crew too big,
heavy, and ill-conceived and mechanically unsound to the point where her own
rudder punched holes in the transom. This would never happen in a MacGregor.
The rudders might break completely off without damaging the hull but that
would not be a disaster as the outboard motor could then be pressed into
service to do the steering.
But, I digress somewhat! The point is as you age and near the end of your
sailing career, think small. It will extend the days of bliss upon the
watery world. After all, isn't that what sailing's really all about.
Wilbur Hubbard
Wesley Mouch
news:480269aa$0$94988$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com:
Would you be interested in a good government job in our News Media
Liason Department. You seem to know your stuff. The more old folks we
can get to go sailing in small, unseaworthy boats means more likely loss
of life. This could reduce the burgeoning cost of government services to
the aged.
Scientific studies indicate that the U.S.A. will be crushed economically
by the growing tide of aged Americans because of the payment of
government entitlements they have been promised. However, what we got
here is a ponzi scheme. This house of cards will tumble and fall unless
we can flood the country with young illegal aliens and put them to work
so they pay Medicare and Soach Security but deny or delay them
citizenship so they cannot collect benefits. This will swell the coffers
but anything the government can do to increase the retirement age or
facilitate the passing on of the elderly will be even more helpful from
the standpoint of increasing funds by decreasing payouts. This one/two
punch approach will ensure continued healthy and growing government.
And a hefty luxury tax should be immediately assessed on every
recreational boat sold. The function of any populace is to grow
government because a large involved government knows what is best for
its citizens. This benefits society in the long run.
--
W. Mouch, State Science Institute
Don White
"Wilbur Hubbard" <wilbur...@thefarm.invalid> wrote in message
news:480269aa$0$94988$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
I guess a Coronado 26 would be fine if you only cruised mosquito infested
Florida swampland.
Paul Cassel
/ rode you can handle when reliable windlasses are easily available.
I recommend a different rant - that of sail size. Most people are
defeated more by sail handling than anchor handling. BTW, if you wish to
further rant on anchors, I suggest you rant on Fortress rather than
Danforth hi tensile as the Fortress are even lighter.
For those of you who wish information, a Danforth or Fortress is a fine
anchor in some conditions such as sand, but not nearly as good in oyster
or rock.
Personally, I see no issues with an electric windless (or capstan). I've
never heard of a boat being permanently anchored due to the windless
failing to weigh anchor. Have you?
-paul
dougk...@yahoo.com
> Personally, I see no issues with an electric windless (or capstan).
The worst case scenario that I can think of (and have no idea if it's
ever happened) is that the anchor failing to set and the crew unable
to pull it up for another try.
> .... I've
> never heard of a boat being permanently anchored due to the windless
> failing to weigh anchor. Have you?
>
Are you going to ask "Wilbur Hubbard" to justify his irrational
dislikes & prejudices? What's next, asking him to rationalize his
behavior?
DSK
Capt. JG
news:cdd4f02c-ce04-4981...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
I'm trying to remember ever being on a boat that had a windlass that didn't
have the ability to use a winch handle and do it manually. I suppose they're
out there, but it seems like an inexpensive backup. And, even if it didn't I
suppose you could use the biggest winch you have. I just wouldn't use it for
breaking free.
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com
Bob
wrote:
the answer is NOT a larger or electric windlass but, rather, a
SMALLER
> BOAT!
> Wilbur Hubbard
My honored poster,
I agree however I would also suggest an alternative: A much large boat
with a crew. Say 80'+ with a crew to do all the work. The problme as
I see it is the infirm and unable simply want to live beyond their
means. so they get the biggest boat they can not handle. Another case
of unrealistic expectatoins. Such as ," im 57 years old and have the
back of a 30 year old." DENILE............the sinker of boats.
Bob
Roger Long
>Another case of unrealistic expectations. Such as ," im 57 years old and
>have the
>back of a 30 year old." DENILE............the sinker of boats.
OK, I'll fess up. I only left Bob and Wilbur in the killfile until after my
next nap. The stress, fatigue, and drugs of my first hospitalization in 45
years had me a bit cranky last week and my perspective was not all it
usually
is. In a group like this, as long as the subject actually is boats and
cruising, we should expect and tolerate some profanity, stupidity, putting
words in others mouths and then attacking them.
I was stunned to find myself agreeing with Wilbur on something, not the
I'm-the-only-real-sailor-here, you're-an-idiot-if-you-don't-agree-with-me,
tone of the OP (and most of his posts) but the essential point about boat
size. After my first season with "Strider", when I realized that I wanted
to go back to my roots and give up flying so I could get her ready to do
extensive cruising in my retirement, I thought about selling her before I
was too deep in the hole with upgrades and getting a larger boat. I quickly
realized though that economically and physically, I would be able to sail
the 32 footer years longer than something in the 40 - 45 foot range and that
was a good trade off for less space and comfort. Lesser boats have gone
around the world with not a significantly smaller success ratio than larger
ones.
This is a personal choice, not an absolute. If you must have refrigeration,
Internet, air conditioning, separate cabins, etc., the years you spend
ashore instead of cruising make the larger boat a valid choice. My choice
is largely colored by having been away from sailing and cruising for nearly
two decades. If I had been sailing and cruising all those years, I might
well feel differently.
As for the quoted portion above, I have never heard of the river in Egypt
sinking boats that weren't actually on it. As one who has professionally
spent more of his professional life studying the loss of sailing vessels
than I'm sure anyone in this group ever even heard of, I would say that
*denial* is a link in may accident chains.
One of the things that annoys me about Wilbur's "Bob" personna, along with
putting his words in to other's mouths and then attacking them, is simply
pretending not to have heard the answers. I previously pointed out that I
misspoke, not being quite as sharp these days as usual. The doctor did not
say that I have the back, or anything else, of a 30 year old; just the spine
and specifically the disks. I do have one damaged disk but he said he sees
those in 20 something fitness buffs. It is quite clear to me that I am a lot
more failure prone and maintenance intensive than I was in youth and will
get more so every year. That's why I agree with Wilbur about boat size.
I have been down to see and contemplate the Titanic. Despite some primitive
features in her construction, she was a more seaworthy and survivable ship
than most vessels that have put to sea since. There are books about
sailing vessel accidents with long index entries after my name referencing
my investigation and analysis of their demise. I have had friends lost at
sea, among them two women that I loved in separate incidents.
