Windsurfing sail quiver...excessive?

[inspired...@yahoo.com]

Do I really need a quiver that covers 3-knot increments if I want to
sail well in winds from 12 to 30 knots?

Six sails?

Is there any way around this? Ezzy sails and thier one size smaller
one size bigger claim? Supreme Physical Conditioning? Impecable
technique?

If the wind increases from 20 to 23 knots and I don't have a 4.7 to
swap for my 5.2 am I really going to feel it?

I'm at four sails and adding two more just seems excessive...

[Dan Weiss]

Well, you might feel it b/c the power of the wind is a square of its
velocity. Or something like that. In other words, if the wind speed
doubles, the power quadruples. Therefore, a 3 knot increase at higher
wind speeds creates a much bigger increase in power than at very low
wind speeds.

You certainly do not need six sails to cover an 18 knots spread -
especially if you sail in flat water. Racing sails will get you from
12 to 30 with three sails without much fuss. The key is stability.
Wave sails lack this stability and, therefore, require a closer
spacing to achieve the same results.

-Dan

[Thomas Whittemore]

Assuming you weigh 150 lbls all you need to cover 12 to 30 knots is 2 sails
6.6 Sailworks Hucker and a 5.6 Hucker.
Maybe throw in a 4.8 Revolution or Hucker if you want to handle Gusty
conditions.
BTW how much do you weigh?

[inspired...@yahoo.com]

Dan: Yes the "force is windspeed squared" equation, from 12 knots to
24 is doubled windspeed yet four times the force. I've put some gaps
in my quiver to save money. The six and seven get the most use.

4.4--- 5.2--- 6.5--- 7.5

The 5.2 is a wave sail.

Not perfect but roughly 20% surface area gaps for the sails. Can a few
tenths of a square meter difference can be made up with rigging
technique?

Am getting a bit disillusioned at the number of websites that claim
either 3 knot gaps or at least 6 sails for the common wind-range. I
know Dunkerbeck keeps ten on hand for his wave sailing. Ten!

Enough to make a person consider kiteboarding. :O

Thomas: I'm near 150 lbs. Don't own one but Sailworks is amoung my
favored brands. I sail flat water and like good draft shaping.
Canadian Sailworks rider Phil Soltysiak sails around here and makes
them look very good. But a three sail quiver almost sounds too good to
be true!

Either way I'm often overpowered at 150 lbs so a critique of my quiver
would be appreciated!

[Thomas Whittemore]

to be fair I was busy getting ready for windfest.
I weigh 175 and my 12-45 mph guiver is 8.0 retro, 6.6 hucker, 5.6 hucker
4.8 revolution, 4.2 revolution, 3.6 revolution.

[Craig Goudie]

On Apr 17, 1:18 am, inspiredinsani...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Do I really need a quiver that covers 3-knot increments if I want to
> sail well in winds from 12 to 30 knots?

Not really.

>
> Six sails?

Nope

>
> Is there any way around this? Ezzy sails and thier one size smaller
> one size bigger claim? Supreme Physical Conditioning? Impecable
> technique?
>
> If the wind increases from 20 to 23 knots and I don't have a 4.7 to
> swap for my 5.2 am I really going to feel it?

Just tune your sail, and you'll be fine.

>
>  I'm at four sails and adding two more just seems excessive...

My flat water quiver is 9.5 (10-15 MPH) 6.5 (15-20MPH), 5.5 (20-25
MPH), 4,7 (25-30 MPH) 4.2 (30-35MPH).

two more sails is excessive for flat water, but 1 more might be a good
idea. I weigh 180 lbs.

-Craig

[inspired...@yahoo.com]

Thomas: That 5.6 in the Hucker looks good. The 6.6 definately gets you
powered in 12 knots? I've got a longboard that purrs in 12 with a 6.5
but I always thought that a true planing board (re.freeride board)
needed a larger size.

Thanks Dan, Craig. Got a better idea of wind ranges now. Anything over
30 knots and I usually throw in the towel anyway.

[swiftwater]

On Apr 17, 5:46 am, Dan Weiss wrote

> Well, you might feel it b/c the power of the wind is a square of its
> velocity.  Or something like that. <<

There are no squares in the basic Newtonian laws of physics as I
remember my schooling.   Can you substantiate your claim?

