# Inmast Furling Debate



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I have long been negative on inmast furlers. The thought of not being able to drop my main in a blow (they can get hung), and the lack of power and sail shape, leave the more traditionalists of us frustrated. And it has long been a standing rule of thumb that many offshore delivery captains consider them unsafe for bluewater work - for the very reasons mentioned above.

However, I must admit, my attitude is starting to change.

Let me start off by saying that if I was a serious racer, I would not consider it. I will also say that I find it ironic at best that you have to special order a traditional mast/main from most of the production builders now at extra cost OVER the inmast! What a crock!! But I am increasingly becoming more satisfied with what I feel is a huge trade off for this sailor.

Understand that I have kids and my wife often has to put her attention below. We are not new to being offshore and are true believers that a boat has to be able to be singlehanded. However, when dropping in a reef (ESPECIALLY AT NIGHT), we believe that we should always start the motor and a person must be watching from the cockpit. That is just our rules.

Going forward in a blow (or the seas that preceed a blow) are what I believe to be the most dangerous thing a sailor does that is typical SOP. With the sea spray making the deck slippery and the rolling deck, it requires considerable concentration and agility. Not to mention that in a lightning storm (very common in SW Florida), no one gets excited about hanging on the mast and boom while securing the main. 

A inmast (and inboom) takes most of that away. We still start the engine (old habits), but that is more for safety then because we absolutely have to be dead into the wind (which you do not in an inmast). In fact, I can drop in a reef with no help from below and never have to leave the safety of the cockpit. 

For someone that basically sails by himself (and same for my wife who is 5'10 and 120 lbs), that ease and safety is worth something. We have never had it hang up (and there is a differnece in how to reef it which I feeel explains why many people have a problem). So I ask those out there with first hand knowedge (and without, that is fine) what are your thoughts? 

- CD


----------



## imagine2frolic (Aug 7, 2008)

I basically singlehand also, and one of the toughest jobs on the cat is reefing the main. It has a quick motion on the roof. I have considered in boom, and in mast reefing, but still can't get over the fear of it hanging up.

Then again I use to feel the same way about headsails, and would gladly go to the bow in 50+ wind to change a headsail. Not any more no hanks for me.

I use to feel badly about multis, and thought they were your death. Well here I am sailing a multi, and loving it. Change sometimes is hard to accept. Especially when you are leaving something you are familiar with, and understand.

So, what's stopping me from changing my mainsail? Money, and when it comes my way again I will have some sort of furling on the main too!.......*i2f*


----------



## AndrewMac (Sep 11, 2009)

SD - 

I have newly started sailing a Baba 40 that has in-mast furling and was hoping that you could expand on the comment that "there is a differnece in how to reef it which I feeel explains why many people have a problem." I have owned a Pearson Ensign for 10 years (still do) and the Baba is a big step up for me with much to learn. The in-mast furling actually drives me a bit nuts as it frequently messed up on the way in and proceeds to "bind" - is that what you mean by "hung up." I am sure that I am doing something wrong, just haven't quite figured out what yet.


----------



## captbillc (Jul 31, 2008)

i have a profurl in boom system with a fully battened main. it makes single handing easier & i believe safer. when you shorten sail the sail is lowered making it a better system than in mast furling.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

AndrewMac said:


> SD -
> 
> I have newly started sailing a Baba 40 that has in-mast furling and was hoping that you could expand on the comment that "there is a differnece in how to reef it which I feeel explains why many people have a problem." I have owned a Pearson Ensign for 10 years (still do) and the Baba is a big step up for me with much to learn. The in-mast furling actually drives me a bit nuts as it frequently messed up on the way in and proceeds to "bind" - is that what you mean by "hung up." I am sure that I am doing something wrong, just haven't quite figured out what yet.


I am assuming that you mean CD, not SD? I am the good looking one. Even with the insult, I will help (snicker).

Ok, how do you drop a traditional main (or put in a reef)? You point into the wind (as close to dead into the wind as possible). You get your mainsheets as tight as possible. You pull down on the boom vang as tight as possible. The point of all of this is to keep the boom from swinging all over the place and get it horizontal so that the falling main flakes easily across the boom. Etc, etc.

Now, take those exact same principles on inmast and it will hang up - if not the first time, eventually. It is very differrent.

This is hard to explain with words, but here goes:

When looking at your mast from the side, you will see that the clew does NOT go in horizontally from the boom. It goes up at (and I am making htis number up) a 15 degree angle. THe sail is designed this way. So what happens is that us old traditional sailors follow the typical methods for dropping in a reef or dropping the main (sheeting down on the boom/mainsheets/vang), and that forces the clew to travel relatively horizontally into the mast. So the foot ends up bunching up and not coiling around the drum properly (jamming it in the track) and the leech crinkles as it goes in (again, causing it to jam). Does that make sense? So doing this method when reefing or dropping the main (which is the right method for us traditional sailors) is wrong and it will jam up a lot.

When reefing the main on an inmast, you have to allow the mainsheet and the vang the slack to allow the clew to travel "upwards" into the track. The easiest way to accomplish this is to not be quite dead into the wind and to keep some tension on the sail when reefing, but I have found it is not always necessary. Paramount is making sure that you do not have too much downward pull on the sail while traveling into the track - you must give it the freedom it needs to travel upwards.

What may have happened on your Baba, assuming it of course has an old sail, is that the sail has stretched through missues (or just through age) and is not reefing properly anymore. At least try what I am talking about and you may find you love your inmast. You just cannot treat it like a traditional main.

Hope that helps.

- CD, Not SD (the good looking and smart one!!!)


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

captbillc said:


> i have a profurl in boom system with a fully battened main. it makes single handing easier & i believe safer. when you shorten sail the sail is lowered making it a better system than in mast furling.


I agree - cost not being an object, I would definitely go with Inboom. However, the cost can be substantial. Yet, inboom seems to have about all the positives with none of the negatives.

- CD


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

*But how do you deal with it when/if it does jam?*

Last week my jib furler decided to lock up partly deployed in 20+ knot winds. A small circlip came loose. I was able to unwind a few turns and pull it down the foil without too much fuss. Just wet, as the foredeck of a cat is a pretty stable place.

I find a main with lazy jacks pretty simple and to be a 1-person job to reef or drop. No harder than rolling up the jib in a big wind, really. It is FAR easier to drop or reef the main in 30 knots than to roll up the jib.Sail covers can always wait until later.


----------



## AndrewMac (Sep 11, 2009)

CD - lol - apologies for the gaff! Huge help - thank you. Going on a five day trip starting next week - will definitely practice and let you know how it goes.


----------



## djodenda (Mar 4, 2006)

My dad added boom furling to his DownEaster 38 during his circumnavigation. I asked him why he went with boom furling instead of in-mast furling.

He said: "Where would you rather have a problem: 5 feet above the deck or 40 feet above the deck?"

I thought that was a good point.

David


----------



## imagine2frolic (Aug 7, 2008)

dj,

You're dad makes an excellent point. Obviously he has some miles under his keel. ........*i2f*


----------



## ericread (Feb 23, 2009)

pdqaltair said:


> I find a main with lazy jacks pretty simple and to be a 1-person job to reef or drop.


Sure, it makes it easier, but lazy jacks are sooooo ugly...uke

Eric


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I tend to be something of a lone voice on this so maybe this is just me, but in-mast furling seems like one those many trends that come along for one half-baked reason or another, and in my opinion should quickly go away. Like roller reefing booms of the 1960's, I see these as another half-baked idea being foisted on a sailing public that hopefully will become as archaic as cotton sails, baby stays, and roller reefing booms.

<OI suppose in-mast furling is an acceptable system for coastal cruising for those to last to haul up a halyard, as long as nothing goes seriously wrong, but from conversations with experienced delivery skippers and owners who have experienced heavy-weather HIHO jambs it is not a great system for offshore work of sailing in high wind venues. I base my comments on a series of nightmare stories from sailmakers, delivery skippers and owners, many who have successfully used these systems until something has gone seriously wrong. 

<OTo begin with, the sailmakers tell me that if the sail is left reefed for a period of time or in high winds, the leech of the sail at the head slowly creeps towards the foot as the furled layers of sail slide over each other. (We have all seen this phenomenon in the fat center of a reefed headsail, even one with the luff altered with rope or foam.) As the leech slides down the furl, it does it a series of things. The sailmakers tell me this creates high concentrated loads on non-reinforced areas of the leech, stretching the leech and shortening the life of the sail (the in-mast furling wild leech flap is one symptom of this problem). They tell me in-mast furler sails have a greatly shortened life over similarly constructed conventional sails. 

<OAs the leech slides down the sail, the sail bunches up inside the mast. Multiple delivery skippers and owners have told me stories of spending periods of time in heavy weather where they could neither pull the sail in nor let it out. In the worst case, they actually sent someone up the mast to cut the mainsail off the mast rather than risk losing the boat in a worsening offshore storm. 

<OBeyond the safety issues and shortened sail life, I have serious concerns about the performance loss, especially when off of the wind. To make an in-mast furler work well, the leech of the sail is generally cut hollow. (Yes, there are in mast furling battens, either parallel to the mast or furling battens, which allow a straight leech or slight roach, but most in-mast furling mains have hollow cut leeches.) Masts are considerably heavier reducing stability and hurting angular motion comfort. Depending on the region, PHRF allows 9 to 21 seconds a mile for in-mast furled mainsails. That is a huge penalty for a small amount of added convenience.

As a single-hander/short hander who sails routinely in heavy weather, the risk of jamming a sail is a extremely compelling reason not to have in-mast furling. When there is crew to steer and wrestle with the sail and hardware, a problem may be dealt with. But out there by myself in the kind of changeable conditions found in a storm, I cannot conceive of taking a chance on a bound up in-mast furling sail. As has been noted in these type of discussions, there are few standard operating procedures more dangerous than going on a deck in a storm. When I think of the implications of standing at a mast wrestling with a jambed furled sail for any length of time, I think that in-mast furling is just too dangerous for the way I use a boat. 

<O
Personally I prefer a two line reefing system. Two line systems are cheap and simple to rig, can be operated without sending anyone on deck, lets you reef on almost any point of sail, (which can be a major safety factor), produces a sail shape that is optimum for heavy air and which won't self adjust over time, and has few parts to fail. 

<OI know there are lots of these in-mast systems out there, many if not most of which have never experienced a jamb, but for me the risk of a jamb is way too great, especially when you think of how reliable and quick two line slab reefing really is. I personally would consider in-mast furling a deal killer based on the loss of safety, the shortened sail life and loss of performance. 

<OBut as I said above, maybe this is just me&#8230;.but then again, thankfully, I see that the bigger manufacturers are stepping back from offering in-mast furlers on many of their smaller models, offering slab reefing, and lazy jack, sail cover hybrids instead. 

<ORespectfully,<O
Jeff


----------



## Naughtylus (Sep 22, 2008)

The only time I have sailed with in mast furling was when I was on my RYA skippers course, on a boat borrowed by the training company. 
The system was a major pain in the ass, due to it's repeated failures to furl cleanly away.
Needless to say, the level and quality of maintenance of the system and the sail itself probably had a lot to do with this, but in my opinion, a stuck furling system in a blow is likely to be more of a problem to deal with and potentially more dangerous than dousing a slab reefing sail with lazyjacks or a stackpack.
I do a lot of single handing and would frankly never buy a boat with in mast furling.

I guess that in-boom furling would be a bit safer in the event of failure, in that in the worst case, the sail could be hauled down and secured or even cut away, but I am instinctively attracted to the KISS principle.