Could anyone seriously suggest that I am in denial about the danger and
power of the sea?
--
Roger Long
Wilbur Hubbard
"Paul Cassel" <pcassel...@comremovecast.net> wrote in message
news:d6Sdnf1h3b8ND5_V...@comcast.com...
> Strikes me as silly to size your boat to the mass of the maximum anchor /
> rode you can handle when reliable windlasses are easily available.
>
> I recommend a different rant - that of sail size. Most people are defeated
> more by sail handling than anchor handling. BTW, if you wish to further
> rant on anchors, I suggest you rant on Fortress rather than Danforth hi
> tensile as the Fortress are even lighter.
Sail size is also important. But, it is often stated by competent sailors
who write about such things that a man in good physical condition can hand
and/or reef individual sails up to 500 square feet each even in strong
winds. This size sail can be found on boats up to about forty feet LOA which
vessels require anchors in the 50-60 pound range to be held securely in a
storm.
Therefore, though sail size is a limiting factor, it is not as big a
limiting factor as anchor weight. And, I would suggest that more vessels get
in trouble due to folks futzing around with anchors that are too heavy for
them to handle than with sails that are on the largish end of the spectrum.
A "lunch hook" is a trouble hook. Always use an anchor sized for the vessel
and sized on the heavy end of the spectrum for added safety even when just
anchoring for lunch in seeming benign conditions. It is often truly stated
that it's not the water that usually damages or destroys boats but the hard
stuff around the water's edge and weather is fickle and unreliable so why
trust to luck?
But, let's examine the folly of large yachts for the elderly and those
others of diminished physical capacity. Large yachts do indeed, require
large heavy anchors. These then require large, heavy, high-amperage
windlasses, long lengths of heavy chain which in turn require a large heavy
battery bank, generator or heavy diesel with heavy alternator, heavy thick
wiring etc. All these things are failure-prone in the salt water
environment. And, when one has a large heavy generator and auxiliary one
usually has large heavy tankage and perhaps one or two large heavy
refrigerators/freezers and all sorts of other electrical systems all of
which require proper and constant maintenance. Is this how an elderly crew
of a too-large vessel wants to spend their majority of their time?
Or do they really wish to enjoy sailing in a more pure form. Small yachts
allow more sailing time for the buck. They allow more enjoyable sailing
because of the reduced physical effort required. In that regard they can be
said to be safer because time spent learning how to sail the vessel
competently is increased because maintenance and trouble-shooting time is
decreased. If you've been following the soap opera that is the Skip Gundlach
show you will know exactly what I'm talking about as the bulk of his time
seems to be spent as an aground (and sometimes water-borne) grease monkey,
electrician, plumber, carpenter, etc.
While some of you who are on the younger side of the spectrum find this
interesting and challenging, I would argue than elderly folks have been
there/done that and would rather be sailing than mucking around with grease
up their elbows squinting at things they can hardly see anymore and busting
their fragile skin and knuckles on sharp objects or straining their
skeletons and musculature attempting to squeeze into awkward positions or
lifting heavy objects.
On the subject of the Fortress aluminum anchor let me say this. Every real
sailor knows that a light aluminum anchor is a joke in anything but ideal
conditions. If there is a stout current running which is the case in many
anchorages the damned things are worst than useless. They fly like a kite in
the current and likely will never grab bottom. People who are sold on
Fortress anchors are duffers who are obviously inexperienced lake and calm
water sailors. People like that certainly are NOT to be considered qualified
blue water sailors for their disregard for prudence and safety is readily
apparent.
> For those of you who wish information, a Danforth or Fortress is a fine
> anchor in some conditions such as sand, but not nearly as good in oyster
> or rock.
One should carry a variety of anchors suited to a variety of bottom types.
That's quite obvious but each and every one should be of a size that a
crewman or woman can hand without mechanical/electrical assistance because
sooner or later systems will fail and the safety of the yacht compromised.
This means a smaller yacht is called for when smaller abilities are
contained therein. Light aluminum anchors have no place on a well-found
ocean going yacht. They are a joke, an illusion and a travesty. That they
continued to be sold is a commentary on how sailing has become just another
bastion of the sloppy and inept.
> Personally, I see no issues with an electric windless (or capstan). I've
> never heard of a boat being permanently anchored due to the windless
> failing to weigh anchor. Have you?
Permanent, no! Delayed, yes oftentimes. Real sailors brook no delay based on
the frivolous or an imagined necessity that, in reality, is little more than
a ball and chain?
Wilbur Hubbard
Bruce in Bangkok
I think that the problem lies with the definition of the word
"cruising". What is a cruising boat? Noticeably to a lot of the
denizens of this group it is a boat that you can spend the night on;
make a week, maybe a two week, "cruise" on.
But to a lot of us it is a boat that we can live on for months at a
time and there is a big difference in a boat that you spend Easter
weekend on and a boat that is your home for months.
Try it sometime. Take all the duds you want down to the boat and stow
them. Now move aboard and you can't go home for six months. If it
ain't there you either do without or go and buy a new one.
Ah Ha! This changes the equation just a little. You play the Banjo?
Well, find a place to store it. You might need a pair of clean pants -
find a place to store them. No keeping boat parts at the garage
either. They got to be aboard.
Right at the moment I have my wife's sister and her girlfriend staying
on the boat (in addition to my wife and I) and we damned near have to
go to bed by the numbers. Have you ever sat and watched three women
get ready for bed? The amount of stuff that they smear on their faces
would lubricate my engine for then next six months.
The reason I always tell people that they need a forty foot boat isn't
because it takes forty feet to keep two people's head above water. It
takes forty feet to keep two people AND all the tools, spares, parts,
cooking pots, clothes and the Banjo above water.
You don't believe me? Try it. Move on the boat and don't got home for
six months.
Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)
Wilbur Hubbard
"Bob" <frey...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a1dbc0b9-5240-48f4...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> My honored poster,
>
> I agree however I would also suggest an alternative: A much large boat
> with a crew. Say 80'+ with a crew to do all the work. The problme as
> I see it is the infirm and unable simply want to live beyond their
> means. so they get the biggest boat they can not handle. Another case
> of unrealistic expectatoins. Such as ," im 57 years old and have the
> back of a 30 year old." DENILE............the sinker of boats.
