# The REAL Deal on Furling Mains



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

OK so this one seems a bit contentious and I'm really curious what folks around here think. 
I've read that furling mains can be dangerous as if they jam they cannot be dropped. Unless you get furling not in the mast but on the beam, then it can be dropped. Also I've read that sails are quite a bit more expensive and must be replaced more often or else they don't roll up nicely.

On the other hand, some have said they are very reliable and almost never present troubles. On person told he he would not single hand without one as conditions in The Netherlands are quite variable and it allows for such speedy and easy reefing.

Personally I have passed on a number of potentially good boats simply because of the added complexity, fears of maintenance costs, and uncertainty about one jamming up on me.

Really curious to hear people's thoughts on this topic and whether a boat with a furling main would be more or less attractive to them as a buyer, especially if one was single handing.


----------



## capttb (Dec 13, 2003)

For my boat an in mast sail costs less than a full batten conventional $2000 vs $2700, I bought a new main this winter and the Dutchman flaking I prefer added another $600, $3300 vs $2000.
I've used old conventional mains to the point that they rot out at the leech, in-mast is much less forgiving of sail in poor condition. I've always preferred a sail with more roach and full battens and have difficulty getting as much power from the main on an in-mast, not usually much problem on a bigger boat with plenty of waterline. Lately I've seen some very nice laminate sails on in mast with excellent shape. The convenience of in mast is pretty appealing.


----------



## afrinus (Feb 27, 2011)

Very timely thread. Thanks.

My own experience - only once, but that was enough - puts me in the camp of never again an inmast furler.

Some time ago I crewed on a brand new 42 foot Catalina delivery to St John from Georgia. 
As this was a delivery, timing was critical and we left in weather we probably shouldn't have. 

From day one the furler was a pain; the furlong line would constantly jump off the furler, the sail would stick bot going in and coming out, it would slip, releasing the sail when we were reefing.
And finally it got stuck fully out after one of those slips. Not fun in 30 plus winds dealing with a full main.

I'm sure we didn't do everything right (yes, I know the boom needs to be just right, etc....), but thanks, but no thanks. 

I'm in the market for a new boat and find myself very clearly passing on in-mast furlers.

Maybe this thread will enlighten me as to the secret why they are considered OK....

Pete



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

capttb said:


> For my boat an in mast sail costs less than a full batten conventional $2000 vs $2700, I bought a new main this winter and the Dutchman flaking I prefer added another $600, $3300 vs $2000.


OK, two questions there, one- 2000 dollars? Really? What size boat are your sailing that a main only costs 2000?
On an earlier 'maintenance costs' thread, I was cited 7-10 grand for new sails on a 36 foot boat.
Second question- why would you put Dutchman flaking, which as I understand helps the sail to pile up nicely on the boom, as you would with say lazy jacks, when you have a mast to roll the sail into?



capttb said:


> I've used old conventional mains to the point that they rot out at the leech, in-mast is much less forgiving of sail in poor condition.


Wow, so that's really the opposite of what I read that somebody said once a sail gets old it starts to sag and that makes lumpy spots in the mast where the sail bunches up and binds.
Sailing is so strange that you hear such differing experiences from different people. 
So I'm curious, what kind of in mast reefing do you have? Maybe you've got one of the better ones? Or perhaps oversized inside? I'm just trying to find an explanation here.



capttb said:


> I've always preferred a sail with more roach and full battens and have difficulty getting as much power from the main on an in-mast, not usually much problem on a bigger boat with plenty of waterline. Lately I've seen some very nice laminate sails on in mast with excellent shape. The convenience of in mast is pretty appealing.


Just curious what weight sails do you use? Dacron?


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

afrinus said:


> Very timely thread. Thanks.
> 
> My own experience - only once, but that was enough - puts me in the camp of never again an inmast furler.
> 
> ...


Haha! An alternative opinion, this is getting interesting.

I wonder if the furling main you used was of inferior quality, or new and not broken in or adjusted properly?
I have no idea how these things work really, but I'm definitely curious.
As far as the slippage I wonder if the roll inside was just cinching up tighter or if the rolling mechanism itself was failing. I wonder how common this is!
And finally, is there some emergency fallback in case you can't get the furler working, say if something inside breaks, is there an emergency release?


----------



## afrinus (Feb 27, 2011)

Rush, this was a brand new boat with a Selden mast.
Of course when your heart's racing because in you are in deep doodoo with a huge-ass main stuck flapping like crazy in 30 knot winds, you (me) think it DEFINITELY is an IN-FRIGGEN-FERIOR product....

There is no release as it was stuck in the slot in the mast. Only resolve was to hang like a dang monkey from a spare hallyard halfway up the mast trying to figure out if you need to push the sail in pull it out to release the bind.

Believe me, not fun....

Reality though is that theres tons of these systems out there with as many sailors swearing by them.
I'm sure our experience was the exception rather than the norm.

There's a lot of new, very high end blue water boats coming with these things as the only option (seems to be) these days, so they cant be all bad.

I'm walking away from in-mast, but definitely are looking at in-boom furler systems as my preferred solution for sailing shorthanded (and old-handes for that matter as well these days....)