I'll take slab reefing every time.


----------



## Skipper995 (Feb 7, 2001)

Forget about 'serious racer' or otherwise. In-mast furling is convenient to pull out the sail and roll it away (provided it works properly). That's as far as it goes. However the loss of all the sail controls needed for proper sail shape are IMHO not worth the convenience of the fuller.
Draft depth, draft position, leech and luff tension, are all lost when using a roller furled main. Forget the loss of sail area in light air. Think about the loss of sail shape in heavy air.
Agreed, in-mast furling makes it easier. But is far from better sailing.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I will still come out and say that in my opinion, the vast majority of inmast failures come from ignorance on how to reef. The system might kinda look like a typical rig - but handling it like one is a sure way to jam it up. 

I also believe that repeatedly reefing the sail improperly will cause it to stretch improperly and will cause failures no matter what you do. This is not the sytems fault - it is the fault of years of abuse. What system won't fail with abuse?

- CD


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Skipper995 said:


> Forget about 'serious racer' or otherwise. In-mast furling is convenient to pull out the sail and roll it away (provided it works properly). That's as far as it goes. However the loss of all the sail controls needed for proper sail shape are IMHO not worth the convenience of the fuller.
> Draft depth, draft position, leech and luff tension, are all lost when using a roller furled main. Forget the loss of sail area in light air. Think about the loss of sail shape in heavy air.
> Agreed, in-mast furling makes it easier. But is far from better sailing.


Dude - why do I find it impossible to read your posts to the end? I'm thinking it might be that sweet avatar. Zoinks!

I'll keep trying.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

The Passport 42 that we nearly bought a year or so back had in mast. Now we sailed a lot on that boat and nothing about the in mast furler made me want to have one. I considered it one of the major negatives of that boat. As per usual our free range curmudgeon summed it up well.

OTOH, and I'd like to hear opinions on this, I don't see the same problems with in boom. In particular I like the idea that if the furler does jam then you can lower the sail as easily as with a standard main. We've played around with an in boom furler on a 40'er in Sydney and I couldn't fault it. 

I did have one of those horrid wind the sail around the boom furlers on a boat I had in the 70s and it was one the first things to go. Absolutely apalling piece of junk.

Again though on anything under 40' I don't see the need for furling main. Maybe I would if I was old and infirm. Not that CD is old and infirm of course but sometmes a cap of the right size just happens to come along.  An often neglected point is that you really need to make sure your slides are working well. I like the sound of those ball bearing cars for the main but I'm also told they are not particularly good aerodynamically.

DJ's dad was a smart fella !!

ericread....ugly ? I've never thought so. Interesting you think so.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

*Pull them forward, into the dead air behind the mast, if they bother you so.*



ericread said:


> Sure, it makes it easier, but lazy jacks are sooooo ugly...uke
> 
> Eric


And sailing is NOT about shiny gelcoat and looking good. That is what express cruisers are about. And yachting. Not sailing.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I have a Doyle Stack pack with all halyards and reefing lines led to the cockpit. From the cockpit I drop the main to the mark on the main halyard, then crank in the reefing line, and done. I have a mark on the halyard for reef 1 and reef 2. The port cabin top winch controls the main halyard and the starboard cabin top winch cranks in the reefs.


----------



## jason3317 (Dec 20, 2007)

In my experience and opinion, in-mast furling that was once novel, has become a convenience item that most causal sailors prefer. I imagine that there are 1,000s of these installations in the field and working as advertised. They seem to be well engineered.

I think we can all agree that there is a HUGE performance penalty in sail plan performance with in-mast furling. One point I'll add, it that most boats with this 'feature' try to make up for lack of power with a large, overlapping genoa...140-150%. Usually, this is the first to be roller reefed in higher wind speed...with the resultant baggy, round, powered up draft. There is just no way to make it work.

As a more direct example, two weeks ago, I was sailing in the company of two benes (381 and 423). Off the wind, they simply could not keep up with me. My boat has a big, full battened main - I could sail deeper angles, faster - with a water line smaller by 6-10 feet . This happened on two separate days: the first with wind 6-10 knts, the following day 15-18 knts. 

Upwind the final day in 15-22, 3 foot waves, while I was disadvantaged with a smaller waterline and less displacement, I was able to really shape and flatten the main (tapered mast with backstay, cunningham, outhaul). This allowed me to carry a larger sail plan longer, before I finally cried uncle and threw in a reef (slab, with lazy jacks). My companion boat, the 381 was not able to find a good comfort combination and rolled it all up and motored the final 10 miles home.

My biggest concern with in-mast, is not performance, but safety. If an in-mast is going to fail, you just know it's going to become a turd when you need it to roll it in NOW. I'll admit, the failure rate is low, but I would not to be the statistic.

As for my optimal system, give me a big roachy full battened main, with a Harken or similar ball-bearing battcar system and lazy jack / stackpack / etc.


----------



## johnshasteen (Aug 9, 2002)

If you sail extensively offshore, the last thing you want is some POS gimmick that may jam or fail entirely in a blow - and in-mast furling strikes me as one such item. More than once, Paloma has been knocked down to the cabin trunk grab rails and the sails filled with water. At those moments, the roller furling jib was enough of a headache, I would not have wanted to also deal with in-mast furling.


----------



## bacampbe (Mar 17, 2009)

*I'll admit to having one*

Our Bene 31 has in-mast furling. It uses a Neil Pryde vertical battened sail. The difference in sail area between this version and the classic mast version is much smaller than I expected. And unlike many mast-furled systems, they did not go with a big headsail (only a 105 standard.)

First of all, I have been amazed at the upwind ability of this boat. Reefing is easy, and I have more adjustability to get things balanced. We actually have quite a bit of control over the mainsail draft based on how tight we pull the outhaul. This is the first loose footed main I've sailed with, and I like that part a lot. We don't have an adjustable backstay, but then neither does the classic-main rig option on the same boat.

We have had a few issues getting things tuned, but it works pretty well. The biggest problem has been having the lower part luff tape come clear of the mast, and making it hard to get it started furling. I _think_ I've got that fixed by adjusting the halyard tension. Overall, I've had less problems with this rig than I've had with battens getting stuck in lazy-jacks on other boats.

In all fairness, I'm an inland lake sailor. If everything goes to hell, I'm usually a short swim to shore. I would want to have a lot more experience with this rig before trusting it on an offshore boat.

But so far, I like it.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

tdw said:


> OTOH, and I'd like to hear opinions on this, I don't see the same problems with in boom. In particular I like the idea that if the furler does jam then you can lower the sail as easily as with a standard main. We've played around with an in boom furler on a 40'er in Sydney and I couldn't fault it.
> .


I won't take in-mast or boom furling, considering them both unacceptable compromises of sail power in favour of some transitory notion of convenience.

I also consider that as in-mast in particular precludes battens (loss of sail shape) and requires a very long axle mounted at both ends (weight aloft and mechanical complexity) and a great big slot in the mast from boom to masthead (potential weakening of mast and I don't want to think about the uneven strains on the cloth a sub-optimal mechanism might impose).

They are bad ideas outside of fair-weather sailing and too heavy and expensive to justify on a smaller boat.

Boom furling can address most of these issues, with the main advantage of being able to have the main completely dropped if the mechanism breaks.

I see neither device as a replacement for prudent seamanship, which should include the ability to rapidly and securely reef.

I have a nice ProFurl for my yankee jib, and although it hasn't let me down yet, I service it regularly and frankly don't like it much. Roller-reefing it more than 20% basically screws the sail up for windward work, so the "advantage" is, to my mind, partial at best.

Consequently, I probably use my staysail (the tack of which is quite far forward) more than most. It has a reef point, and I can rig it with a downhaul. Alone, it will drive the boat in 30 knots of wind, and I have a storm staysail for worse weather.

Now I need a trysail! But not an in-mast one.


----------



## Skipper995 (Feb 7, 2001)

bacampbe, You say you have control over draft with your furling main. Outhaul only controls draft in the lower 1/3 of the sail and can only control daft amount not position. This of course is also only available in a full main. After reefing a furling main even more sail shape is lost.  As the sail is furled the draft deepens with no way to control it. This only exacerbates the already poor shape. 
For condo style sailing in the marina it is a very practical way to deal with a larger main. For safe sailing out on the water where sail shape and performance are important furling mains leave a lot to be desired. For large open water passages it is a recipe for disaster.
The appeal of easy sail handling should never out-weigh the need for safe and needed sail trim capability.


----------



## DropTop (May 7, 2009)

While I've never had either in boom, or in mast, and for all the reasons listed here I can not imagine ever wanting an in mast system (weight aloft, in-ability to pull down in emergency if it jams, lack of shape/sail size/proper batten options) 

I've always felt the in boom furling systems addressed many of the needs for convenience and ease of use (can be considerd a saftey factor in rough conditions), and had almost none of the weaknesses of the in mast systems.


I suspect that just as rolling up a headsail to reef it, you get wrinkles, stress and wear, plus poor sail shape along the foot of the main when reefed on a in boom roller furling. I was recently out on a friends Catalina 25 recently in 25kt winds heading up to Mystic and we had the main fully (jiffy) reefed (only one reef point), and the Genoa (150%) was rolled up to about the size of a 110%. We were moving along about hull speed and having a blast and sailed right into the marina in Westbrook to stay the night having left from Milford earlier that morning. The next morning we unfurled the Genoa to resume the trip, and the sail (which is only 2 months old) looked like someone's dirty laundry that had been sitting at the bottom of the laundry basket for weeks it had so many ugly folds, creases and wrinkles in it from being partially furled in those strong conditions for a 8 hour trip. 

That couldn't possibly have been good for the sail being furled with all those forces pulling on the wrapped up cloth.

So my question is this:
With an in-boom system, do you normally still have the reef points and reenforced sections of sail at the tack and clew that you can run a reefing line through the sail or attach to a reefing hook by the gooseneck (effecivly a jiffy reefing system) to take the load off the furling mechanisim? Or is the load always fully supported by the furler, and being distributed across the sail cloth wrapped up below tightening around it's self creasing / folding / wrinkleing / streching the sail by creating un natural stress points and therefore reducing the life of the sail, and causing it to blow out sooner?

A real reefing system in conjunction with a in-boom furling system seems to answer nearly every need out there, and address every complaint I've heard about reefing / furling / dousing a main sail (except of couse cost)...


----------



## bacampbe (Mar 17, 2009)

So far, I've found I have better sail shape when reefed than I have had on most slab-reefed boats I have sailed on. None of those used a loose footed main, so that may have something to do with it. And having new sails might be part of it as well.

As far as "wrinkles" are concerned, I suspect a roller-furled main (either in-mast or in-boom) is going to get fewer than a sail flaked on top of the boom and zipped into a sail cover. Or slab-reefed, for that matter. It would of course be better to remove the sail and carefully fold it shoreside--but that's not the typically chosen alternative.


----------



## sck5 (Aug 20, 2007)

I have to say I love my strong track. let the halyard go and the sail just drops. I also have a dutchman so the sail drops in nice neat flakes on the boom. It is my dream setup - I want to be able to drop the mainsail in no time at all if I have to and be able to worry about other things as soon as I release the halyard. Because when I HAVE to drop the mainsail it is inevitable that there are other things that need tending to at the same time.


----------



## DropTop (May 7, 2009)

bacampbe said:


> As far as "wrinkles" are concerned, I suspect a roller-furled main (either in-mast or in-boom) is going to get fewer than a sail flaked on top of the boom and zipped into a sail cover.