> Bob
How right you are, sir! But add the word, "competent." Take my Swan 68, for
example. My crew can handle her and win races with her. But, they do so
because I've chosen them wisely. If they do not demonstrate competence,
strength, endurance and finesse they are not allowed to participate. I
insist upon a crew that delivers what I ship them for - winning. If they
don't win they don't ride!
People get into bad habits. In the typical boating lifespan individuals
(Bobsprit comes to mind) often buy boats that increase in size, purchase
after purchase, simply because the individual is more concerned with
imagined prestige, comfort and convenience than reality. Never mind they
already couldn't competently handle the smaller yacht because it was already
too large for them, they imagine that a larger yacht will solve all their
self-imposed problems while the opposite is true - it magnifies all their
existing deficiencies! It's the water-borne Peter Principle. The owner and
crew rises to the level of greatest ineptitude.
Elderly folks and the infirm need to use good and common sense and at some
point reverse the trend towards larger and larger. The yacht needs to fit
the abilities of the crew and an elderly couple should realize that they
need to downsize at some point or they will find themselves, like Bruce in
Bangkok, stuck in some backwater with their cruising plans on permanent
hold - defeated by size and complexity that's beyond their limited means to
handle.
Wilbur Hubbard
Roger Long
"cruising" and "living aboard". Being a northerner who has spent his life
in the cycle of the seasons and planning cruises north where the seasons are
even shorter, a shore base is a given for me. Being in love with a woman
who likes gardens and neighbors more, and cruising in *slightly* less than I
do is also a factor.
I expect to spend some long periods essentially living aboard but my needs
are simple as long as I can keep moving and see new things. If I planned to
abandon all physical presence ashore, I expect I would decide I need a
larger boat.
--
Roger Long
Wilbur Hubbard
"Bruce in Bangkok" <b*paige*125@g*mail.com> wrote in message
news:0mj604l69604fg2a0...@4ax.com...
> The reason I always tell people that they need a forty foot boat isn't
> because it takes forty feet to keep two people's head above water. It
> takes forty feet to keep two people AND all the tools, spares, parts,
> cooking pots, clothes and the Banjo above water.
>
You are soooo wrong! If your first priority is a sailboat large enough to
make it a seaborne reflection of your shoreside residence filled will all
the luxuries and frivolity of said lubberly abode then please STAY ashore.
Leave the waters of this world to those of us who know how to enjoy them in
a fashion that is concordant with life at sea and not some bastardization of
it with a mini-commercial cruise ship that belches noise, pollution and
danger 24/7. If I wish to live in a smelly, noisy truck stop I will buy an
RV and park in truck stops. But I wish to live and enjoy the clean, quite
and sane waters in a realistic, simple manner that is in harmony with my
chosen path. You people who think you have to take the land to sea ruin it
for those of us who understand and enjoy the cruising life as it was meant
to be - simple, quiet, trouble-free and sane.
One other thing. Your philosophy has been proven to be bankrupt. Your
example is one of being stuck at a dock in your dotage because your floating
home with all its out of place shoreside amenities is now proven unsuited to
cruising. You are no longer able to sail because you can no longer handle
the size and complications you unnecessarily imposed. Try as you might any
other excuse for your self-imposed retirement from sailing won't wash. It's
the size and complication of your vessel that has retired you - nothing
else.
So don't proselytize to me! I am approximately your age and I still live
aboard and cruise precisely because my vessel is not some big, opulent,
system-laden, floating condominium that's beyond my means to get under way,
let alone voyage.
Wilbur Hubbard
Don White
<sa...@dog.com> wrote in message
news:h6o604dpshn8ofucm...@4ax.com...
>
~~ SNERK ~~
Wilbur Hubbard
<sa...@dog.com> wrote in message
news:h6o604dpshn8ofucm...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:24:20 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
> <wilbur...@thefarm.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>
>
But, I don't live aboard my Swan. She's a racer and a thoroughbred made for
going fast and kicking ass.
I live aboard my Allied Seawind 32, "Sea Isle." She is simple, seaworthy
and a competent circumnavigator. So, as you can see, I practice what I
preach. I do "cheat" a little bit, though, with the anchors. I don't have a
windlass on the foredeck but I do have a large Barlow, Stainless Steel,
two-speed manual sheet winch with which to facilitate breaking out the
anchor.
Wilbur Hubbard
Richard Casady
wrote:
>One could run the rode back to the primary winches but I don't
>think they would handle chain very well.
The sailing battleships had a hemp rode something like four inches in
diameter, They would attach a length of smaller stuff to the rode and
lead that to the capstan.
Casady
Edgar
"Wilbur Hubbard" <wilbur...@thefarm.invalid> wrote in message
<heavily snipped-Wilbur seems to think that older people are all decrepit
and unfit>
> On the subject of the Fortress aluminum anchor let me say this. Every
real
> sailor knows that a light aluminum anchor is a joke in anything but ideal
> conditions.
Wilbur got that right anyway. And Fortress anchors are not even solid. some
parts are held on with little screws!
Capt. JG
news:suudnaFf77j...@telenor.com...
So what Neal is saying is... use an anchor appropriate to the bottom.
Duhhh... not exactly rocket science to figure that out.
Wilbur Hubbard
"Edgar" <ejc...@REMOVEonline.no> wrote in message
news:suudnaFf77j...@telenor.com...
>
> news:48035148$0$94970$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
>
> <heavily snipped-Wilbur seems to think that older people are all decrepit
> and unfit>
Because they all ARE! It's a biological fact that the elderly are much
diminished from their mental and physical capacites they embodied in their
prime. It's nothing to be ashamed of but it IS something that should be
taken into consideration. To deny aging equates to diminished capacity is to
deny reality.
>
> > On the subject of the Fortress aluminum anchor let me say this. Every
> real
>> sailor knows that a light aluminum anchor is a joke in anything but ideal
>> conditions.
>
> Wilbur got that right anyway. And Fortress anchors are not even solid.
> some parts are held on with little screws!
At least there still remains to you some common sense. When I stated that
Fortress anchors are a joke I meant every word of it.
An aluminum anchor is tantamount to a lead balloon! There exists a market
for such garbage only because of stupid, ignorant or crazy people.