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

afrinus said:


> Rush, this was a brand new boat with a Selden mast.
> Of course when your heart's racing because in you are in deep doodoo with a huge-ass main stuck flapping like crazy in 30 knot winds, you (me) think it DEFINITELY is an IN-FRIGGEN-FERIOR product....


LOL 



afrinus said:


> There is no release as it was stuck in the slot in the mast. Only resolve was to hang like a dang monkey from a spare hallyard halfway up the mast trying to figure out if you need to push the sail in pull it out to release the bind.
> 
> Believe me, not fun....
> 
> ...


Wow, yeah, it seems to me that some kind of quick release in case of emergencies would be in order, for me to feel confident in the tech. Then again, one might argue that it would be even more dangerous if that quick release disengaged at the wrong moment.

In boom furling seems a happy medium at least if you're paranoid about this technology, because it can still be manually lowered. One person on another thread argued however that boom furlers required two people to raise and lower. I wish I'd dug in on his argument to get more info...


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Personally i think it crazy to past on a good boat just because of a furling main, because overall it is a plus. Definitely dont consider my Dutchman system less complicated and problem prone than a furling main.

But then i am not afraid of spade rudders, fin keels, boats less than 30 years old etc. Heck i even like refrigeration.


----------



## JimsCAL (May 23, 2007)

When I was looking for a boat in the mid 30 foot range a few years ago, I passed on any that had a furling main. Wasn't willing to put up with the performance loss. Too many years racing I guess.


----------



## afrinus (Feb 27, 2011)

Don L said:


> Personally i think it crazy to past on a good boat just because of a furling main, because overall it is a plus. Definitely dont consider my Dutchman system less complicated and problem prone than a furling main.
> 
> But then i am not afraid of spade rudders, fin keels, boats less than 30 years old etc. Heck i even like refrigeration.


What are you saying - worried about an in-mast furling main makes me some sort of luddite?

Nope! - if you read my post you would know that I'm actually looking quite favorably at in-boom furling, and no worries, theres plenty of good boats with the latter or no furling on the main.

If you read further, I think I was quite clear also about the fact that I dont have enough experience to make a definitive assertion about in mast furlers - I did say that I would like to learn more....just like the OP.

I dont question that furling is a plus - my single experience sailing on a boat equipped such, however was not great.

So, other than the smart-ass comments, can you contribute something positive?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

I'm going to say this as simply and directly as possible. Just like a boat does sail herself onto the rocks, a properly maintained in mast roller furler does not ever screw up. *People *cause it to screw up.
There is a learning curve, but if one takes it easy and doesn't try to force things, you should never have a problem with you IMRF. A blown out baggy main can make things difficult, but even at that (and I speak from a couple of year's experience) with care we never had the sail bind or had it get caught so that we couldn't furl or unfurl the sail. 
But like anything else in sailing you must pay attention to what you are doing. It is by far the best sail setting/reefing system I have ever used and its infinite reefing makes it the safest.
We've set it and furled it on every point of sail (depending on the wind strength) and never have to head directly into the wind and flog the sail.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

afrinus said:


> What are you saying - worried about an in-mast furling main makes me some sort of luddite
> 
> So, other than the smart-ass comments, can you contribute something positive?


Well I wasn't posting to YOU at all and don't understand why you apparently think people are.

I was saying exactly what I said.

And now that I am talking to you I can definitely say based on your post that I wouldn't ever consider helping you Ever!


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

afrinus said:


> What are you saying - worried about an in-mast furling main makes me some sort of luddite?
> 
> Nope! - if you read my post you would know that I'm actually looking quite favorably at in-boom furling, and no worries, theres plenty of good boats with the latter or no furling on the main.
> 
> ...


I have personally talked to a few crew members on some pretty fancy multimillion dollar yachts that do not like in boom systems. I've also personally talked to a dozen or so cruisers with the system, and the main complaint was that at times (always on the big boats) someone must standby at the mast to insure the cars go correctly onto the mast track.
I have read differently online, but not yet from someone I've met with the system. They are very rare down here in the cruising boat fleet, which may say something about those systems. I have not sailed with one.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

I have a large main and I usually raise it once a day and drop in the evening... unless over night sailing. I use a Dutchman flaking system which is very effective and makes reefing a breeze. It's a simple system but it can break... but it is not difficult to fix or service. I would be leery of an furling main.. if only because of the difficulty to fix it.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

SanderO said:


> I have a large main and I usually raise it once a day and drop in the evening... unless over night sailing. I use a Dutchman flaking system which is very effective and makes reefing a breeze. It's a simple system but it can break... but it is not difficult to fix or service. I would be leery of an furling main.. if only because of the difficulty to fix it.


So far, other than the motor and gearbox, both of which are easily repairable, even in the islands, I can't think of anything else that could break, and there is a manual back up that uses a standard winch handle, which will furl or unfurl it with ease. I suppose the foil could break, but probably not as often as a jib furler as it is enclosed in the mast and gets little to no salt on it. Perhaps other systems are not as durable, but so far so good with ours.
The thing those who haven't sailed with IMRF don't understand is that we have infinite reefing. No set amount of sail, but just enough (2"?) to ease the pressure and get her back on her lines. No more being under powered or over powered and shaking out or tucking in a reef takes but seconds. You can't even imagine it if you haven't used it for a month or two.