If you reef a sail with any type of roller furling, and then subject that rolled sail to allot of pressure against the roll (aka from being in high winds), the cloth will slip and tighten up around the roller, but never do so perfectly flat, it will create folds that are inside the roll and those thicker spots will take more pressure then the thinner spots without the extra fold(s) of cloth, and then that fold will get pressed into the cloth under allot of pressure from the wind tugging against the roller. This stress and fatigue can only lead to a shorter life expectancy of the sail cloth (but by how much, I don't know).

When flaking (or even jiffy reefing) a traditional main any folds or wrinkles are not there under a load, the biggest load applied to the cloth is usually the weight of the cloth, and the sail ties or bungees you use to hold everything in place. These folds and wrinkles should not be impacting the life of the sail.

If you can partially roll the sail in boom while into the wind and then set traditional reefing points, it would seem to me you would eliminate the stress and fatigue on the sail from being rolled up and under a load, still have the hands off roller furling convience without sacraficing your ability to have a full, or partial/full battened main, and potentially having a better sail shape while reefed (you don't have any outhaul when reefing an inboom furling unless you also have a jiffy reffing system to go with it).

All in all, I guess what I'm suggesting it is not really much different then having a dutchman system with slab/jiffy reefing, except there is no sail cover to mess with, and no lines runing up through the sail to maintain.


----------



## killarney_sailor (May 4, 2006)

*I have my first furling main now and am still deciding*

I must say I am less fearful of this system than I was at first. I agree that you have to use it correctly to avoid problems. When I bought my boat I was told to think that when you are furling you are pulling the end of the boom toward the point on the mast where the last bit of sail goes. I also furl and unfurl carefully and take my time. You can see the cloth piling up in the mast if you are not pulling out enough on the outhaul. I think if you just blindly push the button for in or out you could get in trouble.

I have been working on the manual override since I think an obvious area for problems would be an electrical failure. Also, with practice, I can get decent sail shape - not as good as with a conventional main, but perfectly acceptable.

Would I choose a furling main over a conventional one? Probably not for a boat of my size (36000 lbs), but I am not going to spend a lot of money on replacing mine in the foreseeable future. I am intrigued by the simplicity and safety of being able to take sail in and out from the cockpit. Perhaps in-boom furling might be the best system but that is megabucks to retrofit.

Just for curiosity sake, does anyone know of someone converting an inmast furling mast to a conventional setup? Wondering if someone makes the pieces for this or if it is a custom job each time?


----------



## goboatingnow (Oct 10, 2008)

I'd like to speak up for in-mast. I have delivered several in-mast boats over long distances and through some very heavy weather. IN my experience they are like any system on board, You must learn how to handle/operate them and they must be maintained. IN my experience problems tend to result in not being able to unfurl, not furl it.

IN fact the biggest PITA, was a single line reefing fully battened main on a major manufacturer brand of boat, massive friction, and in a problem the battens always seem to burst out of the sail and of course everything gets caught in the lazy-jacks

Yes I agree with issues such as sail shaping , but since most cruisers at most just use outhaul tension this is available on a furling main too.

Issues such as stabily etc mean that the boat obviously has to be designed to carry a in-mast system.

To my view a lot of negatives came from a time of behing the mast systems and user retrofits etc. I wouldnt use anysystem that uses in-mast with vertical battens. ( thats a receipe for diaster).

My experience has been positive


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

goboatingnow said:


> I'd like to speak up for in-mast. I have delivered several in-mast boats over long distances and through some very heavy weather. IN my experience they are like any system on board, You must learn how to handle/operate them and they must be maintained. IN my experience problems tend to result in not being able to unfurl, not furl it.
> 
> IN fact the biggest PITA, was a single line reefing fully battened main on a major manufacturer brand of boat, massive friction, and in a problem the battens always seem to burst out of the sail and of course everything gets caught in the lazy-jacks
> 
> ...


That is where I am coming from too.

I find that many of the negative comments about inmast come from people that have never used them or have used them incorrectly. Hey - I started off as skeptical as everyone else. I guarantee you that if the boat had not come with inmast, I would have ordered wither inboom or a standard stick. But since using this system, I have found it safe and easy (once you understand the proper way to use it).

I am sorry, but I dissagree with you guys that talk about dropping in a reef offshore or dropping the main and not having to go forward. I ahve always had to do that. I would either have the tracks getting stuck or jammed or the sail not reefing down properly. And we have not mentioned that in the event you have to drop your sail completely (very common) in a storm, you will most certainly have to go forward. That is not the case with inmast or inboom. I would rather only have to go forward if there was a failure than to be certian to go forward no matter what.

Regarding sail shape, I don't care if ytou have an in-boom, standard/slab sail, inmast, or hanked on - NO sail has a good sail shape about the second reef. So I do not buy the argument about a slab reefing sail being better - none of them are. The exception is raising a whole other sail (like a trysail). Now, of interest to the readers, is that my mast has a track to run a trysail outside of the inmast. Does YOUR mast have two tracks?

Lastly, regarding premature death of the sail, I simply do not know how long the sail(s) will last. I am going on 5 years right now. But I will say that as a cruiser, you do not generally cover up your main. We never did when away from the dock. At the very least, you can expect that the typical inmast sail to show considerably less UV degradatin than the typical slab-reef sail. I would think that would account for something to help offset the stress of reefing in the sail.

Just my opinions,

- CD


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

We've had this debate before and I said more than once that I now have a Doyle Stakpac with Harken Batcars and the only thing I would change is putting a third reef into my main (only has 2 now).

Other than that, I'd change nothing. But that said, if the boat had come with a main furler I'd probably change nothing then too.

But when I have to renew my main, the new one will be exactly the same as the one I have now. Fully battened, loose foot, and the reefing tackle as it is now.

Oh and CD - I close my stakpac any time I'm staying over for more than just overnight. It takes less than a minute.


----------



## Zanshin (Aug 27, 2006)

I've got inmast furling and love it. I take care when furling it and therefore have never had it malfunction on me. Reefing and taking out reefs is a simple matter and takes only seconds and doesn't require me to leave the safety of the cockpit. Without inmast furling on the main I don't think I would feel comfortable singlehanding a boat as large as mine.


----------



## JagsBch (Jan 19, 2007)

MORGAN 27 Sailboat details on sailboatdata.com (units English)

So I have this 1971 27' Morgan. One of the battens came out of the main while we were sailing her home in about a 15+ knot wind. She doesn;t have a roller furling either.

If I get an inboom, can I please get one that offers me a bigger sail than the one that comes with it. It is like having a storm jib as a main.


----------



## botanybay (Oct 8, 2009)

*New to in mast furling...*

Well, I think I will wade into the fray....

As a bit of background I have covered about 24,000 miles offshore over the years on my prior vessel (A Cruising CAL 35) which I put a new Quantum main on in 1997, sailed from LA to Hawaii, the Marshall Islands, Midway Island, and back to LA. To extend the life of the sail I added a strong track system and had the main retrofitted by Quantum with full battens. I loved the system and it always worked well.

Come forward to the present, I have now owned an Oyster 55 since April of this year. My biggest misgiving with the vessel was the Hood Stoway Main with a 76' to the hoist and 78' overall height mast. I was ready to dump the system immediately and go to slab reefing.

However, the surveyor made the comment that the 1990 unit was one of the first of the really workable systems, it has a foil inside the mast like the modern systems not a wire around which the main rolled up. The system is a continuous loop line drive system rather than the electric or hydraulic system so if the electric motor in the winch fails you can use a winch handle from the cockpit and put the sail away, there is no plug up on the mast for an override. His recommendation was to try the system for a year and see what I thought, if I was having serious trouble try a new mainsail as it has the original sail at this point (yes, a 20 year old sail with at least one transatlantic passage). The sail does have small vertical battens, I think 4 of them.

Well the season is mostly over (at least as much as it does in southern california) and while I am sure the performance could be better but I am remembering the performance of the CAL before I bought a new sail so I am hopeful that much of the delta will show up with a new sail.

At first I was having horrible problems with jamming, I was going dead into the wind with the boom tight (i.e. the way I always reefed the slab reefing system). I was keeping the outhaul quite tight both furling and unfurling... The result it turned out was that I was pulling the middle of the sail into the slot and causing jamming. It also turns out that the sail wants to be furled with the drum turning clockwise, I could not figure out why it mattered until I realized that the battens were on one side of the sail only and the battens caused the sail to hang up. Since it wants to be furled clockwise I want the wind over the port side of the boat slightly so that as the sail goes into the mast it does not make a sharp turn around the lip of the mast.

I have tinkered with halyard tension, backstay tension, tuned the rig to make it straight, lubricated the bearings at the top of the mast, cleaned the open race bearings at the bottom, adjusted vang settings, etc. At this point I find that I don't appear to be having any more difficulty with the in mast furling as I would with a roller furling genoa of similar size, in most ways less as one of the problems with the roller furling genoa on the vessel is the line getting fouled on the spool when partially reefed. The continuous loop system avoids this completely!

Last weekend I ended up in 38knts (true) and 8 - 10 ft seas coming home from Catalina I was out in that slop for about 10 hours and the boat did well, I was looking up the mast and concerned about the look of the leach where it came out of the mast (I only had about 1/4 of the main out) and if it would jam when I tried to furl it. I was coming into the marina well after dark and was thus trying to determine what I would do. However, with all of the learning from the summer the system put the sail away without any trouble at all. The normal time to furl the mainsail is now about 30 seconds which is rather amazing to me for a vessel of this size.

In contrast, I have sailed extensively on a friends 43' 2001 Northwind with in boom furling. The system does provide for full battens and the sail does have them, the fully furled performance is very good. With the sail partually furled there is no way to set outhaul tension other than if you furl right up to a batten or half way inbetween. This does result in more draft in the sail than I would like for a reefed mainsail (remember I am thinking about my slab reefed main on the CAL 35). I have sailed many miles on this vessel and took the vessel up the coast to San Francisco for my friend when he could not make the trip. The system has always furled well.

However, I had the opporunity to have to drop the in boom main onto the deck in 40+ knts of wind because the clew let go from the rolling drum when the wind went from 14knts up to about 35knts in a couple of minutes! The arguement that in boom is safer than in mast due to being able to drop the sail was my thought up to that point. The in boom system is exactly like trying to drop your genoa on the deck if the furling gear gets jammed up in 40+ knts of wind. It was definitely not an easy job and had I not had three grown men aboard I am not sure we could have saved the sail. In the end we lost 2 of the 5 battens and had to remove the other three battens and shove the sail below. We limped into port and discovered that the boom was so far above my head (I am 6'3" tall) that we had to find a tall stool for me to stand on while I tryed to repair the system.

Now, that failure was a problem with installing the sail (not large enough line holding the sail to the boom) but it is an example that should the drum assembly freeze up, getting the sail down and stable is not as easy as some might visualize.

With all of that said, having sailed a 35' sailboat extensively with slab reefing, a 43' sailboat with in boom furling, and a 55' sailboat with in mast furling I would say that each of the systems has their strengths and weaknesses. After the failure with the 43' I told myself I would never have any mainsail furling system but as we worked the bugs out it has become a stable system if maintained well. I passed on many vessels with in mast furling until I found a vessel which I could consider retrofitting to slab reefing as part of the deal (i.e. the rigging is old and needs replaced, the mast needs to come down and be serviced, the sail is old and needs replaced, the genoa and staysail furlers are old and will need replacing, so the additional cost of replacing the spar is significant but not excessive should I need to go there).

After 6 months of sailing with the system I am still learning, the system has earned enough respect that it will get a new sail before I decide if it is the right system and how to proceed.