Wilbur Hubbard
Bob
> OK, I'll fess up. I only left Bob and Wilbur in the killfile until after my
> next nap. The stress, fatigue, and drugs of my first hospitalization in 45
> years had me a bit cranky last week and my perspective was not all it
> usually> is. In a group like this, as long as the subject actually is boats and
> cruising, we should expect and tolerate some profanity, stupidity, putting
> words in others mouths and then attacking them.
> Roger Long
My Dearest Roger,
I accept you appology. Thank you
:)
Bob
cavelamb himself
>
> My Lumar Concept 1 can let the anchor go in free fall so even if the windlass
> fails one can anchor the boat. But you can't use a winch handle to bring it
> back up. With a Delta 35 and all chain rode, we pray a lot that the windlass
> does not fail. One could run the rode back to the primary winches but I don't
>
The old square riggers used an endless line on the capstan that attached
to the anchor cable via "nippers".
Could be done that way with lines on the winch hooked to the chain?
Roger Long
I have also just been informed privately by a source I trust that you are
not, in fact Wilbur. I therefore owe you another apology and will treat you
with more respect in the future.
--
Roger Long
Wilbur Hubbard
"Roger Long" <str...@maine.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4803a6f2$0$4068$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Does that mean you will continue to disrespect me, Wilbur Hubbard? And
please stop acting like a girly-man with your meaningless apologies.
Wilbur Hubbard
tsm...@gmail.com
> The reason I always tell people that they need a forty foot boat isn't
> because it takes forty feet to keep two people's head above water. It
> takes forty feet to keep two people AND all the tools, spares, parts,
> cooking pots, clothes and the Banjo above water.
Curiously, stuff seems to accumulate to fill all the available space.
Lots of couples live aboard full time and cruise widely in 35 ish feet
of moderate displacement. I tend to think that 36' is close to the
magic compromise in terms of space and cost and workability for a
voyaging couple on a monohull. I'd take ten feet off that for day-
sailing and the occasional extended weekend. Cats need a bit more
size offshore. But, YMMV big time.
-- Tom.
Capt. JG
news:b68266d5-8180-410d...@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I find my 30-footer the perfect size for "extended" day cruising and several
overnights. It's big enough to be comfortable, yet it's small enough to make
single-handing a breeze in most conditions.
Roger Long
--
Roger Long
Bloody Horvath
<wilbur...@thefarm.invalid> wrote this crap:
>Therefore, though sail size is a limiting factor, it is not as big a
>limiting factor as anchor weight. And, I would suggest that more vessels get
>in trouble due to folks futzing around with anchors that are too heavy for
>them to handle than with sails that are on the largish end of the spectrum.
>A "lunch hook" is a trouble hook. Always use an anchor sized for the vessel
>Wilbur Hubbard
I have a thirty-five foot yacht, and NO electric windlass. I have no
problem pulling up the anchor. IMO you don't need one until you get
40 foot or larger.
Hor...@Horvath.net
I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.
Roger Long
anchor in a brisk wind without starting the engine, and I seldom do if I'm
going to sail immediately, I take the anchor rode to the main halyard winch
and just wind the boat up till the rode is straight up and down. Then I
stow most of the line and raise the main. By that time, the hook is pretty
well broken out and I just pull it briskly aboard.
I've also used a mast winch to pull a boat off a mud bank after running an
anchor out in a dinghy.
BTW I have one of those girlie Fortress Anchors for a second anchor. It's
great for a stern anchor and kedge for grounding situations because it can
be handled easily. The Danforth type configuration is great for hooking
over the transom of a dinghy and rowing out to set. Just pop it off the
transom. I brought "Strider" back into the slip unassisted from out in the
ship channel in Portland after losing a bolt in the transmission linkage by
running anchors out alternately until I could row one of the anchor rodes
ashore. It was an interesting and satisfying exercise and gathered quite an
audience. The kids stayed below reading comic books which is when I
realized they weren't going to take readily to this sailor stuff.
I've watched a fairly small Danforth pull a Pearson 26 repeatedly through
waves so they were running about two feet deep down the deck for a couple
hours (don't ask me how, it was early in my cruising career). Having
designed structures and equipment in both steel and aluminum, I have no
qualms about my Fortress standing up to the strains that sand, mud, or
gravel can put on it.
--
Roger Long
mari...@nb.sympatico.ca
"Bloody Horvath" <Blo...@Horvath.net> wrote in message
news:dil704lo0j7mb46lm...@4ax.com...
For your perusal:
Your thirty-five foot yacht, subject to where your are cruising, requires at
least a primary anchor of about 35 pounds and a secondary one of about the
same size. You may be able to get away with an aluminum anchor like the
Fortress or equivalent of about 18 pounds. Not mention the weight of the
chain you have a fair load to hoist. Compound this with a fresh wind when
you lift your anchor and you will not have to go to Body Plus (Gym) that
evening).
The other way is to use an undersize anchor and lifting become much easier
as well as dragging when the wind starts to freshen up. I never had a
windlass for decades with my previous boat using a 13 pounds Danford.
Now, with my new boat I carry three anchors, two of 35 pounds each and one
of 18 pounds. Having pulled my old Danford for decades I appreciate the
electric windlass. My windlass will not work unless the boat engine is on.
Should the windlass becomes not operational I can always return to my basic
training to pull the anchor or use one of the winches.
Bloody Horvath
this crap:
>> I have a thirty-five foot yacht, and NO electric windlass. I have no
>> problem pulling up the anchor. IMO you don't need one until you get
>> 40 foot or larger.
>For your perusal:
>Your thirty-five foot yacht, subject to where your are cruising, requires at
>least a primary anchor of about 35 pounds and a secondary one of about the
Yeah. So what?
>same size. You may be able to get away with an aluminum anchor like the
>Fortress or equivalent of about 18 pounds. Not mention the weight of the
>chain you have a fair load to hoist. Compound this with a fresh wind when
>you lift your anchor and you will not have to go to Body Plus (Gym) that
>evening).
35 lbs. is hardly more than a sixteen pound bowling ball in each hand.
If you can't handle that... shape up or ship out.
My sixteen year old nephew can pull up the anchor.
Paul Cassel
>
> Sail size is also important. But, it is often stated by competent sailors
> who write about such things that a man in good physical condition can hand
> and/or reef individual sails up to 500 square feet each even in strong
> winds. This size sail can be found on boats up to about forty feet LOA which
> vessels require anchors in the 50-60 pound range to be held securely in a
> storm.