----------



## Uncle Bob the 1st (Mar 14, 2016)

Hi, 32 ft boat, Leisurefurl boom furler, sail has a bolt rope and once you get the hoist started, smooth as silk.
It does have some peculiarities but once you learn how to use it all is good.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Sail shape seems to be better with full battens.


----------



## WesAllen (Oct 13, 2005)

I have beneteau 321 with furling mast and really like it. That said though it does have draw backs (IMHO). When the sail starts to get blown out it is difficult to furl. With the standard mast you just keep putting it up and down. I have just replaced mine this summer (after 22 years) because it was getting stuck occasionally. I thought that it was just blown out but after sending it to the loft was told that it was starting to rot also. North Sails made me a new one for $1472 in Detroit. I'm happy again.


----------



## jeremiahblatz3 (Jul 3, 2018)

I've only sailed on one boat with in-mast furling, but I super-duper didn't like it. No jams or anything, but the sail was basically just a fabric triangle with some sad vertical battens to try to have some semblance of control over the leech hooking. We were racing, and I was trimming the main, and it just made me sad to look at it.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Uncle Bob the 1st said:


> Hi, 32 ft boat, Leisurefurl boom furler, sail has a bolt rope and once you get the hoist started, smooth as silk.
> It does have some peculiarities but once you learn how to use it all is good.


I guess that you give up having the halyards in the cockpit or single handed sailing, with that system?


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

SanderO said:


> Sail shape seems to be better with full battens.


I think the only thing we lose is the roach. Since we are sailing well reefed most of the time down here, it's not like we are losing sail area, and with a good deep reef, the sail shape does improve.


----------



## capttb (Dec 13, 2003)

Sorry for the confusion I engendered, I do not have in mast furling. What I bought was an Ullman "offshore" full batten main with one reef point and Dutchman flaking for a Catalina 320. It was $2700 minus $400 discount, $2300 + $600 (Dutchman cost) + $300 taxes so $3200. Inmast sail for a Catalina 320 is $2000. Just ordered an Ullman "offshore" 150% genny, foam luff which will be about $2500 also with 15% discount, about $5700 for a 32 foot boat for Contender Dacron. Catalina 320's are so standardized that sailmakers can crank them out pretty easily, almost like a "class" sail.
In mast sails require less labor to sew, no batten pockets (usually), no slugs or slides to the luff.
I've only sailed in mast on boats over 40' where it seems advantageous for 1-2 person crew and performance loss is not a factor as Capta mentioned. At 15-20 kts breeze a boat should be at or near hull speed and a little less roach not a factor, below 15 kts and your trying to get everything you can from them.


----------



## afrinus (Feb 27, 2011)

Capta,


capta said:


> I guess that you give up having the halyards in the cockpit or single handed sailing, with that system?


Thanks for the general insights into this discussion. 
Why do you draw this conclusion though?


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

afrinus said:


> Capta,
> 
> Thanks for the general insights into this discussion.
> Why do you draw this conclusion though?


If you need to be at the mast to make sure the slides or slugs go up properly, it's pretty hard to pull the sail up from the cockpit and do that.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

One point to mention, should anyone be thinking of having a new IMRF main made, our original was a radial cut sail. The new one wasn't. *Big *mistake! The radial cut and added seams keep a better sail shape across the whole spectrum of reefing to a full sail. Spend the extra $500.00.


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

Rush2112 said:


> Really curious to hear people's thoughts on this topic and whether a boat with a furling main would be more or less attractive to them as a buyer, especially if one was single handing.


I think it is a luxury item that will cost you and potentially add to your maintenance and potential problems. I have chartered boats with In Mast Furling twice without problems but have heard too many stories of them getting stuck. I think on a boat of a certain size they might make sense, on a boat the size you are looking at I don't think so. If on a budget I would rather have a number of other upgrades over In mast furling.


----------



## requiem (Jul 24, 2018)

I've been on boats with in-mast furlers often enough to be comfortable with them. That said, I have seen one jam halfway and attributed it to user error in allowing it to furl too loosely. Getting that sorted out was sufficient trouble that I'd strongly advise being very diligent about both the furling operation and the maintenance schedule.


----------



## Uncle Bob the 1st (Mar 14, 2016)

capta said:


> I guess that you give up having the halyards in the cockpit or single handed sailing, with that system?


What leads you to that conclusion? All lines lead to the cockpit, most of my sailing is single handed, the only time I need to be at the mast is the initial rigging of the sail for raising, ie feeding the first 300mm or so of the sail into the slot.


----------



## Uncle Bob the 1st (Mar 14, 2016)

Uncle Bob the 1st said:


> Hi, 32 ft boat, Leisurefurl boom furler,* sail has a bolt rope and once you get the hoist started, smooth as silk*.
> It does have some peculiarities but once you learn how to use it all is good.





capta said:


> If you need to be at the mast to make sure the slides or slugs go up properly, it's pretty hard to pull the sail up from the cockpit and do that.