I think the key is that if you pay attention to any of these systems and listen to what it is trying to tell you, the reefing systems can be made safe.

I also think that the furling mains will require that the main be serviced or replaced due to furling issues about the same time the performance of the sail starts to significantly suffer (inducing significant heal and reduced sailing ability). A slab reefed main should be replaced then also but will continue to "work" and often are by people who don't care about performance. But, the question we are often asking is about the performance differences and a new main when it gets old and baggy will make a HUGE difference, I suspect larger than the difference between in-mast and in-boom systems.

I remember well the time just when the good genoa furling systems were becomming available (I put a Profurl NCI 42 on the 35' boat and LOVED it). The religious wars over furling vs hanks were huge, you could almost start physical fights at the yacht club over the subject! Now, 20 years later, almost everyone accepts genoa roller furling as an acceptable compromise to going on the foredeck to drop a genoa at sea. Have I ever had to go forward to clear a problem with a genoa furler at sea? YES!!! But it was a fouled line which had wrapped up on itself after being partially furled in 35knts of wind for a week. Bearing failures, halyard wraps, extrusions comming apart, solid extrusions twisting 270 degrees, etc are mostly a thing of the past if you install the systems according to the directions.

I suspect the furling mains (boom and mast) are with us to stay, I also expect that as the sailmakers become more adept in making sails to effectively use these systems the performance differences will become small enough to not the the primary consideration.

For example, for in mast furling I am seeing lighter weight cloth with similar strengths to reduce the size of the roll in the mast, some are far slicker resulting in less friction going into the mast, some are far crisper resulting in less bunching. Inflatable battens are an interesting new possibility which are now commercially available. The modern masts have a track for a trysail which I would dearly love!!!

The in boom systems are using carbon fiber to get the weight of the boom down (it is low but you should see that heavy boom bounce around in light winds and rolling seas, much less if you accidentially jibe), the line drive systems are evolving so that you don't have to put a hold all the way through the mast, I would think that finding a way to add a few webbing tabs to the sail so that one could create an outhaul at specific reef points would help reefed sail shape considerably.

I have been very impressed with the load sensing winches available in the larger sizes which allow you to set a maximum pull tension to keep from breaking things if they jam.

So, if I was starting from scratch with a new boat what would I do? I don't know if it would be reasonable to use slab reefing on a 55' sailboat and be able to be single handed (second person aboard as watch stander but not a hard core sailor, the standard cruising couple). If cost was no object, I would probably opt for the in boom carbon fiber boom for convience and the like although I scratched up the boom with the running backstay this weekend and I hate to think what that would have done to carbon.

If performance was key, then obviously a carbon fiber mast, slab reefing, etc would be the way to go.

But cost is always a question, the in mast systems are at this point actually
less expensive than a slab reefed system (at least the manufactures often charge an upcharge to have slab reefing now). The in boom systems are something like 25K USD more expensive than slab reefing on a new boat.

For the time being, I think I will refurb the mast and boom as is, put a new mainsail on it, replace the standing rigging and sail the boat for 5 years while going through the refit and see what I think then....

David


----------



## johnshasteen (Aug 9, 2002)

In mast furling is one more unnessessary convience that can put you at risk at the most inconvenient time you could imagine.


----------



## cormeum (Aug 17, 2009)

There is NO WAY I'd ever get in boom or (gasp) in mast furling. 

When we first got our boat it had an "in boom" furler- On Lake Huron we got caught by a "microburst" and the mainsail mandrel was pulled out through the slot in the boom (and stuck). If we weren't trimmed to have some weather helm we would have had SERIOUS problems. As it was the main got damaged banging the mandrel back and my next call was to Offshore Spars for a "traditional" slab reefing boom and my sailmaker for a new main.  

No blinkin' way.


----------



## speciald (Mar 27, 2007)

I'm on my second boat w/ LeisureFurl in-boom furling and have over 15k miles experience. I would not go back to traditional rigging or ever install in-mast furling. The only draw back is the cost. A full-batten sail with full roach, reef points at each batten, the sail still will come down normally if the system braks or jams are the advantages


----------



## botanybay (Oct 8, 2009)

*Not to argue or continue a religious war.. Like the in boom system, Just a thought...*

Having experienced failure of the in boom system to furl due to the clew letting go, remember that getting the main down is not like having slugs in a track... In high wind it is going to be a handful.

Don't kid yourself about not having to be ready for that possibility, like all things, something you are ready for is much easier to deal with.

David


----------



## danielgoldberg (Feb 9, 2008)

I read this thread due to the new one referring back to this.

Just curious, how many of the people decrying in-mast or in-boom furling have actually used them with regularity (i.e., owned one)? There definitely are compromises and shortcomings, no denying that, but it seems like the people criticizing them don't have any meaningful experience with one, and simply are proclaiming loudly that they never would own one. With utmost respect, it's kind of hard to have the street cred if you don't have the experience.

Jeff, I don't see furling mainsails as a fad that's doomed to go the way of shag carpeting. Seems to me that the technology is likely to address and remedy the shortcomings we all know about. It already has come a long way compared to systems even 5 years old. I certainly agree there remains room for improvement.

One last thing. I actually don't seem to have a problem flattening the main (some suggested that the main gets baggy when reefed). I can get that sucker a lot flatter than I could our prior in-boom furler. And the larger the reef (smaller the sail) the flatter I can get the sail. Likewise, I can flatten the sail without really reefing. That is, leave the outhaul tensioned, and take a turn or so on the furling line, and the main gets very flat and very depowered, even full. That may change as the sail ages and stretches, but 1 1/2 seasons in, I actually am quite happy with the ability to flatten the sail (the loss of power in light air and the ability to shape the full sail is a different story altogether).


----------



## St Anna (Mar 15, 2003)

I have had a Hood in boom furler - used it for about 3000nm. I sold it to someone with a shorter luff - so less sail on the furler. They appear still happy. 

I now have a new boom and back to the slab reefing. Its what I am comfortable with and as Johnshasteen said, I agree. If you cant trust it, then its a problem.

I used the same sail - it was only a few years old and had been rolled and protected perfectly. So a loose foot in a zip up bag with lazyjacks. Now with reef points and strengthened tack, clew and head. New luff tape for slides. 

Just my experience


----------



## mintcakekeith (Nov 5, 2009)

I would like to add my 2 penneyworth.
I had a profurl in boom system which came with the boat, the sail was on its last legs so wont comment re performance except to say that it was hard to raise and lower, but one dark and windy night we had the casting at the gooseneck end of the boom disintigrate letting the mandrel loose and the boom itself fall .It was then possible to lasso the end of he mandrel and pull the sail down and lash it all into a bundle but it was not easy ,this was in about a force 6 if the wind had been much stronger it would have been almost impossible.I believe that profurl now weld the casting to the boom .Ihav now fitted slab refing and lasyjacks with a fully battened main and batten cars and find it much better. Have not used in mast so cant comment. Keith.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I am not sure I will be able to recount everything that I would like to say here, but let me say that I am absolutely sold on Inmast furling.

As many of you know, we got caught in a nice little gale coming across the gulf.










We were able to reef in the main to where the boat felt comfortable and never left the cockpit. That is a HUGE advantage over the traditional. I will also say that we reefed the inmast while not dead into the seas. I believe we reefed it in at one point on a broad reach in about 25-30 kts. I will say, in all fairness, that this was during the day and the seas were not that bad at that point -










However, the thing went in and out perfectly and without fuss. It is a singlehanders dream and a non-racers dream. I still stand behind my concerns (that you would have to cut it down or get very creative if it hing up and it is not very 'powerful' so racers will not like it) - but for most other sailors it is awesome.

If I were going to cirumnavigate, I might go back to a traditional main... I don't know. One gulf crossing does not equal a circum, but I believe that the new inmasts are a good product and should be considered by cruisers.

Brian


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

It's good to see this system get some props. The general conclusion I'd come to before your story was that it was a bad idea. It makes sense from the sail control angle - so it's great to see that it actually worked as intended.

CD - have you had any maintenance or wear issues? In other words, have you had to "baby" it to make work as well as it did?


----------



## botanybay (Oct 8, 2009)

Thanks for a great commentary on real world use in tough conditions. 

I had a similar difficult passage back from Catalina in October of this year with about 40 - 45knts and 8 - 12 foot seas with 7-9 second period (i.e. very short and steep) and the ability to adjust the amount of sail up was very nice. I was looking at a bit of what appeared to be "bunching" of the partially furled sail at the back of the slot but as soon as I took some of the load off it pulled back into the mast and furling was easy as normal.

Maintenance on these systems is paramount, just like the headsail furling gear. I pulled the sail down, greased the upper bearing by taking the cup off the top, cleaning out the old grease, and filling with a clear lubricant (silicone based).

This is with an original 20 year old sail which does have vertical battens (about 3-4 feet long). I have been told that the new tape drive sails really help things because they don't stretch at all.

The only downside is that when I have santa anna conditions where the wind is from behind the boat in the slip the mast can set up a resonance due to a larger slot than some of the newer systems, however, the larger slot allows for battens to be more easily added to the sail.

It's interesting that I found when I shifted from a hanked on jib to a furling jib many years ago on the previous boat that the sail seemed to stay nicer when furled than when stuffed into the jib bag. I suspect based upon this sail that being rolled up all of the time when not used will result in the sail lasting longer for normal local sailing.

Thanks again for the story!

David


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

smackdaddy said:


> It's good to see this system get some props. The general conclusion I'd come to before your story was that it was a bad idea. It makes sense from the sail control angle - so it's great to see that it actually worked as intended.
> 
> CD - have you had any maintenance or wear issues? In other words, have you had to "baby" it to make work as well as it did?


Nope, not at all. The trick, as mentioned before, is that it is different than a traditional main and must be handled differently. It works well and as intended.

Brian


----------



## St Anna (Mar 15, 2003)

botanybay said:


> when I have santa anna conditions
> David


Apologies for misquoting, but I live St Anna conditions!!!

Back on track.

Great to hear from you CD. Best regards to the long suffering admiral CM and the half tracks (little cd's) .

I know I am old fashioned but I have had furlers stuff up and it never happens in quiet conditions

CD - you may get wet going to the stable mast area, but no jams equals safe peace of mind and in my book, that equals smart seamanship. If its going to get hooked up - just imagine when it would have in the middle of the gale. A 'newish' boat should have all systems working ok, but one day you gonna get caught!

I am removing the 150% for a new flat 100% as I feel we will have a shocker of an early cruising season with plenty of windward stuff - I can always put the big genoa back up if I conditions warrant it. When I say this, I am talking about doing sections of at least a few hundred miles. I dont like working harder than I have to!