>
> Therefore, though sail size is a limiting factor, it is not as big a
> limiting factor as anchor weight.
My personal experience does not agree. My 42' boat has a displacement of
roughly 33,000 lbs. It has a mainsail area of roughly 450 feet. I have
no problems weighing anchor of 65 lbs with a reasonable lead of chain /
rope rode, but I do have a serious issue handling the mainsail in heavy
weather. Even with jiffy reefing, taking in a reef or furling the
mainsail for running bare is a major issue while anchoring has always
been rather simple.
I have never tried anchoring in, say, 15 fathoms with an all chain rode,
but then the mass of the anchor isn't really the issue as much as the
rode. So a 10 lb anchor with that rode would be as difficult as the 65
(pretty much) meaning a Mac 26 would be as much a problem as my Tayana
42. Thus, as I said, the limiting factor isn't boat size or anchor
weight but really, sail area.
Bruce in Bangkok
I don;t like the term "live aboard" as it has the connotation of being
tied to the dock. Rather, imagine setting off on a, say five or six
year circumnavigation and what you would want to bring along on the
trip....You'll need the torque wrench in case you overhaul the engine.
A small welder is handy for fixing broken chain plates, of course you
will need your carpenter's tool chest and the mechanic's tool box and
a few gallons of epoxy. Those left over bronze plumbing fittings will
come in handy and probably better have enough tubing to replace the
gas line to the stove in case it breaks. A spare shroud might be
handy.
Oh, yes, a white shirt, necktie and long trousers and a pair of shoes,
in case you get invited to a wedding.
40 feet is marginal for two.....
Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)
Bruce in Bangkok
They also had a crew of 400 men.
Bruce in Bangkok
I've been aboard some of those 35 ft. cruising boats that have been
sailing for several years. The ones that entertain guests in the
cockpit because there isn;t room down below for four people to sit
down.
Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
My point exactly. But you don;t have two year's supply of engine
spares, a spare propeller, a complete set of mechanics tools, a fair
sized chest of carpenter's tools and all the other bits and pieces
that you "might need" if it breaks in PagoPago, or some other remote
place.
Bruce in Bangkok
I'll add a bit to that. You have, say a 40 pound of anchor, anchored
in say 30 feet of somewhat exposed water so you have a 5:1 scope out.
The wind is blowing onshore at say 7 MPH. You are single handed.
I guarantee that you will appreciate having a powered windlass!
Jere Lull
<wilbur...@thefarm.invalid> said:
> Because they all ARE! It's a biological fact that the elderly are much
> diminished from their mental and physical capacites they embodied in their
> prime. It's nothing to be ashamed of but it IS something that should be
> taken into consideration. To deny aging equates to diminished capacity is to
> deny reality.
But to assert that they are incapable is to deny reality as well.
It's not an either-or, but a "both" solution. My wife can't manhandle
systems on our boat the way I do. She needs winch handles, for
instance, and couldn't easily haul our current anchor and chain by
hand. She's a little girl and never had that sort of strength.
But she can handle a properly set-up 46' cat as easily as our pocket
cruiser once she learns the systems.
All it takes is adapting your systems and techniques to the available skills.
Sometimes the system needed *is* a smaller boat. We have a few people
on our docks who aren't old or particularly incapable, but don't go out
single-handed. They should have smaller boats. (Some got sailing dinks
for knocking around.)
--
Jere Lull
Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/
Wayne.B
<str...@maine.rr.com> wrote:
>I have no
>qualms about my Fortress standing up to the strains that sand, mud, or
>gravel can put on it.
They're OK for certain conditions but I regard them as a special
purpose anchor. They will frequently not set in adverse conditions
such as:
- from a moving boat (anchor planes through water or skips along the
bottom).
- strong currents (see above).
- unfavorable bottom (hard, weedy, rocky, etc).
All danforth type anchors have a strong propensity for becoming fouled
in reversing tide or wind conditions. They excel however in high
holding power for their weight *if* properly set, and if the load
direction does not change more than a small amount.
Wayne.B
<pcassel...@comremovecast.net> wrote:
>Thus, as I said, the limiting factor isn't boat size or anchor
>weight but really, sail area.
You need a better sail handling system. Do you have lazy jacks, dutch
men, and/or a stack pack system? I have seen one person easily handle
the mainsail on a 70 footer using all the above (and an electric
halyard winch).
It is also important to have your halyard and jiffy reefing lines run
back to the cockpit with stoppers and winches, halyard on one side,
jiffy reefing on the other.
Wayne.B
<b*paige*125@g*mail.com> wrote:
>40 feet is marginal for two.....
We find that a 49 ft trawler is about right but even that has its
limits.
Jere Lull
<wilbur...@thefarm.invalid> said:
> You are soooo wrong! If your first priority is a sailboat large enough to
> make it a seaborne reflection of your shoreside residence filled will all
> the luxuries and frivolity of said lubberly abode then please STAY ashore.
He's wrong only if he's alone doing it. Adding a second person at least
doubles the "stuff", and very few mates (of either sex) are as
dedicated, so the required few concessions add to the clutter.
Add occasional family and friends and the requirements pretty much
double again (though that space can be reclaimed between times).
-----
At work, I'm training my replacements, will be outsourced by the end of
the year. If it were just me, I'd sell the house, cut the lines and be
in the Bahamas on Xan by this time next year.
But having my lady with me makes it so much better, so at most we'll be
on a sabbatical of a few months down there.
--
Jere Lull
Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Jere Lull
> I find my 30-footer the perfect size for "extended" day cruising and several
> overnights. It's big enough to be comfortable, yet it's small enough to make
> single-handing a breeze in most conditions.
Pat and I find our 28' comfortable for about a month at a time, our max
cruise so far. Pat thinks Xan's satisfactory for 2-3 months at a clip,
but time will tell.
Jere Lull
> 35 lbs. is hardly more than a sixteen pound bowling ball in each hand.
> If you can't handle that... shape up or ship out.
>
> My sixteen year old nephew can pull up the anchor.
Don't forget the chain. We are a size (or maybe two) big on 30' of
chain, so have an additional 30# to haul up. Mud can weigh a bit, too.
I just imagine most 5'2" 125# women trying to haul that by hand.