Perhaps you missed the bit about the bolt rope, so no slides or slugs to feed.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

capta said:


> So far, other than the motor and gearbox, both of which are easily repairable, even in the islands, I can't think of anything else that could break, and there is a manual back up that uses a standard winch handle, which will furl or unfurl it with ease. I suppose the foil could break, but probably not as often as a jib furler as it is enclosed in the mast and gets little to no salt on it. Perhaps other systems are not as durable, but so far so good with ours.
> The thing those who haven't sailed with IMRF don't understand is that we have infinite reefing. No set amount of sail, but just enough (2"?) to ease the pressure and get her back on her lines. No more being under powered or over powered and shaking out or tucking in a reef takes but seconds. You can't even imagine it if you haven't used it for a month or two.


That's an interesting argument for IMRF, and theoretically should at least to some extent help to balance any other performance differences under lesser wind, after all, wind varies ;-)


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

JimsCAL said:


> When I was looking for a boat in the mid 30 foot range a few years ago, I passed on any that had a furling main. Wasn't willing to put up with the performance loss. Too many years racing I guess.


Can you please explain why the performance loss, and how much is it actually, in most situations?


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

capta said:


> We've set it and furled it on every point of sail (depending on the wind strength) and never have to head directly into the wind and flog the sail.


That sounds like a big advantage for cruisers as well.
John Kretschmer says that for blue water sailing you definitely want to have 'a system' where you can reef the main without having to put the boat into the wind, as this can be quite problematic in big seas. I wish he'd elaborated on that point.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

SanderO said:


> I have a large main and I usually raise it once a day and drop in the evening... unless over night sailing. I use a Dutchman flaking system which is very effective and makes reefing a breeze. It's a simple system but it can break... but it is not difficult to fix or service. I would be leery of an furling main.. if only because of the difficulty to fix it.


You see, you ask enough questions and you learn things you never knew about. 
The Duchman, hmm looks interesting. I was very much considering lazy jacks now I have another option.
I do very much like the look of a Dutchman system coming down, how it all just falls neatly folded over the boom- nice!
That must also be great for reefing.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

capttb said:


> Sorry for the confusion I engendered, I do not have in mast furling. What I bought was an Ullman "offshore" full batten main with one reef point and Dutchman flaking for a Catalina 320. It was $2700 minus $400 discount, $2300 + $600 (Dutchman cost) + $300 taxes so $3200. Inmast sail for a Catalina 320 is $2000. Just ordered an Ullman "offshore" 150% genny, foam luff which will be about $2500 also with 15% discount, about $5700 for a 32 foot boat for Contender Dacron. Catalina 320's are so standardized that sailmakers can crank them out pretty easily, almost like a "class" sail.
> In mast sails require less labor to sew, no batten pockets (usually), no slugs or slides to the luff.
> I've only sailed in mast on boats over 40' where it seems advantageous for 1-2 person crew and performance loss is not a factor as Capta mentioned. At 15-20 kts breeze a boat should be at or near hull speed and a little less roach not a factor, below 15 kts and your trying to get everything you can from them.


Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

capta said:


> If you need to be at the mast to make sure the slides or slugs go up properly, it's pretty hard to pull the sail up from the cockpit and do that.


Seems like a valid concern.



Uncle Bob the 1st said:


> Perhaps you missed the bit about the bolt rope, so no slides or slugs to feed.


And seems like a valid work around.
Just curious does the bolt rope cause any extra abrasion or wear on the sail where it slides up the mast?

Perhaps in boom furling is the best of both worlds. The advantages of stepless main furling, also easily dropable in an emergency or part failure. I wonder if one could add reefing points to the sail, then if hardware fails, it could still be manually reefed the 'normal' way? As a backup...


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Rush2112 said:


> Seems like a valid concern.
> 
> And seems like a valid work around.
> Just curious does the bolt rope cause any extra abrasion or wear on the sail where it slides up the mast?
> ...


You can have both in-boom furling and reef points, but it would be tricky to do so that the reef lines did not get crossed up when the boom mandrel is being rotated. You can't have both with in-mast furling since you can't get the reef cringles and reinforcing into the mast cavity.

Personally, I have never been a fan of either in-boom or in-mast furling. While I understand why it may make sense on a bigger boat where the physical weight of the sail becomes a significant factor and there are plenty of robust power sources available, I have never understood any advantage for a boat under 40 feet. The reality is that two line reefing is so cheap, so reliable, so quickly adaptable to changes in windspeed, and so fast to employ and undo that at least for me, in-mast or in-boom furling would be a deal killer.

Ignoring the significant weight aloft of an in-mast furler increasing heel angle in heavy air, or the weight of the in-boom hardware damaging light air performance, to me the biggest issues are 'creep' and the inability to adjust sail shape to suit the windspeed when reefed. The creep issue is serious. Over time (hours) on an in-mast furler, the head of the sail creeps towards the foot of the sail, powering up the sail and increasing heel and weather helm. Further rolling the sail, reduces area but pushes that increased draft into the exposed portion of the sail, further degrading its sailing shape and super loading the leech where it leaves the mast shortening sail life.