----------



## Melrna (Apr 6, 2004)

This is a great discussion about something I believe is important to all sailors out there. Great job everyone!
This subject is near and dear to my heart. I have/had an in-mast furling system on two boats now. Before all this, traditional mast on my boats or the racing boats I have had the pleasure to sail on. I have been wrestling with this for over 5 years now and continue to do so. Like many here, I have a racer head/heart and a cruisers attitude now. This sets up an enigma in my brain I cannot quiet down. 
My experience to share with all. First, I have had failures on all systems I have had the pleasure to sail on; Jammed mainsail on both track systems and in-mast furling/unfurling. All not very pleasant, with huge difficulty wrestling the main. 
*Jammed track mainsail on traditional boat*. More than I can count. Grant most of these was while racing. Racers have a tendency to overpower the boat in most wind conditions. There is generally amble crew to handle the problem. But with big winds, along with big sail, creates great forces on the mainsail. Unsticking one requires great downward forces to unjam the sail. One time I was raised above the deck trying to unstick a track jam while pulling down on the second reef line. The mainsail started going back up the mast during a big gust. This actually freed the mainsail. Those with Bat-Car system, I have seen exploding bat-cars and bearing freeze due to salt in the race-bearing system (this happens common to long distance cruisers in major crossing where washing down with fresh water on the bat-car race system is either forgotten or difficult at best). Like others have said, I believe proper maintenance would have avoided most of these failures. The advantages of a batten mainsail in proper sail shape I cannot say enough about. Nothing makes my heart sing like a good looking mainsail conquering wind to make a boat sail through the sea.
*In-Mast Sheldon Mast B&R rig*: My current boat, Hunter 36 and former boat, Hunter 33 has this mast system. It s a love/hate affair. I sail mostly alone. I sail in all kinds of weather, wind and sea state. I am not afraid to take her out in any winds less than 35 knots. The convenience and safety of this system has made me a convert of sorts. I have jammed the system and broken the clew twice. The jams I have had were operator error as I was learning how to operate this system. All the times it has jammed, it required me to go to the mast. All the times, I was able to unjam the mainsail with the manual winch. The clews that broke was due to Florida UV damage. The sails that come with most production boats are made out of cheap Dacron sails, usually from the far east. They stretch after one season. The clews at least on the Hunters are not properly covered with Sunbrella to protect from UV damage. Both times the clew broke, was in winds over 25 knots, rail in the water (the racer in me), mainsail furled to 1/2 sail area. Both times I had the mainsail in the mast in less the 30 sec, maintaining course and the boat never skipped a beat with the jib. The pressure on the clew is tremendous. This is especially true when trying to flatten the mainsail in heavy winds: your only adjustment. My vang on the boat is of the rigid type. Its only true function is to hold up the mast at the right angle to furl/unfurl the mainsail. I do not have the internal gas compressed spring. I have talk to Sheldon, my rigger and many sail makers about this. Hunter/Sheldon both told me they went with this setup for the average sailor to enjoy themselves on the water. Most sailors they claim are not knowledgeable enough about sail trim vs a racer per se. The manufactures went with the KISS approach. I plan on fixing this in the spring. The gas compression kit is only $150, cheap for any item on the boat. I will have to move the head of the attachment point on the boom about 6-9 inches to compensate for the new spring and downward adjustment to flatten the sail when required. I believe this will help flatten the upper part of the sail throughout the mainsail envelope. 
*Sail shape on my boat* - Vomit city. It pains me to see it each time I sail. I have a B&R rig. These rigs come from the racing community. Made for big mainsails, with big positive roaches. With in-mast mainsails, without battens they come with a negative roach. No power what so ever in the top 1/3 of the sail. With vertical battens, the mainsail would go from negative roach to positive roach. In addition, one gains about 6-10% more sail area. My sailmakers also claim better control over the top 1/3 of sail as well. Having sailed only two boats with vertical battens, both times I was not impressed. The verdict is still out on them. It would cost me about $3000 to get a new mainsail with partial vertical battens from Mack Sails or Doyle with great quality Darcon. I am not sure the extra money would worth it all. 
*Air battens system*. The North Sails loft (I thing I have this right), that invented this, is just down the street from me. I visited them awhile back ago. The systems seems to work on the boat they have. It is still new technology. To be honest I don't like it. To complicated. To many parts added to the boat and another thing that can fail. While the idea is wonderful it just isn't for me. For those interested in this, I was quoted a price around 5k for my boat. 
In summary, I miss the control and sail shape of batten mainsail. However, like those that sail short handed, in-mast systems it the way to go. The ease and safety they provide out weigh the negative aspects. One might lose 1/2-1 knot of speed in certain winds and sailing angles but cruising is about the journey not the destination. When I purchase my next boat, the mainsail system will depend on who I am sailing with/without and their sailing skills.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Melrna said:


> This is a great discussion about something I believe is important to all sailors out there. Great job everyone!
> This subject is near and dear to my heart. I have/had an in-mast furling system on two boats now. Before all this, traditional mast on my boats or the racing boats I have had the pleasure to sail on. I have been wrestling with this for over 5 years now and continue to do so. Like many here, I have a racer head/heart and a cruisers attitude now. This sets up an enigma in my brain I cannot quiet down.
> My experience to share with all. First, I have had failures on all systems I have had the pleasure to sail on; Jammed mainsail on both track systems and in-mast furling/unfurling. All not very pleasant, with huge difficulty wrestling the main.
> *Jammed track mainsail on traditional boat*. More than I can count. Grant most of these was while racing. Racers have a tendency to overpower the boat in most wind conditions. There is generally amble crew to handle the problem. But with big winds, along with big sail, creates great forces on the mainsail. Unsticking one requires great downward forces to unjam the sail. One time I was raised above the deck trying to unstick a track jam while pulling down on the second reef line. The mainsail started going back up the mast during a big gust. This actually freed the mainsail. Those with Bat-Car system, I have seen exploding bat-cars and bearing freeze due to salt in the race-bearing system (this happens common to long distance cruisers in major crossing where washing down with fresh water on the bat-car race system is either forgotten or difficult at best). Like others have said, I believe proper maintenance would have avoided most of these failures. The advantages of a batten mainsail in proper sail shape I cannot say enough about. Nothing makes my heart sing like a good looking mainsail conquering wind to make a boat sail through the sea.
> ...


Nicely written and thought out post.

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

St Anna said:


> Apologies for misquoting, but I live St Anna conditions!!!
> 
> Back on track.
> 
> ...


Everything has a trade off. And like Melissa above, I too have had traditional's jam. It is those stupic cars in the tracks for me. I know there may be better systems for that, but now you start adding on more moving parts and areas for failure. At what point are you right back to the inmast?

Brian


----------



## St Anna (Mar 15, 2003)

Cruisingdad said:


> Everything has a trade off. And like Melissa above, I too have had traditional's jam. It is those stupic cars in the tracks for me. I know there may be better systems for that, but now you start adding on more moving parts and areas for failure. At what point are you right back to the inmast?
> 
> Brian


As you said, If you are happy with what you have and aware of its limitations. You are able to sort it out when it goes wrong, then that is right for your boat.

My slides have some kind of teflon / silicon plastic alloy so they do OK so far. My old main has a bolt rope sewn in so friction plus. You also have a different keel to me so I can imagine you may be in the washing machine motion more than I, if attempting to travel to the mast. Then again, I have lower topsides and therefore a wetter boat than you guys.

Doesnt matter - well done for the trip and doing it rather than just talking about what you are 'gunna' do. Hopefully I am not far behind (timeline not geographically)
regards Brian
David


----------



## Melrna (Apr 6, 2004)

St Anna said:


> As you said, If you are happy with what you have and aware of its limitations. You are able to sort it out when it goes wrong, then that is right for your boat. /quote]
> 
> You hit the nail on the head. Knowing your boat and crew limitations is call proper seamanship. Don't get into any situation you cannot get out. This requires a multitude of plans before you leave the dock, NOT during a breakdown in a hostile environment.


----------



## St Anna (Mar 15, 2003)

Thanks Melrna,
We are all out there because we want to. Good seamanship is common sense.
cheers


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Jeff_H said:


> Personally I prefer a two line reefing system. Two line systems are cheap and simple to rig, can be operated without sending anyone on deck, lets you reef on almost any point of sail, (which can be a major safety factor), produces a sail shape that is optimum for heavy air and which won't self adjust over time, and has few parts to fail.


Perhaps I can add some information here.

I have used extensively one of the first called automatic reefing systems (1 line reefing). As most members certainly know this is normally the system that is offered on mass produced boats as an option to the in mast reefing. I have used a Selden system (2002) on a 36ft, 7 years long (more than 10 000 miles).

That system has some disadvantages. It only supports two reefs and adds some friction.

I have also installed a third reef with a two line system.

The single line system jammed only once and by my fault. Anyway with the system jammed you still have a reef (they are independent) and besides you can hand reef the sail or pull it down without problem.

The system jammed because I have substituted the original lines by thinner ones (as strong). I wanted to have less friction, but it turned out that if you put thinner lines they will end up jamming between the internal blocks and the side of the boom.

The system performed always correctly, but if bringing a reef in was easy, pulling it out was more difficult. The friction was noticeable.

The two line reefing system (third reef) worked very well, but for having 3 reefs (with a two line system) you need 6 blocks on the base of the mast and six clutches on the cockpit. If you join those 6 with the others necessary, the base of the mast can be overcrowded, especially if it is a performance boat with more control lines.



Cruisingdad said:


> I am sorry, but I disagree with you guys that talk about dropping in a reef offshore or dropping the main and not having to go forward. I ahve always had to do that. I would either have the tracks getting stuck or jammed or the sail not reefing down properly.


Seven years, 10 000 miles and I have never needed to go forward in bad weather, on account of the reefing system. But I had to go forward a couple of times in bad weather to untangle the genoa roller.



goboatingnow said:


> I'd like to speak up for in-mast. ... Issues such as stabily etc mean that the boat obviously has to be designed to carry a in-mast system.


Sure I agree, but that simply doesn't happen with big mass production brands.

Bavarias, Beneteaus, jeanneaus, Hanse and the like are almost pretty much on the limit in what regards final stability and they don't put more ballast to compensate the bad located height of the in mast furling.

They put less sail on the boat, but that does not change anything in what regards final stability.

With a traditional mast you will have a faster and a safer boat and I am not talking about the safety that the traditional reefing system will bring, but about the one that results of a better overall stability.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

St Anna said:


> Thanks Melrna,
> We are all out there because we want to. Good seamanship is common sense.
> cheers


Yeppo. Good post. Hope you do get out there soon.

Brian


----------



## St Anna (Mar 15, 2003)

Cruisingdad said:


> Hope you do get out there soon.
> 
> Brian


Sorry off topic again
Thanks Brian,
Finishing off the list of jobs will continue until early April (close to the end of our cyclone season). Then a leasurely stroll to Harvey Bay. May get as far as the Lousiades (New Guinea) this year or at least to Flinders Group (Princess Charlotte Bay) before heading south out of cyclone regions. 
Your plans still to meander about the Carib?


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

St Anna said:


> Sorry off topic again
> Thanks Brian,
> Finishing off the list of jobs will continue until early April (close to the end of our cyclone season). Then a leasurely stroll to Harvey Bay. May get as far as the Lousiades (New Guinea) this year or at least to Flinders Group (Princess Charlotte Bay) before heading south out of cyclone regions.
> Your plans still to meander about the Carib?


In Fort Myers Beach, fl now. Waiting on my old man and momma (as long as I can take it). We ended up in a marina that is great though. Have two la's around us, both with kids my kids age. They are playing hide-seak rifht now on our boat. Hehehehe! So funny that they are trying to hide in here. Boats are great for lots of things but this is not one of them. It takes about 10 seconds before they find each other!! Maybe I should have bought the Nordhavn!!!

Brian


----------



## albartsch (Jan 23, 2010)

Occasionally I run into the "Absolut Freedom" which is about 70 feet long with inmast furling. I can hear it before I see it. The mast opening creates an effect like thousands of coke bottles being blown across. I wouldn't want to live with such noise, but it may just be that boat.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Hey albar - welcome to SN dude. If anyone's going to actually "run into" a maxi, it'll probably be me.