Yeah, we can lighten our anchor & chain, but would first get a
windlass, as we sleep better with what we have mounted.
tsm...@gmail.com
> I've been aboard some of those 35 ft. cruising boats that have been
> sailing for several years. The ones that entertain guests in the
> cockpit because there isn;t room down below for four people to sit
> down.
Well our experience here differs. I've enjoyed a good number of
dinners served below by cruising couples in their 30 something foot
boats. Some on small 30 something boats. We sat six to dinner one
night in Tonga on a 32 foot boat cruised by a couple. Four of us had
dinner below on a 25' Pacific Seacraft that was half way between
Hawaii and Oz with a couple aboard... I've got two sets of
particularly dear friends who've fed us many times in their 36 and 37
foot boats and both pairs of them have been cruising very seriously
for over 20 years. One of them is a professional boat builder and a
talented sculptor and he keeps an extraordinarily complete set of
tools and spares and there's still plenty of room below. Two folks
can live and cruise full time on a moderate displacement monohull of
35 feet in some comfort (eg. with a computer, tv, books &c) and still
have a place to entertain below, stow a few grand-kids for the
occasional week or two and carry a lot of spares. If you absolutely
refuse to ever take anything off the boat you'll eventually be
entertaining on deck no matter how big your boat is.
Of course, bigger boats can carry more, are generally faster, safer
and more comfortable at sea, have more privacy, berths that are kinder
to old backs and so on. The trade offs are that they're more
expensive to keep, and either harder to work or more complex... So,
there's an engineering compromise that juggles money, crew strength,
tech ability and so on. There are also many aesthetic questions. For
instance, I think its good for people to live on boat that gives them
a buzz to behold. Some folks want to live with a Zen like simplicity
and others want to be reminded of oak and tar... One size does not
fit all. But, IMO, all things considered, 36 isn't a bad number.
By the way, Pago is civilization. Heck Apia is civilization. They
have currier service, hardware stores, engineering shops, you name
it. I've had a broken boat in Apia.
-- Tom.
Capt. JG
news:2008041422261877923-jerelull@maccom...
Jere... he doesn't actually sail and he certainly has never had to deal with
an anchor/chain combo. 30 feet of chain ain't nuthin if you have a all-chain
rode.
Capt. JG
news:ll0804le2rl60mksk...@4ax.com...
At least not on the boat!
Capt. JG
I have yet to do anything approaching that on my Sabre. Too much going on
with teaching and other non-sailing activities. At some point, I'd like to
take a more extended trip. I would not hesitate to take her to Mexico (as
far as reliability goes), but would probably not do more than coastal cruise
to get there vs. non-stop or similar.
Bruce in Bangkok
>On 2008-04-14 13:27:55 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
><wilbur...@thefarm.invalid> said:
>
>> Because they all ARE! It's a biological fact that the elderly are much
>> diminished from their mental and physical capacites they embodied in their
>> prime. It's nothing to be ashamed of but it IS something that should be
>> taken into consideration. To deny aging equates to diminished capacity is to
>> deny reality.
>
>But to assert that they are incapable is to deny reality as well.
>
>It's not an either-or, but a "both" solution. My wife can't manhandle
>systems on our boat the way I do. She needs winch handles, for
>instance, and couldn't easily haul our current anchor and chain by
>hand. She's a little girl and never had that sort of strength.
>
>But she can handle a properly set-up 46' cat as easily as our pocket
>cruiser once she learns the systems.
>
>All it takes is adapting your systems and techniques to the available skills.
>
>Sometimes the system needed *is* a smaller boat. We have a few people
>on our docks who aren't old or particularly incapable, but don't go out
>single-handed. They should have smaller boats. (Some got sailing dinks
>for knocking around.)
Jere I know a couple sailing a 65 foot sloop. Just the two of them. He
is a retired scientist, I'd guess about 70, and she is a few years
younger. I met them in Phuket and they were on the way to the Med and
then back to the east Coast. No crew, just them.
The boat in the next slip to me is a fifty foot sloop and the couple
that own it sailed it from Seattle.
I knew a chap that was 80, he decided to go to America. Sailed north,
alone, to Japan and turned right. The last I heard from him he had
made Midway Island and the US Navy had a party for him.
Even square riggers with their large crews weren't adverse to making
things easier. There was a "patented" topsail that could be reefed in
two sections. The last of the cargo schooners carrying lumber from
Maine to New York sailed with amazingly small crews by using a
gasoline engine powered windlass to haul the lines.
I can probably go on but the point isn't age it is rigging the boat so
that YOU, or YOURS, can sail it. The much maligned Tristan Jones
sailed a boat with no legs at all.
Bruce in Bangkok
The boat before this one was a 35 footer and I was quite happy on it.
My wife somewhat less so. She is a dedicated cook and she felt that
the two burner kerosine stove was: (1) an antique, (2) hard to light,
(3) the heat was hard to control, (4) prone to get stopped up midway
through preparing a meal, and (5) would be far better on the bottom of
the ocean.
Well, I sold the boat and got a forty footer with a gas stove. The
galley is better but could have been bigger.
I don't remember what I wrote about PagoPago or Perth, but the
meaning was somewhere that you can't get whatever it is that you want.
I've been on those 35 foot boats that actually look bare down below.
I've also been on 50 footers that you can't get into the forward
compartment. Some people have more discipline then others.
But as I originally said cruising means different things to different
folks. For some people a week trip to Bangor is a cruise to others a
bi-annual none stop trip from Phuket to Australia is cruising. Or the
three week sail to India that a mate just made. Or a two week trip up
th Malacca Straits.
I don't believe that there is a correct definition of "cruising" so no
correct definition of a "cruising boat".
Roger Long
I agree. The Fortress is my special purpose and second anchor. Once set
though, I wouldn't worry about it because it is aluminum.
I have a Delta on the bow for most use.
--
Roger Long
Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
>"Jere Lull" <jere...@mac.com> wrote in message
Try 200 ft. of chain.......
Wayne.B
<b*paige*125@g*mail.com> wrote:
>Try 200 ft. of chain.......
With a 120 lb anchor and a 100 lb mud ball. Even the windlass grunts.
Bruce in Bangkok
On my next boat I'm going to about 50 - 100 ft. of chain and a nylon
rode. Actually the rope is stronger then the chain and you don't have
to rig a snubber every night.
Wayne.B
<b*paige*125@g*mail.com> wrote:
>On my next boat I'm going to about 50 - 100 ft. of chain and a nylon
>rode. Actually the rope is stronger then the chain and you don't have
>to rig a snubber every night.