Similarly, on in-boom reefing, the clew creeps towards the mast, again powering up the sail. The then needed additional furling pushes the bulge into the smaller area of the sail, similarly degrading sail shape and super loading the leech where it exits the boom and shortening sail life.

As noted above, while eliminating battens does save on the initial cost to build the sail, not having battens shortens the life of the sail since battens distribute the concentrated loads over a bigger area of the sail and therefore battens reduce stretch and the resultant long term damage to the fabric. The net result is that hollow leech in-mast or in-boom furled sails, while initially 10-15% less expensive, over the life cycle of the sail end up being more expensive.

From my perspective, the beauty of a two line reefing system is that you can independently change the halyard tension and outhaul tension at any time. This allows the sail to be depowered or powered up in any state of being reefed. That ability to alter the sail shape more than makes up for the loss of ability to infinitely vary the sail area between the various fixed reef points of a two line reefed sail..

Jeff


----------



## skipmac (Oct 31, 2007)

capta said:


> I'm going to say this as simply and directly as possible. Just like a boat does sail herself onto the rocks, a properly maintained in mast roller furler does not ever screw up. *People *cause it to screw up.
> There is a learning curve, but if one takes it easy and doesn't try to force things, you should never have a problem with you IMRF. A blown out baggy main can make things difficult, but even at that (and I speak from a couple of year's experience) with care we never had the sail bind or had it get caught so that we couldn't furl or unfurl the sail.
> But like anything else in sailing you must pay attention to what you are doing. It is by far the best sail setting/reefing system I have ever used and its infinite reefing makes it the safest.
> We've set it and furled it on every point of sail (depending on the wind strength) and never have to head directly into the wind and flog the sail.


Would be extremely interested in your recommendations on the proper care and feeding of a furling mast system. Over the years I have certainly known several sailors that reported jams with one that were occasionally quite scary. At least one I know well who is a pretty experienced and knowledgeable sailor.

On the other hand, I recall Dodge Morgan had a mast furling main when he became the first US sailor tp solo, non-stop circumnavigate.

Coincidentally I noticed just the other day that I'm not getting any younger and while I generally go very strongly with KISS solutions it seems that a little complication might allow me to extend my sailing career by a year or so.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

I'm sure each system is different, but for us most of the "maintenance" is keeping the gearbox greased, making sure every bolt has plenty of anti-seize (SS into alloy) and that the boom end blocks (internal lines) are lubed and that the outhaul car slides smoothly along its track. We also clean the electrical contacts to the drive motor a couple of times a year.
As I've said repeatedly, if one pays attention (as they should when setting any sail) and never tries to force a bind up (working the sail in and out by inches), I cannot see how it could ever bind up so much that it couldn't be undone. We sailed for around two years with a main that was so blown out that one could literally take a nap in it at any point it was out and/or reefed, and had holes through it that one could trim the jib by looking through (it was a tape drive sail, so holes aren't like on dacron), we never had it bind up so much it couldn't be undone in a couple of minutes of in and out action.
I absolutely love the system and wouldn't ever consider any other. Personally, unless one were a racer, and then they probably wouldn't even have jib furling, I can't see how it affects our sailing performance all that much, either. Skipping Stone has little trouble hitting 9 or 10 knots consistently beating into the trade winds crossing the channels with a deeply reefed main and a Yankee jib, only. No need to set the staysail or mizzen to do an 80 mile passage in daylight down here when the trades are blowing.


----------



## skipmac (Oct 31, 2007)

capta said:


> I'm sure each system is different, but for us most of the "maintenance" is keeping the gearbox greased, making sure every bolt has plenty of anti-seize (SS into alloy) and that the boom end blocks (internal lines) are lubed and that the outhaul car slides smoothly along its track. We also clean the electrical contacts to the drive motor a couple of times a year.
> As I've said repeatedly, if one pays attention (as they should when setting any sail) and never tries to force a bind up (working the sail in and out by inches), I cannot see how it could ever bind up so much that it couldn't be undone. We sailed for around two years with a main that was so blown out that one could literally take a nap in it at any point it was out and/or reefed, and had holes through it that one could trim the jib by looking through (it was a tape drive sail, so holes aren't like on dacron), we never had it bind up so much it couldn't be undone in a couple of minutes of in and out action.
> I absolutely love the system and wouldn't ever consider any other. Personally, unless one were a racer, and then they probably wouldn't even have jib furling, I can't see how it affects our sailing performance all that much, either. Skipping Stone has little trouble hitting 9 or 10 knots consistently beating into the trade winds crossing the channels with a deeply reefed main and a Yankee jib, only. No need to set the staysail or mizzen to do an 80 mile passage in daylight down here when the trades are blowing.


Well you immediately hit on one major issue, there are a number of different systems and the different systems are, well, different. 