----------



## scottbr (Aug 14, 2007)

albartsch said:


> Occasionally I run into the "Absolut Freedom" which is about 70 feet long with inmast furling. I can hear it before I see it. The mast opening creates an effect like thousands of coke bottles being blown across. I wouldn't want to live with such noise, but it may just be that boat.


Its just that particular mast... there's thousands of these in use without that problem.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I find that under 10-12 knots the conventional main gives a lot more lift and power. As wind increases, and especially off the wind, beam or deeper, the disadvantage with in-mast furling is lessened.
I like the in-boom furling beacause you get horizontal battens; the big downside is that for every yacht I've been on with this reefing system, the FRICTION is significant. So you solve it with a power winch....more complication-and if it goes wrong......


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

sailor1- could you elaborate on the "friction"? I like the idea of in boom rather than in mast for the reasons you state but haven't heard about needing a power winch (what size boats are you referring to and which furling units?). Thanks.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Jrd22, probably sailor1 is right about that friction. One of the boats I am interested in is the Luffe 43, a Danish boat. The Luffe is one of the few boats that offers a furling boom as an option. I was at the shipyard for a sail test and to talk with the designer and builder of the boat. He said to me the same that sailor1 is saying : With a furling boom it is better to go with electric winches, not only on account of the friction, but to flatten the sail. And that guy has a lot of experience with furling booms. He is not just a builder, but also a very good sailor and a racer.


----------



## dillybar (Nov 10, 2009)

I've in mast furling on a Bene. 461 and love it. Do I race? - no. Do I cross oceans? - no. 
For the local cruising we do the small performance loss in not an issue at all - if I can't afford 20 seconds a mile I should have left earlier. 
As far as safety I can't see it. The most routinley risky part of a trip on my buddies Jeaneau 44 and 49 was always dropping the main in lumpy seas, yes he had lazy jacks but you still had to go up and pull the sail down the last several feet. 
If there ever was a problem with mine I would consider that bummer rather than a safety issue. If it is jammed out you just drop it like any other main, If I was jammed half out I guess you would release the outhaul and lash it to the mast or let it flog until you can do it safely? Again a bummer but not life threatening.
The only real negative for us I can see is the weight aloft making the boat a little more tender than it has to be (and I suppose opting for a deep keel would have more than made up for that). I would be curious to know exactly how much extra weight is up there and exactly what the reduction in stability is. 
Would it equal the difference between full and empty tankage? 
BTW does my buddy with the Jeaneau (who has 40 + years sailing / racing under his belt) look at my furler with distain? - yes.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

dillybar said:


> As far as safety I can't see it. The most routinley risky part of a trip on my buddies Jeaneau 44 and 49 was always dropping the main in lumpy seas, yes he had lazy jacks but you still had to go up and pull the sail down the last several feet.


You can rig a line to the top of the sail to bring it down completely from the cockpit.



dillybar said:


> .. If there ever was a problem with mine I would consider that bummer rather than a safety issue. &#8230; If I was jammed half out I guess you would release the outhaul and lash it to the mast or let it flog until you can do it safely? Again a bummer but not life threatening. &#8230;


Let half of your mainsail flog for a long time in a 40k or 50k wind and I bet you will lose your mast, if you do not capsize first. Even loose and flogging a considerable area of sail offers a lot of resistance to the wind.



dillybar said:


> &#8230; The only real negative for us I can see is the weight aloft making the boat a little more tender than it has to be (and I suppose opting for a deep keel would have more than made up for that). I would be curious to know exactly how much extra weight is up there and exactly what the reduction in stability is.


The loss in stability is not difficult to find. I can offer you an approximate calculation:

Let's assume that your mainsail weighs about 65kg, that the boat center of gravity is 0.2cm under the waterline and that the cg of the sail is situated roughly at 1/3 of its height (and the mast is 16m tall). Then you will have a 65kg weight situated at about 9m above the boat CG (that's a very big arm).

Your ballast is situated about 1.8 m under the boat CG (and I am considering that all the boat ballast is on the bulb and that is not the case). That means that for compensating 1kg up on the mast you have to put around 5kg on the keel. If you have a traditional rig, the 65kg sail will stand at 4m from the boat CG. That means that for compensating 1 kg there, you would need around 2 kg at the bulb.

The difference between the two rigs translates in a need of around 210kg at the bulb, for compensating the loss of stability generated by the in mast furling.

Or if you want a more visual idea, it's like having 5 radome radars up there&#8230;and you know that there are sailors that don't want any up there and prefer to put them lower, on a post.

Or in another way, it's about the difference in ballast that your boat has between the versions with short and long keel, to compensate the stability.

You assume that your boat (long keel) is more stable that the same version with a short keel but that is not true. They put more weight on the short keel to compensate the difference in keel length. In stability, It is like you having the short keel version without the extra ballast they add to compensate.

Saying that, I would like to say that I am not against furling masts, but I believe caution is needed on light boats that had not their loss in stability compensated for the system and especially in boats with a low weight/ballast ratio, like Beneteaus, Bavarias and Jeanneaus, boats with a not so good final stability. I know that the system is very easy to use, that new models almost never jam and that it is a plus while selling the boat to the typical casual sailor.

I believe that boat sellers don't explain to the buyer the full extent of the negative side of the system. After all it is easier to sell a boat easy to handle, even if that easiness can be translated, in some circumstances, in a less safe boat.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

PCP said:


> You can rig a line to the top of the sail to bring it down completely from the cockpit.
> 
> Let half of your mainsail flog for a long time in a 40k or 50k wind and I bet you will lose your mast, if you do not capsize first. Even loose and flogging a considerable area of sail offers a lot of resistance to the wind.
> 
> ...


Great post Paulo. I enjoyed reading the comments.

I will offer a few for thought:

First, if that sail gets 'hung' going back in (lets not discuss it getting hung all the way out as it can be dropped at that point and a non-issue), then the amount of sail area will me much less. I also feel that you would be able to alter your course through the gale and ease the mainsheet sufficient to minimize the danger to the boat. Now whether the sail will survive is a different discussion as I do not believe it would, but as it rips apart, so does the effects on the boat decrease.

Regarding the weight aloft, I still need to get a comfort level with that. My boat is the most sure footed production boat I have ever sailed - however, I do not have a good comparrison on how much more stable she might be with a trad main as I have not sailed one with it (but would enjoy doing so). However, for those boats that are already slightly tender, I can see where the extra weight could become an issue. I wonder though, with most of those boats, how many will truly make a long distance passage where Force 9-10+ become an issue? Aren't the larger production Jeau's, Bene's and Bavaria pretty stable (this is a question as I really do not know)?

And as far as the casual sailor, that probably encompasses 99% of the sailors that buy non-passage making boats anyways (though I have seen a growing trend toward inmast on even the more traditional offshore boats with Valiant being an exception)? For those, like myself, that have taken a production boat and will take a production boat offshore, I have always wondered if all the crap we put down below (below the waterline) does not seriously offset any other stability issues!!!! (smile).

I am not in any way arguiing with you, just commenting on your points which were awesome. Incidentally, this has been an awesome thead as it is one of the few times on sailnet we can discuss very confrontational types of issues that sailors are very passionate about without anyone losing their cool!!!

Brian


----------



## dillybar (Nov 10, 2009)

Good discussion, Thanks for the reply Paulo.
Not entirely sold on the notion that the bottom half of a half rolled, hollow leach main flogging would have the power to capsize or dismast my boat in 50 knots.
But even if it could, the point I was trying to make is we do only coastal cruising. For me to get into that kind of trouble a lot of unlikely events would have to happen. first, we would have to get really bad weather info to be "caught" in a storm on a day sail, second, the furler would have to fail (never happened in 15,000 miles), third we would have to be unable to lash it to the mast, and fourth, I guess the engine would have to fail so I couldn't point it in the wind. Not impossible, but really unlikely.
If you still have your calculator out what effect do you think a ton of water and fuel below the waterline has on stability? And would a boat be faster in a stiff breeze with full or empty tanks? 
And last, for fun: (from another site) A 10 mile race is held on a perfectly straight river that flows east to west at 10 knots. The course is down stream. The heat in the morning is held with no wind at all. The heat in the afternoon is held with a 10 knot easterly. Which heat posts the best times?


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

dillybar said:


> Good discussion, Thanks for the reply Paulo.
> Not entirely sold on the notion that the bottom half of a half rolled, hollow leach main flogging would have the power to capsize or dismast my boat in 50 knots.
> But even if it could, the point I was trying to make is we do only coastal cruising. For me to get into that kind of trouble a lot of unlikely events would have to happen. first, we would have to get really bad weather info to be "caught" in a storm on a day sail, second, the furler would have to fail (never happened in 15,000 miles), third we would have to be unable to lash it to the mast, and fourth, I guess the engine would have to fail so I couldn't point it in the wind. Not impossible, but really unlikely.
> If you still have your calculator out what effect do you think a ton of water and fuel below the waterline has on stability? And would a boat be faster in a stiff breeze with full or empty tanks?
> And last, for fun: (from another site) A 10 mile race is held on a perfectly straight river that flows east to west at 10 knots. The course is down stream. The heat in the morning is held with no wind at all. The heat in the afternoon is held with a 10 knot easterly. Which heat posts the best times?


If you want my opinion, in most production boats, with the right seas, 50k with a hung main could give you a solid knockdown. What happens after that is luck I suppose. I believe that 50k with any fetch for seas at all might very well do the trick. If not, the deck would certainly be slippery and not from salt water!!!!

My point was that most boats could change their point of sail such that they could prevent/minimize that from happening. A simple running reach might do the trick with enough sea room, or a beam reach if not - possibly with the main loose.

I cannot tell you for sure what would happen in those conditions as I have not had to do that. Mine worked flawlessly. In fact, it worked better than expected in our gale.

Brian


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Thanks Brian. Let me see if I can add something and answer some of your questions.



Cruisingdad said:


> &#8230; I will offer a few for thought: First, if that sail gets 'hung' going back in (lets not discuss it getting hung all the way out as it can be dropped at that point and a non-issue), then the amount of sail area will me much less. I also feel that you would be able to alter your course through the gale and ease the mainsheet sufficient to minimize the danger to the boat. Now whether the sail will survive is a different discussion as I do not believe it would, but as it rips apart, so does the effects on the boat decrease. Regarding the weight aloft, I still need to get a comfort level with that


If you read again you will see that I was considering jammed halfway in. If the sail jams it will probably not jam at the beginning.

About the flogging I had a bad experience with a jam in the genoa furler. I had a big genoa (150%) and the thing got stuck with the sail less than halfway rolled. With 30k of wind and too much wind for the sail, I had to let go and go forward to fix the problem. Luckily there were only two meter waves, but I can tell you that the mast was moving wildly (from one side to another) and that I was afraid and worried about its integrity. I have doubts that it could have taken a much stronger wind&#8230;and a mainsail is a strong sail, it takes time to be shredded. I don´t say that this can happen frequently, quite the opposite, it can never happen, but it remains a possibility, and a frightening one, at least for me.



Cruisingdad said:


> Regarding the weight aloft, I still need to get a comfort level with that. My boat is the most sure footed production boat I have ever sailed - however, I do not have a good comparrison on how much more stable she might be with a trad main as I have not sailed one with it (but would enjoy doing so). However, for those boats that are already slightly tender, I can see where the extra weight could become an issue. I wonder though, with most of those boats, how many will truly make a long distance passage where Force 9-10+ become an issue? Aren't the larger production Jeau's, Bene's and Bavaria pretty stable (this is a question as I really do not know)? And as far as the casual sailor, that probably encompasses 99% of the sailors &#8230;


Stability is not an easy matter to address and it is not as simple as you put it.