[cosmicharlie]

Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws that form the basis
for classical mechanics, directly relating the forces acting on a body
to the motion of the body. They were first compiled by Sir Isaac
Newton in his work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, first
published on July 5, 1687.[1] Newton used them to explain and
investigate the motion of many physical objects and systems.[2] For
example, in the third volume of the text, Newton showed that these
laws of motion, combined with his law of universal gravitation,
explained Kepler's laws of planetary motion.

First law
There exists a set of inertial reference frames relative to which
all particles with no net force acting on them will move without
change in their velocity. This law is often simplified as "A body
persists its state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted upon by
an external unbalanced force." Newton's first law is often referred to
as the law of inertia.
Second law
Observed from an inertial reference frame, the net force on a
particle of constant mass is proportional to the time rate of change
of its linear momentum: F = d(mv)/dt. This law is often stated as,
"Force equals mass times acceleration (F = ma)": the net force on an
object is equal to the mass of the object multiplied by its
acceleration.
Third law
Whenever a particle A exerts a force on another particle B, B
simultaneously exerts a force on A with the same magnitude in the
opposite direction. The strong form of the law further postulates that
these two forces act along the same line. This law is often simplified
into the sentence, "To every action there is an equal and opposite
reaction."

[RoughRider]

In physics, power (symbol: P) is the rate at which work is performed
or energy is transmitted, or the amount of energy required or expended
for a given unit of time. As a rate of change of work done or the
energy of a subsystem, power is:

P =W/t
where P is power, W is work and t is time.
Work is Force times Distance. W=FxD.

Now, if you are talking about kinetic energy (E_k), you do have a
squared element i.e. velocity. kinetic energy, E_k, is 1/2 Mass
times V squared. E_k=1/2M times V squared.

From Newton's second law:
W_total= the change in kinetic energy.
However, defining velocity as distance over time or D/t, one t is
factored out in your Power formula leaving only Distance squared.
Consequently, the power of the wind is not a square of its velocity,
it only reflects the square of the distance it moves your object.

[swiftwater]

What we are stating would be that there are no simple answers to your
question as Mr. Weiss would imply. The wind speed is never steady and
changes direction often. High winds are not as common as low ones.
Your experience will reflect not only your choice of sails and number
you can access, but also your ability to use them. A sailors
strength and build will often be a bigger factor in his "quiver"
spacing than wind speed. Futhermore, there's too much of an emphasis
on sail size amongst amature windsurfers. Salesmen like Mr. Weiss
will always exaggerate factors that will encourage you to buy more
equipment. As the wind increases your spacing between sails doesn't
have to increase in the hyperbolic way he implies.

[Thomas Whittemore]

With the larger board and fin combo you can sail the 6.6 Hucker in 12
knots, and plane with the 8.0 sailors.
At windfest yesterday we sent out 2 133 Futura's with reaper 39 weed
fins in about 12-15 mph wind. One board had the 7.5 retro and the other
had the 6.6 hucker. Both sailors got up on plane immidiately.
The 6.6 Hucker 7.5 and 8.5 retro stayed out all day. See Iwindsurf for
the windchart.
http://www.iwindsurf.com/windandwhere.iws?regionID=110&siteID=138&days=1&Isection=Wind+Yesterday

[Dan Weiss]

What "we" are saying? Are you serious, Robert Bruce Smith?
swiftwater, cosmicharlies and RoughRider are your own aliases. There
is only the royal we and you are far from royalty.

Can I verify that the wind power increases as the square of its speed,
or something like that? Sure. More accurately, the power of the wind
varies with the cube of its speed. Here's a link for you:
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wres/enrspeed.htm

Again, you know nothing of what you spew.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Thomas Whittemore:

>With the larger board and fin combo you can sail the 6.6 Hucker in 12
>knots, and plane with the 8.0 sailors.
>At windfest yesterday we sent out 2 133 Futura's with reaper 39 weed
>fins in about 12-15 mph wind. One board had the 7.5 retro and the other
>had the 6.6 hucker. Both sailors got up on plane immidiately.

Any idea how much those two guys weighed?

My experience so far suggests that 20 pounds of body weight is
equivalent to .5 or .6 meters of sail size in the 5.5-7.5 range.
--
PeteCresswell

[AD.]