That will certainly work but all chain has its advantages also:
- less scope required for average conditions
- resulting smaller swing radius
- almost no chance of being cut by an errant prop on an other boat
Nylon also loses a great deal of its original strength when it is wet,
abraded, or as it ages. I regard rigging a snubber as an advantage
because it off-loads the bow pulpit and lowers the effective freeboard
height.
Edgar
"Gogarty" <Gog...@Clongowes.edu.ie> wrote in message
news:20080415-1...@Gogarty.news.bway.net...
> I agree with all of the above. I recall traying to anchor in ten feet of
> water, a sand bottom and a strong current with a Fortress. Took 300 feet
> of rode before it would bite. Our primary is a Delta 35. Never fails.
> Backup is a Fortress 23 and also a lunch hook a Fortress 11. The 11 will
> hold the boat very well if it sets.
Yes, of course it will. But to drop anchor and hold your breath to see if
it will set is no way to go even for a lunch hook
tsm...@gmail.com
> I don't believe that there is a correct definition of "cruising" so no
> correct definition of a "cruising boat".
Amen.
-- Tom.
Capt. JG
news:5r0904p2e6l4le3ck...@4ax.com...
I always get my crew to do this so I don't have to try. LOL
We had a windlass die in the BVIs... pretty calm conditions, anchored in
about 15 ft. I'm glad I wasn't the one doing the hauling to get the anchor
up.
Capt. JG
news:4qj904hrtj33ognq4...@4ax.com...
Certainly true... both of course have advantages/disadvantages. If you're
conscientious about checking your ground tackle (as with other vital pieces
of equipment), you're going to have more of the advantages and fewer of the
disadvantages.
tsm...@gmail.com
> On my next boat I'm going to about 50 - 100 ft. of chain and a nylon
> rode. Actually the rope is stronger then the chain and you don't have
> to rig a snubber every night.
You're in coral country aren't you? Coral sand erodes nylon and coral
cuts it. My take on this is that in light winds when the chain is
lying on the bottom you want the nylon well above the level of any
bommies that might be around and still want enough scope out to be
safe. I've been using 35m (~114') of 10mm (~3/8) chain and wouldn't
go with much less. Indeed, I just replaced that with 150' of
nominally 5/16 (actually 9mm) G43. Rigging a snubber is pretty easy
work.
-- Tom.
Wayne.B
wrote:
>We had a windlass die in the BVIs... pretty calm conditions, anchored in
>about 15 ft. I'm glad I wasn't the one doing the hauling to get the anchor
>up.
It's important to have a contingency plan for dealing with windlass
failure. This is relatively easy on a sailboat, just bend another
piece of line onto your snubber and lead it aft to a primary winch,
using snatch blocks to get a fair lead.
On my trawler I carry a piece of gear called a "come along".
http://www.cvfsupplycompany.com/hanpowpulcom.html
I can rig the come along to a mid-ship cleat and pull about 20 feet of
chain, stop it off, get a new purchase, and pull another 20 feet.
It's slow going but it will work in an emergency. It's useful for
other things also, like hoisting 8D batteries out of inaccessible
locations.
Capt. JG
Familiar with come-alongs... used to use them for gold-mining in the
Sierras. They work great for moving boulders, so a puny winch shouldn't be a
problem. Nice suggestion/method.
Wayne.B
wrote:
>Familiar with come-alongs... used to use them for gold-mining in the
>Sierras. They work great for moving boulders, so a puny winch shouldn't be a
>problem. Nice suggestion/method.
Who would have guessed we had a former gold miner in our midst. :-)
I'm always amazed at the wide assortment of talent represented here.
I also carry a come along and a danforth anchor in my truck. The
anchor is very useful for off road 4 wheeling if you get stuck and
there is no convenient tree handy.
Roger Long
to the mast hounds, stopper it, lower that length to the deck or into the
chain locker, and repeat. Some vessels even had special tackle just for
this and for getting the anchor housed.
I carry my long chain as ballast and plan to use it only for emergencies. I
have a chain hook stowed in with it and would probably retrieve it with the
spinnaker halyard led to a winch. Better to have it up in the air than
dragging around the deck. With the masthead purchase, I could pull up 30
feet at a time.
--
Roger Long
Capt. JG
It was an interesting time. I was using an 8-inch dredge powered by a 16
horse engine sitting on two pontoons. We would anchor it in the river. The
engine ran two hooka attachments, so you could have two people under water
at the same time. We had two people on the surface feeding the gasoline and
moving the tailings. It was quite an endeavor. Here's a link to pics of some
of what I found: http://picasaweb.google.com/SailNOW.com/GoldFromSierras
I also used to have a CJ-7 with a winch, but it was too wimpy to drag the
jeep sideways. We would usually just wait under the shade tree if really
stuck. Someone always came by eventually, and we had plenty of beer.
Bloody Horvath
wrote this crap:
>>35 lbs. is hardly more than a sixteen pound bowling ball in each hand.
>>If you can't handle that... shape up or ship out.
>>
>>My sixteen year old nephew can pull up the anchor.
>>
>Well, goody for your sixteen year old nephew. I am sure my 21 year old
>grandson would have no trouble either. He goes up the past like a monkey. But
>I am somewhat older and shorter of breath than those guys are and I find a
>Delta 35 with all chain rode to be a bit of chore by hand.
Wuss.
Hor...@Horvath.net
I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.
Paul Cassel
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:38:01 -0600, Paul Cassel
> <pcassel...@comremovecast.net> wrote:
>
>> Thus, as I said, the limiting factor isn't boat size or anchor
>> weight but really, sail area.
>
> You need a better sail handling system. Do you have lazy jacks, dutch
> men, and/or a stack pack system? I have seen one person easily handle
> the mainsail on a 70 footer using all the above (and an electric
> halyard winch).
>
> It is also important to have your halyard and jiffy reefing lines run
> back to the cockpit with stoppers and winches, halyard on one side,
> jiffy reefing on the other.
>
Jiffy reefing but it seems that in a real blow, I have a very hard time
of it. I've never had a hard time with my 65 lb anchor / chain / rope rode.
Paul Cassel
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:41:41 GMT, richar...@earthlink.net (Richard
> Casady) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:08:09 -0400, Gogarty <Gog...@Clongowes.edu.ie>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> One could run the rode back to the primary winches but I don't
>>> think they would handle chain very well.