When we talk about a stiff boat normally we are talking of a boat that can take a lot of wind on its sails before getting a significant heeling. There are some very stiff boats, like the Hanse 430, that have poor reserve stability. They are beamy boats with lots of initial stability, (form stability) but with a relatively low AVS and a low Displacement/Ballast ratio. They offer a big resistance to capsizing (lots of righting moment till big angles of heeling) but if they get laid at 90º of heel they are making little force to right themselves up.

If you put an inmast furling on one of those, well&#8230;.it is not a good idea. 
Beneteaus, Jeanneaus and Bavarias are in this group, big form stability and low Displacement/Ballast ratio, sometimes as low as 27%. That doesn´t mean that they are bad or unsafe boats, but you have to know their strong and weak points to sail them safely offshore.

On the other hand, for example a Malo or a Halberg Rassy (with the same displacement) will have not the same initial stability as the Hanse, but will have a lot more reserve stability.

The manufactures take measures to compensate the diminution of the initial stability (they put less sail on the inmast furler version of the same model) but they don't take any measure to compensate the diminution of reserve stability (they would have to put more ballast and reinforce the hull and that is expensive).

Of course you are right; almost all production boats go to coastal sailors that only go out with good weather and sometimes without any significant wind. But there are some few that use those boats for offshore sailing and they are capable of that, if well equipped and well sailed.



Cruisingdad said:


> &#8230; (though I have seen a growing trend toward inmast on even the more traditional offshore boats with Valiant being an exception)? For those, like myself, that have taken a production boat and will take a production boat offshore, I have always wondered if all the crap we put down below (below the waterline) does not seriously offset any other stability issues!!!!


Yes, there is a tendency for inmast furling even on the ocean going boats. I suspect that it has to do with its price. They are so expensive that you have to be old to have money for one of those, and with age all things that make life easy are well coming . Not only inmast furling but also electric winches (they are also a tendency). It may be a necessity for the ones that are less physically able, but it doesn't make a boat safer (or faster).

Off course, if I am so lucky as to be of good health in 20 years time, I will be sailing&#8230;and probably with an inmast furling, electric winches, pilot house and everything that can make it easier and permits me to sail longer.

About the crap that you put aboard and the effect on the stability, I remember that Dylibar has asked:



dillybar said:


> .. I would be curious to know exactly how much extra weight is up there and exactly what the reduction in stability is. Would it equal the difference between full and empty tankage.


A well designed boat is more stable with full tanks. The initial stability will be a lot bigger as well as the overall stability till a significant heel (90º or so). Only de AVS would be a little worse and of course, the boat would have also a bigger inverted stability. If the boat has a decent AVS this will not be a problem. Even with a specified (by the designer) full load, the boat will remain more stable and the difference on the AVS (on the stability curves I know) will not be bigger than 5º.

If you charge your boat a lot beyond its full load, you should change for a bigger boat. That is a bad idea. The boat will sail badly the AVS will diminish significantly as the righting moment at more than 60º or 70º of heeling. It will be a much less safer boat and can even be unsafe.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

dillybar said:


> And would a boat be faster in a stiff breeze with full or empty tanks?
> ..


You mean your boat?

Downwind faster with empty tanks, but probably not easier (or safer) to sail.

Upwind in flat water or small waves probably faster with empty tanks. Against a significant sea motion and waves, faster with full tanks. But of course you know your boat better than me and should know better.


----------



## dillybar (Nov 10, 2009)

I told you guys I'm a cruiser - I changed out my knot meter for another drink holder


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

PCP said:


> Thanks Brian. Let me see if I can add something and answer some of your questions.
> 
> If you read again you will see that I was considering jammed halfway in. If the sail jams it will probably not jam at the beginning.
> 
> ...


Paulo,

Your responses are well thought out and well reasoned. I have repeatedly found your comments to be educated and unbiased. Great job. It is very nice to have you on our board. Now, understand that I may not always agree with them (snicker), but I certainyl respect them and hope other members do too.

I will make one comment: On our trip across a few weeks ago we were in 25-35 sustained and gusts to 50. I was single handing. I tried to jibe the jib myself, which, looking back was not the right move. I should have done a lazy jibe (tack all the way through) but the seas were not pleasant for it.

During the jibe, the jib backed and wrapped around itself. You can guess the rest. THat is the nightmare scenario for a jib as you cannot drop it and you cannot unfurl it. That was one of my key reasons for wsaying earlier that in 50k wind, I believe you could take a knockdown with a main and I believe that most boats would. It certainly will become dangerous in the associated seas.

We were able to head up somewhat and unwrap the jib (after some time and considerable work). We were also able to find a point of sail that minimized the effects on the boat. That is why I am saying, first hand, that I believe a hung main could be dealt with as long as those using it maintain their cool. Now, if I had not been able to unwrap that jib, I am certain that we would have torn it up. How long would that have taken..... who knows.

Great discussion all.

Brian


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Brian, thanks for your kind words.

Regarding those incidents (flogging sails), you had a crew, I was alone and that can make a difference, regarding the options you have.



dillybar said:


> &#8230; the furler would have to fail (never happened in 15,000 miles)&#8230;


Dillybar, that's an impressive statement. Never? Or never in a way that you cannot fix it?

It would be very interesting to have more information on the reliability of the inmast furling.
I t would be very useful if the forum members that use the system, post about their experience with it:

1-	Year and model brand (mast furling).
2-	Number of miles made with the system.
3-	Number of problems.
4-	Problem description referring also the sea and wind conditions.

Perhaps this way we can have a correct assessment of the system reliability.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Just curious, but what is your relationship to [edit], since all FOUR of your posts are advertising them


----------



## botanybay (Oct 8, 2009)

PCP said:


> Brian, thanks for your kind words.
> 
> Regarding those incidents (flogging sails), you had a crew, I was alone and that can make a difference, regarding the options you have.
> 
> ...


Well, having now completed my third season with an in mast system having come from a full batten main with a "strong track" I am on the whole happy with the system.

The boat is an Oyster 55 which was delivered from the factory with a Hood in mast furling system (As are almost all of the 55's). In the case of mine there is a continuous line drive system which furls the sail, most of the later systems were either electric or hydraulic. There is a small electric winch on the coach roof with a load cut-off switch to avoid overloading anything.

I had the mast out of the boat last winter and replaced all of the standing rigging and the piece of rod rigging inside of the furler while I had the mast taken down to bare metal, inspected, welds touched up as necessary and general maintenance.

The vessel has something like 10,000 sea miles and there is no indication that previous owners had any issues with the system.

While I have about 25K miles offshore on the previous vessel I am still in refit mode on the new vessel so I don't have alot of data for extended passages but the miles I have are sea miles and sometimes in rough weather coming back from Catalina Island here in southern CA. The winter weather can be "unsettled" at times.

I will continue to monitor the system and report back.


----------



## dinghycapn (Sep 14, 2011)

Add Content


----------



## sahara (Dec 15, 2006)

I've had in mast furling for 7 years, really no problems. You have to pay attention and use it intelligently, but that's true of anything on a boat.

Because it's loose footed you get better shape in the lower sail than most systems.

Mine's electric. The one time the motor packed it in (I bought the boat used, turns out it was 12 years between rebuilds on the motor) I found it a piece of cake to use the manual override.

Racing sailors who come aboard are frequently surprised at how well the main shapes out, and how you can manage draft and twist if you're so inclined. 

It's made family cruising much more enjoyable. We sail more, we'll roll the sail in and out a lot to adjust for conditions In stronger conditions, and will roll it in or out 1-2 turns at a time to balance helm.

We did Bermuda and back last summer, a few things gave us trouble, the in-mast wasn't one of them.

I might consider switching to a conventional system with slab reefing with an electric halyard winch. I don't think I'd trade for in-boom. If you use your brain the inmast is pretty trouble free. If you don't, well, none of the systems will bail your ass out.

Mine has the extrusion in the mast. It's a Hood built by Hinckley. 

They can whistle at a dock if the mast slot gets the right angle to the wind. Not a problem at anchor or mooring.

If you don't like them, don't get one, but don't use the excuse that they're only for coastal sailing or unseamanlike. There are waaaay too many big Oysters, Little Harbors, Hinckleys, 100'+ customs, that have put in a lot of miles with these systems. I have over 30 years of engineering and 40 years of sailing experience, and like mine just fine.


----------



## peoples1234 (Jul 17, 2010)

Exactly


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

Seldon circa 2002. Manual not electric.

Probably the single biggest concern in buying the Malo. I have always had an aversion to in mast furling even though I had never used one in anger until we tried out a Passport 42 with electric furling a couple of years back. To be honest I had no problems with the thing though a failiure of the switching (corrosion) gave me pause. Manual overide is there of course but that is on the mast.

Malo has manual system. Unfurling is simple and easy though I am not at all sure that it is all that much easier than raising a normal main with good cars. This is to some extent a Malo issue as the solar panels block a clear view of the outer boom end making it difficult to see if clew is out far enough. Minor not major issue, just a bit clumsy.

Furling (to reef ) on the other hand is more of a bother when you have breeze. I'm suspecting that I'm doing something wrong but keeping tension on the outhaul is the issue. Releasing the outhaul allows the clew to rush forward leaving a baggy flopping sail. Working out how to do a controlled easing of the outhaul (in wind) is something I simply have not mastered. A winch for furler and a winch for outhaul would do the trick but on starboard (jammers are to port) one winch is occupied with the headsail sheet.

As I say, I think I am missing something obvious. Indeed coming down the coast on the weekend I did manage to get it exactly right but then  promptly forgot what is was I did.

Soooo ... in mast furling people ... what is you technique for controlling the outhaul as you reef.


----------



## Ninefingers (Oct 15, 2009)

I have also had the clew go flying forward along the boom when reefing in 20 +.

The amount of pressure on the foot of the sail always surprises me. I have found that for furling in or reefing, at least for the first 1/3 I need to be dead into the wind above 10 kn. I will ease the mainsheet enough to give it a foot of play either side of centre. If I have crew, I ask them to grab the outhaul and keep a small bit of tension on it. If I don't have crew, I can wrap it backwards around a winch and keep a bit of tension that way. 

Doesn't always work out though. 

If I have to furl the main while the booms slops around, in order to gain control, so be it. I can always re-roll it properly later.


----------



## orthomartin (Oct 21, 2006)

*real time experience*

First let me say I used to be like many of the responders all very negative about in-mast. Not anymore. I come from a pure race background from Laser, 470, J24, IOR S&S one-ton, and SC-70. When I first started cruising in 08 we had just purchased a 2001 Moody 46cc with in-mast. I almost took it out and was going to change to conventional sail. Now I am a strong in-mast (or boom) advocate.
We sailed our moody just over 30,000 miles in the last three years including two Atlantic crossings. We have seen a wide range of conditions. With just my wife and I the fact that we never leave to cockpit is worth a lot. The main can be reefed to any point, and they essentially do not jam going in, only going out and when this happens you just bring it back in. Sure there may be that freak exception but guess what, conventional mains can jam in the track as well, or a car can fail.
There is a learning curve but when you have it down it is safer offshore for short hand crew. Good friends and their 3 children (s/v Imagine) are circumnavigating also (just left Pacific, now in Med) on their HR-46 w/ in-mast and he will tell you the same. Also, ever heard of Amel. One of the safest offshore production boats in the world. Then can only be ordered with in-mast. Amel will not even sell them with conventional main for safety reasons.
Finally, I see many people post the "what if's", well that can go on forever. Fact is if a freak thing occurs you deal with it but you don't make 99.99% of you cruising harder for that small "what if"


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

NineFingers ... not knowing what you sail this may not be relevent to your size of boat but once you get up a bit simple holding onto the outhaul line is not such a grand idea, particularly if you have forgotten to put on your gloves. 
I can live with the boom having a bit of a flop when furling the sail completely but when short handed and needing to reef I'm not so happy. I want the thing under control and having to grind in the main after reefing in heavy weather is not much fun. The best we have come up ths far is to take a turn around the base of the winch. This gives just enough advantage to keep the outhaul under control but slips easily when required. Of course an extra winch would be handy but its debateable with our boat whenter that is feasible as the only spot for that winch would be smack dab in the middle of everyone's favourite coaming perch. 