Something I have seen mentioned as a source of trouble is the tension or lack of tension on the luff. I'll reveal my ignorance of the systems by asking this. Do all these systems wrap the sail around a foil, comparable a roller furling jib? I sold a boat years ago that had a behind the mast, external furler that I think was just a wire. On that system the luff of the main sagged off a LOT.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Jeff_H said:


> You can have both in-boom furling and reef points, but it would be tricky to do so that the reef lines did not get crossed up when the boom mandrel is being rotated. You can't have both with in-mast furling since you can't get the reef cringles and reinforcing into the mast cavity.
> 
> Personally, I have never been a fan of either in-boom or in-mast furling. While I understand why it may make sense on a bigger boat where the physical weight of the sail becomes a significant factor and there are plenty of robust power sources available, I have never understood any advantage for a boat under 40 feet. The reality is that two line reefing is so cheap, so reliable, so quickly adaptable to changes in windspeed, and so fast to employ and undo that at least for me, in-mast or in-boom furling would be a deal killer.
> 
> ...


Well that was an awful lot of information in one place. LOL

By the way is there another name for 'two line reefing?' I have looked it up on youtube trying to picture it, but can't find any examples, only normal reefing and single line reefing.
Thanks!


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Rush2112 said:


> Well that was an awful lot of information in one place. LOL


My wife says there is no topic too trivial that I cannot over think it.



Rush2112 said:


> By the way is there another name for 'two line reefing?' I have looked it up on youtube trying to picture it, but can't find any examples, only normal reefing and single line reefing.
> Thanks!


To answer your question, I have only seen it called Double-line Reefing or Slab Reefing. You can see it discussed in this article: Offshore Sailor: Mainsail reefing Slab reefing used to only mean double-line reefing, or reefing with a tack hook.

With the popularity of modern single-line reefing systems (with a shuttlecock or balancing block) , the term 'slab reefing' has become too generic for my taste. I know that there are folks who love their single line reefing systems, but I am not a fan mainly due to the higher line loads, more moving parts and chafe within the boom where they can't be inspected, and a whole lot more line to handle. But I also do not like that you cannot make independent halyard and outhaul sail shape adjustments with most single line systems.

I don't know if its still there but there was a Youtube of me reefing my mainsail in a Vlog from perhaps a decade ago. It was filmed by a person that I had helped find a boat. He was filming me so that he would remember how things were done and then chose to put some of those videos up on Youtube. I think he used my full name but may have used Jeff_H.

Jeff


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

When we were shopping for our boat in mast furling was a deal breaker. It wasn't so much because of the potential for jamming, although a couple of rigger friends told me that was a common problem on many mast furling systems. 

My objection to them was more around performance. Not only do you sacrifice sail area, you also give up tuneability. You have no ability to control luff tension and draft position because you can't use a cunningham. You can't flatten the sail with mast bend. As soon as you start reefing you sacrifice sail shape because the foil shape is cut into the sail, and as soon as you roll up the luff that shape is gone. (The same reason I detest roller reefing headsails).

With slab reefing, be it single line or 2 line, you can reduce sail area while still having all of your more advanced sail shaping tools at your disposal.

Many people are happy with the compromise of performance for the convenience, and that fine. To each their own. 

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## arf145 (Jul 25, 2007)

Late to the party here, but just throwing my positive vote behind our in mast furling main. It makes single handing easier, reefing easier, and sailing in general easier for us. As @capta pointed out, you just have to do your part and furl it correctly. I was a tiny bit worried about a loss of performance that I expected when we bought the boat, but I can't say I notice one, and the convenience advantages have been huge.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Interest comment made by Jeff, who set a size range where mast furling may or may not makes sense. I think he said 40 ft. At first, I thought, below 40, sail handling really is done manually, very easily. The only advantage is not needing to go out on deck. Another made the comment that furling mains are hard to reef and maintain shape. While I think it's technically true, it really only matters upwind and I don't think it matters much for cruising at all. Then I realized, by the time a larger boat even needs to reef, you have so much wind, I think you could make it go well, if you were flying a garbage bag.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

As I got older... my sail became heavier  and there seemed to be more friction. Boat is fractional and the main is 440 SF so in heavy cloth the sail is heavy. In a bag I can barely lift it! My solution to hoisting he main was to get a battery operated Milwaukee right angle drill with a winch bit. So now I can raise the main with "one finger" on the trigger. This system is fabulous. I do not use Millie for trim of the head sail which is on a roller furler.
The sail is raised easily and used to shake out a reef as well. Frankly using a manual winch is exhausting for me these days. I love Millie!
I knew the inventor of Dutchmen and he offered to install a prototype on Shiva's main. I "tested" it in the Marion Bermuda race and the system worked fine. He has since evolved the details of the design and I have purchased it and installed it on each main since that prototype. I have gone from a 2 line system to a 3 line system as the foot of the main is 14". You can't see it from a distance... as if it matters... and it does mean modifying the sail... but it really makes reefing and dropping the sail a breeze... pun intended. It has to be adjust properly to work properly... well duh. It's not hard to do or understand. I use full battens... and would not consider a furling main.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Minnewaska said:


> Interest comment made by Jeff, who set a size range where mast furling may or may not makes sense. I think he said 40 ft. At first, I thought, below 40, sail handling really is done manually, very easily. The only advantage is not needing to go out on deck. Another made the comment that furling mains are hard to reef and maintain shape. While I think it's technically true, it really only matters upwind and I don't think it matters much for cruising at all. Then I realized, by the time a larger boat even needs to reef, you have so much wind, I think you could make it go well, if you were flying a garbage bag.