You never worked out the kinetic energy of anything? That's pretty
basic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy#Newtonian_kinetic_energy

I suspect a very dumb troll, but here you go anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_(force)#Methods_of_determining_lift_on_an_airfoil

--
Cheers
Anton

[swiftwater]

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_(force)#Methods_of_determining_lift...
>
> --
> Cheers
> Anton

>>My experience so far suggests that 20 pounds of body weight is
equivalent to .5 or .6 meters of sail size in the 5.5-7.5 range. <<

Now that is interesting. Have you surveyed the sailing population
regarding that or is it a subjective observation? Using your formula
a 200 lb sailor will optimally use 5.0 to 5.5 while a 220 will use 5.5
to 6.0. Often I find that I'm heavier than the other windsurfers on
the beach by 50 lbs. or more. Some can be using a 6.0 while I'll need
an 8.0. Usually, though, I rig about a meter larger, but will use
your figures the next time I rig with others. Let me add that I very
rarely sail with guys who are using sails larger than 7.5 or that
weigh-in more than 200 lbs.

[swiftwater]

On Apr 19, 10:41 pm, "AD." <anton.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 11:41 pm, swiftwater <snowy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 17, 5:46 am, Dan Weiss wrote> Well, you might feel it b/c the power of the wind is a square of its
> > > velocity.  Or something like that. <<
>
> > There are no squares in the basic Newtonian laws of physics as I
> > remember my schooling.   Can you substantiate your claim?
>
> You never worked out the kinetic energy of anything? That's pretty
> basic.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy#Newtonian_kinetic_energy
>
> I suspect a very dumb troll, but here you go anyway:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_(force)#Methods_of_determining_lift...
>
> --
> Cheers
> Anton

Dr. Wiseguy stated that Power not Kinetic Energy has a square relation
with wind speed. Classically, it has a square relation with distance
traveled but an inverse relation with time. Practically I can't see
how that makes as dramatic a difference when considering sail range as
claimed.

[cosmicharlie]

As it's been suggested, the sail >>quiver<< of a 150 lb sailor and
Dunkerbeck will differ seriously. When you are dealing with low
winds, depending on your physical size and ability, you can carry all
sorts of sails. At 220 lbs a sailor facing winds 12 to 16 or so
m.p.h. will need huge sails, expensive equipment, in order to plane.
Consequently, many of these sailors will opt to much smaller sails in
order to practice what we call >>freestyle<<. Surveying windsurfers
regarding winds from 17 m.p.h. to 30 m.p.h. will result in much more
consistent data. Nevertheless, most sailors in this country don't
sail steady winds and it's a personal choice as to whether you rig for
the gusting wind speed or more of the average speed.

[g...@inel.gov]

Yes, the force on a sail is approximately proportional to the square
of the magnitude of wind velocity (actually, the force is
proportional to the magnitude of the vector difference in wind and
board velocity, the apparent wind, but forget that subtlety for the
moment. Besides, most of us launch at zero velocity anyway). The
(vector) force on a sail may be expressed as the vector sum of drag
and lift. These forces are usually calculated by using a coefficient
of drag or lift times 1/2 times surface area times air density times
velocity squared. For high velocity (turbulent) flow the coefficients
are approximately constant and, assuming the same angle of attack of
the sail to the wind direction, the forces are therefore proportional
to the square of wind velocity and inversely proportional to sail size
(surface area). And, since we counteract the force on the sail with
our weight, force is the relevant quantity for choosing sail size
rather than power (which is force times velocity). Also note that
the equation for force approximately explains that the relative sizes
of sail and fin is on the order of the density ratios of water and
air, which is on the order of a thousand to one, although this is only
approximate since the drag and lift coefficients of fins and sails
should be different (I have not looked up the values) and the angles
of attack are usually different.

[g...@inel.gov]

Here is a more complete description, with references, of what I was
trying to describe. Now all I need is some wind and warmer
temperatures (the local lake still has some ice on it) so that I can
put theory into practice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_force

[Craig Goudie]

Oh Chuckles! Newton is rolling over in his grave, and most of the
live physicist are probably laughing themselves into it after reading
your comments. Tonight you will be visited by 3 ghosts, they are the
ghosts
of physics past, present, and future. Heed their warnings, and crack
open a Halliday and Resnick.

-Craig

> it only reflects the square of the distance it moves your object.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Dan Weiss]

>   >>SNIP  Some can be using a 6.0 while I'll need

> an 8.0.  Usually, though, I rig about a meter larger, but will use

> your figures the next time I rig with others.  SNIP

Might this be of your troll-like shape, don't know how to pump
effectively or both?