OrthoMartin .... couldn't agree more. The more I play with our furler the more content I am to have it and am even moving away from the in boom option which was my favoured compromise previously. The single instance of jammed main I have experienced was with a jammed slug that required me going up the mast to clear. I'd have also thought it unlikely that the main on fuler would jam completely out.

CD started this thread based on his experience. At the time I vehemently disagreed with him , now not so. Provided I can sort out the outhaul issue to my full satisfaction I'll not have any major concerns with the in mast furler though I guess my attitude would be different if I raced.


----------



## orthomartin (Oct 21, 2006)

*inmast*

tdw
One option if you don't have a spare winch to put a wrap for outhaul tension is is if your outhaul runs through a clutch just quickly open and close the clutch. Even under high load it will only run out a half meter or so. Then crank the "sail in" and keep repeating the process until the sail is all the way in.
Also there is never a fear of a jam all the way out as even if somehow that happened (an extrusion failure) you can then just release the main halyard and drop the main normal.
I AM SURE there is more danger for a short handed couple leaving the cockpit to attend reefing or lowering a main then any risk of a jam issue. Even with cockpit jiffy reef types you still have to go to the mast to bring it all the way down.
For short hand cruising it is not about performance (the battened main will always win there), it's about ease and safety. The modern inmast are very very reliable


----------



## Arpegecap (Sep 19, 2011)

I bought a Jeanneau 45.2 in 1998 and specified in mast furling for ease of use when sailing short handed. No problems with it over the 8 years I owned and sailed (a lot) that boat.

To furl, no vang, no cunningham, ease the leach line. Apply a bit of tension to the outhaul as you winch the sail in. Had to reef urgently in a sudden squall. No problems. A nearby boat with slab reefing had a hell of a battle with a flogging sail in the 40 - 45 Kt winds. They had t fight it down since the wind pressure on the flogging sail prevented the sail from simply falling down. Pulling down a stubborn main while hanging onto the mast of a boat pitching and rolling in short spaced 8 foot waves is risky.

The only time the mast whistles is when at the dock with the wind at just the right angle across the mast slot WHEN THERE IS NO SAIL in the mast.

The only drawback to the in-mast system was less performance especially in light winds. On the other hand, the 45.2 had a small main and a powerful genny. Downwind? Use a reacher or spinnaker since the small main provided little thrust. 

Regards,

Bob


----------



## Ninefingers (Oct 15, 2009)

tdw said:


> NineFingers ... not knowing what you sail this may not be relevent to your size of boat but once you get up a bit simple holding onto the outhaul line is not such a grand idea, particularly if you have forgotten to put on your gloves.
> I can live with the boom having a bit of a flop when furling the sail completely but when short handed and needing to reef I'm not so happy. I want the thing under control and having to grind in the main after reefing in heavy weather is not much fun. The best we have come up ths far is to take a turn around the base of the winch. This gives just enough advantage to keep the outhaul under control but slips easily when required.


Firstly, I have only a fraction of your sailing experience, (I am quite sure about that, being that this is my first full year), so any suggestions from myself should be equally fractional 

I sail a 2005 Hunter 33 with a Seldon mast.

The flying of the clew in 20+ was only empathizing with your situation, certainly not a method of reefing. In fact when that happened, (a couple of times), the only recourse was to crank the outhaul back out and start over, because once you get a nice belly in the sail near the mast, the forces required to reef, in my opinion, would do damage to the roller system. My belief is that if you have to use a winch to in-furl, something is wrong.

I think you are dead right in trying to control outhaul tension. This is the only way to keep the sail relatively flat and positioned to enter the mast. Wrapping around a winch one or two turns is working best for me now, (I've been a out a couple of times since last post!). It would be grand if they made a device that would lay out line when a certain amount of force was applied, and they probably do, (but I'm not aware of it).

I still think it's important to be dead nuts into the wind when roller furling in heavy weather. Some say to be 10 degrees off, but above 20 knots, I think there's too much pressure on the sail and the rolling system.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

tdw said:


> Soooo ... in mast furling people ... what is you technique for controlling the outhaul as you reef.


A LOOSE (LOOSE) wrap around the winch. Dont over tension or the sail will tend to wrinkle ad could cause a jam. When you see it really start alinging (about 25 kts+), fall off and slightly fill the sail. DOnot know your mast, but mine reefs in better to stbd as that is where the wider opening is.

Key is to watch her as she goes in. If she starts to wrinkle, something is wrong.

SHort of racing, I suspect inmast will do away with trad/slab reefing. There are many safety factors on its side which I think outweigh the potential negatives. My opinion only.

Brian


----------



## paulk (Jun 2, 2000)

I thought that a debate about in-mast roller-furling would be centered on who would be going up the mast to fix it. In 40 knots of breeze. With a lee shore. And the sail flapping so loudly your mayday couldn't be heard over the radio. But maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

paulk said:


> I thought that a debate about in-mast roller-furling would be centered on who would be going up the mast to fix it. In 40 knots of breeze. With a lee shore. And the sail flapping so loudly your mayday couldn't be heard over the radio. But maybe I'm wrong.


Or it could be centered around who is going forward in a squall to secure the main to the boom at night, offshore, in large rolling seas and screaming wind...

Using your scenario, you could release the main sheet(s)and outhaul (or even tighten then sternly for close hauled) and make to weather with engine or close hauled. It is hard to imagine a scenario in that situation where the crews life is threatened assuming no one panics and they actually know how to sail or start their engine (though the main may be toast). However, going forward in a squall at night in large, rolling seas is dangerous and has a pucker factor of about a 9.5. Not to mention, it makes reefing the sail a two person job to do it safely. I tend to single with wife/kids below. I can reef in a snap and need no one which is a huge plus because when we see squalls approaching, I can reef in without waking them, weather the storm, and let it back out after we are clear. THey need not wake up.

I will also say that I have only had one sail type ever jam on me - a trad/slab reef sail. Those crappy plastic T's were always wanting to get hung in the track. We pretty much always had to go forward to secure the sail. WIth a roller fuller jib and inmast or inboom main, your crew will never leave the safety of the cockpit. Even in the case of a complete failure, worst case scenario, you lose the sail.

My opinion, but I have a lot of experience with both. I am not saying your concern is wrong, but I see it the least dangerous of the two. However, I would not use the sail type for racing.

B


----------



## WDS123 (Apr 2, 2011)

single line reefing


Lazy jacks


Far better than having a humungous mast section messing up the air for first 25% of the sail


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

WDSchock said:


> single line reefing
> 
> Lazy jacks
> 
> Far better than having a humungous mast section messing up the air for first 25% of the sail


If your're racing... otherwise who cares? My boat did over hull speed across the gulf with inmast. I have also had lazy jacks catch the leech in a blow. And even with single line reefing, someone has to go forward in my experience.

Brian


----------



## paulk (Jun 2, 2000)

*I've tried both*

My point is that with an IN MAST r/f, when it jams (which, according to Herr Murphy, it will) you will have to climb the mast to fix it. You cannot lower the sail until it's fixed, and conditions are not likely to be good for either fixing the jam or lowering the sail. With an in-boom or a slab setup, you get to at least stay on deck. I had to climb above the first spreader to free a jammed slide once, as we arrived in Kinsale, Ireland. (No time for a bosun's chair - grab the halyards and go- ) Winching down from the deck would have worked if the conditions had not been as benign in the harbor there. To me, one stuck slide in 50 years of sailing is a better ratio than what I hear from those I know who have either in-mast or in-boom r/f mains.

I'll agree that racing with an in-mast r/f main is a contradiction in terms. I crewed Newport-Bermuda on a boat with an in-mast r/f main. With a full racing crew of accomplished sailors, we were only able to have the sail set to our liking - pulling well and looking good for the conditions - for about 45 minutes over the entire trip. Arrgh!


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

We both agree on most of that Paul. No for racing, which I do also. Also, a failure of a inmast compared to a failure of a slab is much worse (the inmast). But mine has never jammed and I have been in some pretty nasty storms. I think it jams on people that do not really know how to use it. You cannot reef it like a trad main. You will wrinkle the sail going in. 

My point is that I see more apt for a dangerous scenario with a crew going forward to lash the main in a storm. And that happens much more frequently than having a jammed inmast. 

Probably little addition to the argument, but my wife will never go back to a slab main. She loves that inmast because she can do it. In fact Chase can do it (my oldest son). And I know when I am asleep down below that the boat can be completely handled without anyone ever leaving the safety of the cockpit. Sure makes me sleep better.

But we both agree, it does have a big negative and it may not be for everyone.

Brian


----------



## Ascalon (Nov 6, 2011)

You've got to chuckle at some of the responses in this thread. Sailors are a conservative bunch.

Main furling systems are bloody good for cruising of all kinds. My father has an in-boom furler on his 33 footer and it's brilliant. Sure, you can't play with the twist of the sail too much but who cares? There's a bit of friction but it's still relatively easy to furl and unfurl from the cockpit even without a mechanical winch.

It's a great innovation and there's no rational reason to avoid it if you're not racing. For people worried about performance - come to terms with the fact you bought a tubby boat for comfort, stop worrying about that extra tenth of a knot, and go with what's going to maximise convenience. You won't be sorry.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> A LOOSE (LOOSE) wrap around the winch. Dont over tension or the sail will tend to wrinkle ad could cause a jam. When you see it really start alinging (about 25 kts+), fall off and slightly fill the sail. DOnot know your mast, but mine reefs in better to stbd as that is where the wider opening is.
> 
> Key is to watch her as she goes in. If she starts to wrinkle, something is wrong.
> 
> ...


Brian, 
Thanks for your input. 
The more I use the thing the more I appreciate it and I am getting the hang of controlling the outhaul as we shorten sail. *Ascalon * mentions the obvious that sailors are by nature seemingly conservative. Probably correct but it should also be born in mind that a furling system of this century is likely to be a very different and more evolved beastie than say one from the 1980s. 
I remember my first keel boat (mid 70s) had a boom furling system that quite frankly was utterly apalling and of course back then even headsail furling systems were not universally accepted even on cruising boats. I doubt very much that any serious cruisers (other than the odd committed luddite of course) are going without a headsail furler.
Cheers
Andrew

ps - Our rig is Seldon. To date I've found that furling on starboard works best. (starboard tack that is ... )


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Weighing in a little late and confess to not having read the entire thread. We love our in-mast furler and after a little getting used to, don't notice any preformance degradation. At least not for cruising. 

The only trouble we've ever had with it has always been traced back to crew error and the furler recovered just fine when the error was corrected. The furler itself has never jammed. At first, getting used to an outhaul car, we would fail to have eased the boom vang or main sheet enough to allow it to pull the foot out far enough. While watching in amazement at the sail appearing from the mast, we failed to notice the leach was too tight and the car would jam on its track. Easy amatueur fix and all has been great since.


----------