>> The sailing battleships had a hemp rode something like four inches in
>> diameter, They would attach a length of smaller stuff to the rode and
>> lead that to the capstan.
>>
>> Casady
>
> They also had a crew of 400 men.
>
Ah, you may want to do a recount on that one.
Wayne.B
<pcassel...@comremovecast.net> wrote:
>Jiffy reefing but it seems that in a real blow, I have a very hard time
>of it.
It's important to ease off the mainsheet and boom vang until the
reefing lines are snugged down.
Does the mainsail stick in the luff groove or do the slides stick?
The really nice system that I saw on the 70 footer had full length
battens with a roller bearing car on the inboard end of each batten.
That sail dropped and stowed slicker than a venetian blind in reverse.
Alan Gomes
<snip>
>
> On the subject of the Fortress aluminum anchor let me say this. Every real
> sailor knows that a light aluminum anchor is a joke in anything but ideal
> conditions. If there is a stout current running which is the case in many
> anchorages the damned things are worst than useless. They fly like a kite in
> the current and likely will never grab bottom. People who are sold on
> Fortress anchors are duffers who are obviously inexperienced lake and calm
> water sailors. People like that certainly are NOT to be considered qualified
> blue water sailors for their disregard for prudence and safety is readily
> apparent.
>
One comment on the Fortress: It is true that if one compares holding
power for a given anchor weight, it becomes possible to get a much
lighter Fortress that will hold a larger boat than the steel anchor
needed for that same boat, i.e., if one considers only the working load.
And I agree with Wilbur's comment that a really light anchor (e.g., like
a 7# FX-11, which they recommend for a 28-32' boat; my boat is 30') is
going to be prone to sail along the bottom in a current rather than
digging in for a set. No thanks.
I use a Fortress but went with an FX-23, which at 15# is much closer in
weight to what I would normally have for my boat if it were a steel
anchor. It is still a bit lighter (by a few pounds), but is quite a bit
stronger and, coupled with some heavy chain, definitely does not sail
along the bottom. Based on their "Selection Guide," the FX-23 is
designed for a 39-45' boat--way overkill for my 30 footer, on their
reckoning. But I think having enough weight is important for a good set
and I would not be confident using their recommended 7# anchor for that
purpose.
While in one sense going with nearly the same weight of Fortress as the
steel anchor cancels out one of the rationales for the anchor, I like
the fact of its strength and holding power for its weight. So I guess
what I'm saying is that even granting the truth of Wilbur's assertion,
the Fortress has its place if properly sized. I can say that I've NEVER
had a problem getting my FX-23 to set.
--Alan G.
Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
>In article <n6080419lhdo7p0d6...@4ax.com>,
>b*paige*125@g*mail.com says...
>>
>>
>>On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:41:41 GMT, richar...@earthlink.net (Richard
>>Casady) wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:08:09 -0400, Gogarty <Gog...@Clongowes.edu.ie>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>One could run the rode back to the primary winches but I don't
>>>>think they would handle chain very well.
>>>
>>>The sailing battleships had a hemp rode something like four inches in
>>>diameter, They would attach a length of smaller stuff to the rode and
>>>lead that to the capstan.
>>>
>>>Casady
>>
>>They also had a crew of 400 men.
>
>In a 100 ft. vessel.
>>
>>Bruce-in-Bangkok
>>(correct email address for reply)
You said Battle ship.
I was wrong.
The HMS Victory, which was a First Rate ship of the Line, is 186 ft.
on the gun deck. Displaces 3,500 tones, has a draft of 28 feet.
The officers and crew comprised approximately 850 personal.
A broadside threw approximately 1,148 lbs. of iron.
Bruce in Bangkok
Most places I anchor will be about 30 ft. (not taking the tide into
consideration) with chain I normally use a scope of three. With nylon
I'll probably start with five and see how that works. The first 50 -
100 ft will be chain which is laying on the bottom.
Surprising I seldom find an anchorage with coral, usually it is clay
mud with perhaps some shells.
I think that the chain/rope rode will handle things but if not I still
have the 200 ft. of chain in storage :-).
Wilbur Hubbard
"Bruce in Bangkok" <b*paige*125@g*mail.com> wrote in message
news:inbb04don0gjlhbdv...@4ax.com...
>
> My dock will be under about 10 ft. (not taking the tide into
> consideration) with dock lines I normally use a scope of three. With nylon
> I'll probably start with five and see how that works. The first 50 -
>
> Surprising I seldom find an anchorage with coral, usually it has
> some sort of pier with piles to tie to. I no longer do any serious
> cruising. I just got too old for it and my boat is to large and
> difficult to handle. I use it just as a floating home these days.
>
> I think that 3/8 rope dock line will handle things but if not I still
> have the 200 ft. of chain in storage. It's new since I haven't
> left this dock in about three or four years.
>
>
> Bruce-in-Bangkok
> (correct email address for reply)
Uh huh! Thought so. Thanks for the confirmation.
Wilbur Hubbard
Capt. JG
news:162c04pfi5os5ok17...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:53:44 -0700, "Capt. JG" <jg...@sailnow.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Jere... he doesn't actually sail and he certainly has never had to deal
>>with
>>an anchor/chain combo.
>
>
Just helping out. If I were trolling, I would make several nasty comments
and try and stir up a fight. Is that what you're doing?
Paul Cassel
next boat, if a sailboat, will have in mast or in boom furling. I almost
installed in boom and actually ordered it but the mfg made some sort of
measuring error. I just got disgusted waiting around in port for a part
which was all wrong & left.
Remember, I"m single handing. This would not be much of deal if not for
that.
Bruce in Bangkok
<pcassel...@comremovecast.net> wrote:
I built a behind the mast system and while the foil certainly sags to
leeward it is no more then a stay sail schooner, and the big advantage
is that because it is so easy to use I end up with more sail in the
wind for more hours a day.
Before, when it was a matter of going forward and hauling in another
reef at the mast, or shaking one out, I tended to wait -- probably
gonna blow more later; or probably gonna be calm anyway, so I'd just
leave things the way they were. With the roller it is just pull the
blue line to make it bigger and the red one to make it smaller.
It doesn't look as good as an in mast system but it works about as
good. Wouldn't be without it.