[AD.]

On Apr 21, 1:08 am, swiftwater <snowy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dr. Wiseguy stated that Power not Kinetic Energy has a square relation
> with wind speed.

Was the word "power" uttered in the everyday usage sailors use when
describe the force(s) they feel? Or do you think it was used in the
physics definition of work done per unit of time? Seems like the the
former to me.

And if it was the former, it was accurate. I also recall the phrase
"or something like that" being stated too, which hardly a claim of
scientific rigour.

> Classically, it has a square relation with distance
> traveled but an  inverse relation with time.  Practically I can't see
> how that makes as dramatic a difference when considering sail range as
> claimed.

So you do suddenly remember squares actually exist in newtonian
physics now? The kinetic energy example was purely to show you that
even the most basic concepts can have squares in them.

If you had any clue and still wanted to nitpick silly details instead
of just understanding what Dan meant, you would've picked a different
part of the statement to object to.

ie: The 3 knot difference is actually more apparent at low speeds than
it is a high speeds. eg going from 12 to 15 kts on the same rig is a
56% increase in lift, while going from 27 to 30 kts is only a 23%
increase in lift.

Not only that, the bigger sail at low wind speeds will have a higher
centre of effort thus have a larger moment arm to pull you over with.
But on the other hand large sails also tend to have wider booms and
larger boards have footstraps further out giving your weight a larger
moment arm to resist that, which helps to offset the higher CoE. So if
you change the gear or your stance etc the forces you actually feel
are more difficult to directly relate to the actual sails lift and
drag.

But lift and drag are still proportional to the square of velocity -
you can't argue that one.

--
Cheers
Anton

[oneup...@gmail.com]

Ah, Brucie, ever the diplomatic and informed nitwit. It's always such
a joy ---- no, I should say amusement --- to read your eloquent and
intelligent posts, Mr. Swift.

Have I mentioned that you suffer from chronic CRIS?

That's Cranio Rectal Insertion Syndrome.

[oneup...@gmail.com]

On Apr 20, 9:02 am, swiftwater <snowy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 10:41 pm, "AD." <anton.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 19, 11:41 pm, swiftwater <snowy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 17, 5:46 am, Dan Weiss wrote> Well, you might feel it b/c the power of the wind is a square of its
> > > > velocity.  Or something like that. <<
>
> > > There are no squares in the basic Newtonian laws of physics as I
> > > remember my schooling.   Can you substantiate your claim?
>
> > You never worked out the kinetic energy of anything? That's pretty
> > basic.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy#Newtonian_kinetic_energy
>
> > I suspect a very dumb troll, but here you go anyway:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_(force)#Methods_of_determining_lift...
>
> > --
> > Cheers
> > Anton
>

>  SNIP: My experience so far suggests that 20 pounds of body weight is
> equivalent to.....

In your case, Brucie, 20 pounds of body weight is equal to 20 pounds
of horse manure.

[oneup...@gmail.com]

The moron's name is Robert Bruce Swift. AKA, Mr. Not-Too-Swift.

[oneup...@gmail.com]

Swiftwater = cosmicharlie = roughrider = swiftwater (again) = snowyguy
= blowbooster = beswift = Brucie = 74 other known windsurfing
aliases. 60 y/o Brucie hails from his mother's home in East Falmouth,
MA and his mother's condo in Vero Beach, FL.

In other words, he's all talk (all BS) and hot air. He doesn't own a
pot to piss in.

[sm...@fit.edu]

On Apr 17, 3:18 am, inspiredinsani...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Do I really need a quiver that covers 3-knot increments if I want to
> sail well in winds from 12 to 30 knots?
>

> Six sails?

Six sails? It all depends on what you mean by sail well...
If you're a longboarder, or a summer time cruiser and you have no
interest in planing, then no, you could do all your sailing with one,
maybe two sails max. But if planing is your goal, then you NEED a
range of sails, sorry, you can't do it all with just one or two. That
said, you could probably get away with four WELL CHOSEN and MODERN
sails, five would be icing on the cake.
The best advice I can give it to go with the 15 to 20% reduction
sizing increment. So starting with an 8.5 would give you:

8.5 x 80% = 7.0
7.0 x 85% = 6.0
6.0 x 85% = 5.1

You can usually "massage" the numbers a little bit if necessary and go
a little bigger on the larger sails, so a quiver of
9.0, 7.0, 6.0, 5.1, 4.5 (optional) would give you a huge range.
Be aware that again, this is for modern sails that are tuned properly
and where you're using the entire range of the sail. Also be aware
that you're going to NEED more than one board to get this kind of
range (if you want to plane). Two well chosen boards and four or five
well chosen rigs (sail/mast/boom combo) will probably cover any
conditions you are likely to see. (Also be aware that if you've never
sailed in wind of 30+ you may find that it's not something that you
even want to sail in. I know a lot of people pack it in when the wind
pipes up to 30+).
It all comes down to planning your rig properly. If you give some
forethought before you just start spending money, you can save a lot
of cash in the process. For example, rather than just buying a boom
that looks like a good deal, but will only fit one sail, instead buy a
boom that will work with three of your sails.

sm

[Cliff]

On Apr 20, 8:16 pm, "AD." <anton.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
...

> But lift and drag are still proportional to the square of velocity -
> you can't argue that one.

Oh yes he can!!!

You forgot to say "you can't intelligently argue that one."

CosmicTurdWaterChuckles must have lost his prescription again...

Cheers,
Cliff

[Thomas Whittemore]

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
the guy on the 6.6 hucker weighed 160 lbs, but I also rigged both sails
and I stacked the deck in favor of the Hucker by rigging it in power
mode with a loosened downhaul and outhaul; the 7.5 was rigged in Retro
mode with normal downhaul and outhaul. Through out the day various
sailors demoed the sails and the 6.6, 7.5 and 8.5 all kept planing.

[RoughRider]

When are all the fuzzy minded regular >>experts<< that post their
pseudo scientific ideas here going to stop adding to the confusion?
Of course when they hurl insults and accuse others of being a troll,
they definitely are telling you more about their limitations than they
are about sailing.

[RoughRider]

>> Yes, the force on a sail is approximately proportional to the square of the magnitude of wind velocity<<

NO, it's not an approximation. It's a relation, but not as dramatic a
squaring as many here assume. Most sailors put small gaps in their
sail size differences because they fear the effects of high winds, not
because the wind increases parabolically in power. It's a common
sales trick to use fear to sell equipment. One experience in winds
that can't be controlled with any size sail makes many strong egos
think that all they need is a smaller sail to conquer Mother Nature.
Throw in the sales pitch of a guy like Dan Weiss which gives you some
rather impressive but inaccurately exaggerated formula behind it and
you can sell a great many sails that your customer won't use but once
or twice and then poorly.

[oneup...@gmail.com]

Brucie, when I look up "fuzzy minded" and "pseudo scientific" in the
dictionary, I find your picture. Why is that?

[oneup...@gmail.com]

R. Bruce Swift, you don't know WTF you're talking about.

Which is the norm for you.

[Dan Weiss]

On Apr 26, 9:32 am, RoughRider <besw...@gmail.com> wrote:

A sales pitch? Take your meds, Chucklehead.

[AD.]

So far the (deliberate?) confusion seems to be coming from you.

ie The notion that lift is proportional to velocity squared was
brought up. You correctly noticed that in real life sail size doesn't
follow an inverse parabolic relationship to windspeed (would you like
a cookie?). But instead of looking at the other variables involved
when relating sail size to wind speed, you'd rather dispute the well
documented relationship between lift and velocity instead.

Which on the face of it looks like either trolling or stupidity. The
apparent use of multiple accounts makes trolling seem very likely, but
due to the clumsy nature of it maybe you are stupid AND trolling?

If you are neither stupid nor trolling, how about we get some non
fuzzy minded actual science from you to clear all this up then?

--
Cheers
Anton

[gwandsh]

On Apr 17, 5:25 am, Thomas Whittemore <vikings...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> inspiredinsani...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Do I really need a quiver that covers 3-knot increments if I want to
> > sail well in winds from 12 to 30 knots?
>
> > Six sails?
>

> > Is there any way around this? Ezzy sails and thier one size smaller
> > one size bigger claim? Supreme Physical Conditioning? Impecable
> > technique?
>
> > If the wind increases from 20 to 23 knots and I don't have a 4.7 to
> > swap for my 5.2 am I really going to feel it?
>
> >  I'm at four sails and adding two more just seems excessive...
>
> Assuming you weigh 150 lbls all you need to cover 12 to 30 knots is 2 sails
> 6.6 Sailworks Hucker and a 5.6 Hucker.
> Maybe throw in a 4.8 Revolution or Hucker if you want to handle Gusty
> conditions.
> BTW how much do you weigh?