To perhaps clarify my comments, I am a firm believer in the idea that whether or not a specific technology or design feature makes sense is solely dependent on the size of the boat. In my mind, as a broad generality, these might include things like bow thrusters, electric winches, in-mast furlers, center cockpits, manual windlass or powered windlass and so on. 40 feet was an arbitrary number but I chose that length thinking that it equates to a mainsail that is too heavy for a person to haul most of the way up without a long grind on a manual winch.

But I also chose that length because below that general size, proportionately so much more can be done with depowering through sail shaping vs reefing that the ability to control sail shape become far more crucial on a smaller boat than a larger boat, because the larger boat tends to be more tolerant of less than perfect sail shape. .

Some of this thinking is driven by my sailing preferences. I prefer to be able to do as much as possible without power assists and to be able to manhandle the boat. Before purchasing my current boat I spent a bunch of time short-handing different sized boats. I found that the largest boat that I found convenient to manhandle was around 11.000 lbs and then looked at what was on the market in that weight range.



SanderO said:


> As I got older... my sail became heavier  and there seemed to be more friction. Boat is fractional and the main is 440 SF so in heavy cloth the sail is heavy. In a bag I can barely lift it! My solution to hoisting he main was to get a battery operated Milwaukee right angle drill with a winch bit. So now I can raise the main with "one finger" on the trigger. This system is fabulous. I do not use Millie for trim of the head sail which is on a roller furler.
> The sail is raised easily and used to shake out a reef as well. Frankly using a manual winch is exhausting for me these days. I love Millie!
> I knew the inventor of Dutchmen and he offered to install a prototype on Shiva's main. I "tested" it in the Marion Bermuda race and the system worked fine. He has since evolved the details of the design and I have purchased it and installed it on each main since that prototype. I have gone from a 2 line system to a 3 line system as the foot of the main is 14". You can't see it from a distance... as if it matters... and it does mean modifying the sail... but it really makes reefing and dropping the sail a breeze... pun intended. It has to be adjust properly to work properly... well duh. It's not hard to do or understand. I use full battens... and would not consider a furling main.
> View attachment 137125


I get it what you mean about the mainsail getting heavier over time, My main is slightly smaller than yours, but without the battens weights around 90 lbs. My delivery main is even heavier. I can pull it up to just below the forestay but have to put it on my winch and grind it up the last dozen feet. I used to be able to haul it up to several feet above the forestay without a winch. I think of raising the main as my upper body and cardio workout for the day.

Last weekend, I did a single-handed race that started from being anchored and with sails down. By the time I had the anchor on deck and stowed, and the mainsail up I was huffing and puffing pretty badly. I was expecting that the first leg would be a spinnaker leg and was relieved when the wind shifted to the nose so that that I did not have to do another hoist.

Speaking of huffing and puffing, I typically do weight bearing training and yoga during the winter to keep in good enough shape and maintain balance to continue racing single-handed. One of the life changes from Covid is that I was not able to go to the gym during the off-season. I have gotten back to doing yoga at least but I feel like my overall strength is down a little. Of course, not going to the gym is a minor inconvenience compared to those who have suffered far worse due to this devastating illness.

I hate to say this, but looking at the photo, while the shape of the sail is not bad, the draft on your mainsail is way too deep. It may be that you need more outhaul, mast bend and stiffer battens, but more likely, you probably will need to start budgeting for a new mainsail if that is your current mainsail. 

Jeff


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

Minnewaska said:


> Interest comment made by Jeff, who set a size range where mast furling may or may not makes sense. I think he said 40 ft. At first, I thought, below 40, sail handling really is done manually, very easily. The only advantage is not needing to go out on deck. Another made the comment that furling mains are hard to reef and maintain shape. While I think it's technically true, it really only matters upwind and I don't think it matters much for cruising at all. Then I realized, by the time a larger boat even needs to reef, you have so much wind, I think you could make it go well, if you were flying a garbage bag.


Yes certainly bigger boats have heavier mains and that can make classic mains more difficult. Our 39ft boat came with a power halyard winch, and while I would not have thought to check that box if I was buying a new, I am really glad we have it. I can see how mast furling could be more appealing once you get into even bigger boats.

The assumption that by the time a bigger boat becomes overpowered there is enough wind that sail shape doesn't matter is not correct. It entirely depends on the design of the boat and the SA/D of a particular boat. Generally larger boats are going to have proportionately larger sail plans.

The assertion that sail shape only matters upwind is also not entirely correct. While it is definitely more critical, I would argue that it is nearly as important while reaching. Besides, where I sail having to sail upwind is a daily reality. If you can't sail upwind well you will probably end up motoring. I guess is some places people can reach everywhere. That must be nice!