A 5.6, deep draft, high COE sail in 30 knots for a 150 lb sailor?
Maybe if you're a marketing manager?

[Bill 04009]

I weigh 145 pounds myself, and have a whole quiver of Sailworks sails.
4.8, 5.6, 6.6 Huckers (with Backbones) & 8.0, 10.0 Retros (with
Lightsticks). The 10.0 Retro is brand new this year, so I have not had
reason to use it yet -- ice just left us in Maine.

I would have never expected it, but I find that there is tons of
overlap between the 6.6 Hucker and the 8.0 Retro. It is to the point
where I sometimes wonder why I have both sails. I HAVE found a use for
the 6.6, but usually I feel I would be fine with my 5.6 Hucker or 8.0
Retro depending on the wind strength. There is a small wind range
where I feel the 6.6 is the best option for me to use.

When I'm using the 6.6, I find it is so powerful I get overpowered on
it much sooner than I would expect. I'll be trying to rig the 6.6 with
a little more downhaul this season to see how it performs. Also, I
have a new board for the 6.6 (Z-Ride 120 vs. an AHD GT Special 73).
The AHD is great with the 8.0, but was too big for my 6.6 with someone
as small as me. The 6.6 will be a better sail with my Z-Ride since it
isn't as wide and is much more maneuverable. Conditions on my lake,
when a 6.6 is ideal are up and down, which is one reason I chose the
Hucker instead of a Retro to cover this wind range. Being able to tune
the sail to cover a wide range is appealing to me. I've found this
works amazingly well with the 4.8 & 5.6. I haven't used the 6.6 to
have it all dialed in yet, but I've seen the potential at the extremes
on Hatteras.

As for the number of sails. If I had to do it over, I might have
chosen a 7.5 Retro in which case, I would have probably skipped the
6.6 Hucker altogether. Still, I need to get a 3.7 Hucker or something
in the Revo line for the really windy days. I don't have a board
smaller than 90 liters yet, so I can't stay out when the wind gets
beyond 30mph unless the conditions are wave-less. When I get a 75-
liter or 80-liter board, I'll be ready for a smaller rig as well.
Then, I'll have 6 sails. Still, if I had a smaller Retro, I might have
one less than that. I'm not as concerned with having too many sails
though. I have a windsurfing trailer I use to haul my stuff around
when I go on trips, but for the most part, I sail from my house. I can
justify the number of sails in my quiver because I spread the cost out
over many years.

$0.02

Bill

On Apr 22, 6:18 pm, Thomas Whittemore <vikings...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

[Bill 04009]

While I wouldn't attempt to go out in 30 knots with my 5.6 Hucker, I
have taken it out in mid-20 knot conditions, but the water was VERY
flat due to the fact that it was only 1-2 feet deep most of the area I
was sailing. With the Hucker line, you can rig the sails either with a
lot of draft or you can flatten them out. They are amazingly stable
when you tune them for high winds. Before I switched to Huckers, I
would usually go out with a full sail size smaller than my sailing
buddies. Not with the Huckers though. I can handle a much wider wind
range. Depending on the conditions, sometimes I find I like a
flattened 5.6 Hucker better than the full draft of the smaller 4.8. I
like having this level of flexibility.

[gwandsh]

> > Maybe if you're a marketing manager?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Not looking to dis' Huckers. I am told they are very tunable, but
their design is for power over finesse in most condtitions.

I guess I'm a weenie, but I prefer to take the smallest sail that will
keep me juiced up at 160#. I hate having to try to hold down an
obviously too-big rig when things build up. Too many other fun things
to focus on. Remember the OP was 150# I believe.

My sails are all Bump style and start at 5.7 - which I will try in ~15
knots, depending on other factors. Basically I drop a half meter with
each added ~5 knots of wind speed. That puts me at low 4's when it
gets to 30 knots. I am very comfortable in that sail range, and
rarely lacking in power. The idea of sailing a 5.6 power oriented
sail in that range doesn't sound like that much fun - just my $.02

So for the OP's question - do you need six sails to cover 12 to 30
knots - I'd say 4 good ones would be ample. By "good ones" I would
include all those factors like make, model, proper rigging, etc.