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Jeff_H said:


> I hate to say this, but looking at the photo, while the shape of the sail is not bad, the draft on your mainsail is way too deep. It may be that you need more outhaul, mast bend and stiffer battens, but more likely, you probably will need to start budgeting for a new mainsail if that is your current mainsail.
> 
> Jeff


YES looks like too much draft... I could use a new main... and probably had not tensioned the outhaul. Here is a recemt pic and the draft looks more like what it should be.









This sail is 15 years old! 7.5 oz Vektron


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

I crewed a lot on a friend's 45' boat with roller furling jib and in-mast furling mainsail. You lose sail area with both sails. You lose sail area from the foot of the jib and from the roach of the mainsail. Nevertheless, we raced the boat and it was very competitive in moderate to stronger winds. The reduced sail area hurts progressively less as windspeed increases. In moderate winds it hurts a little, and in stronger winds, it doesn't hurt at all, because by that time, you're furling the sails to keep the boat on it's feet. There's also an advantage in being able to easily increase and reduce sail area as the windspeed varies up and down. When you're done sailing, you roll up both sails. There are no sails to fold, bag and put away, no sail covers to put on, and no sheets to store. Just add electric winches and a power windlass, and it would be a big boat that I could easily singlehand at age 78, despite my infirmities.

If the furling mainsail fouls, it's not pleasant, but I agree with Capta that it should be a rare occurrence if it's properly maintained, with a good sail, and if you keep a little pressure on it when you furl it.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

Sailormon6 said:


> I crewed a lot on a friend's 45' boat with roller furling jib and in-mast furling mainsail. You lose sail area with both sails. You lose sail area from the foot of the jib and from the roach of the mainsail. Nevertheless, we raced the boat and it was very competitive in moderate to stronger winds. The reduced sail area hurts progressively less as windspeed increases. In moderate winds it hurts a little, and in stronger winds, it doesn't hurt at all, because by that time, you're furling the sails to keep the boat on it's feet. There's also an advantage in being able to easily increase and reduce sail area as the windspeed varies up and down. When you're done sailing, you roll up both sails. There are no sails to fold, bag and put away, no sail covers to put on, and no sheets to store. Just add electric winches and a power windlass, and it would be a big boat that I could easily singlehand at age 78, despite my infirmities.
> 
> If the furling mainsail fouls, it's not pleasant, but I agree with Capta that it should be a rare occurrence if it's properly maintained, with a good sail, and if you keep a little pressure on it when you furl it.


If a boat with in mast furling is competitive in racing I would suggest that it is not a very competitive fleet! Not that there is anything wrong with that...at least they are getting out and enjoying their boats, but it does not reflect the real performance hit.

It also makes a difference where you sail. If you are in a windy area where you are regularly having to reef then maybe furling makes more sense. In my area it doesn't typically get windy enough to need to reef often. I have only reefed our current boat once in 2 years. Our last boat was never reefed in 16 years! For us sail area is king!

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

SchockT said:


> If a boat with in mast furling is competitive in racing I would suggest that it is not a very competitive fleet!


 In fifty years, I've never raced in any racing class that wasn't competitive within its own grouping. People who race are usually keen on competing. If yacht racing was only about raw boat speed and sail area, it wouldn't be nearly as much fun. Boats are grouped in PHRF classes so they are racing against other boats of similar performance abilities. What's fun is beating boats that you shouldn't be able to beat. Raw speed matters more in short races. In longer races, playing the wind and currents, sail selection and trim and boat preparation, among other things, matter more.

Whether you're racing an ultralight racer or a cruiser, yacht racing within any given class is more about the skills of the skipper and crew than about raw speed.
[/QUOTE]


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

One other thing I've found to be interesting about our IMRF main is that we can vang the boom to the gene track, tighten the sheet against that and use the outhaul to reshape the sail. It's almost like having a jib on a really long traveler.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Jeff_H said:


> My wife says there is no topic too trivial that I cannot over think it.
> 
> To answer your question, I have only seen it called Double-line Reefing or Slab Reefing. You can see it discussed in this article: Offshore Sailor: Mainsail reefing Slab reefing used to only mean double-line reefing, or reefing with a tack hook.
> 
> ...


That link was an interesting read, thanks.
It does appear that two line reefing is the best option overall, especially if you have lines led aft to the cockpit, and it seems a pretty easy and relatively quick operation.

My first introduction to reefing was watching this guy:





All I could think was OMG, he should have packed a lunch it took so long!
Good thing he has stable conditions or he'd be there all day.
And allegedly he's the rigging 'doctor'.
That's when I first started saying OK, there's got to be an easier way...


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

Sailormon6 said:


> In fifty years, I've never raced in any racing class that wasn't competitive within its own grouping. People who race are usually keen on competing. If yacht racing was only about raw boat speed and sail area, it wouldn't be nearly as much fun. Boats are grouped in PHRF classes so they are racing against other boats of similar performance abilities. What's fun is beating boats that you shouldn't be able to beat. Raw speed matters more in short races. In longer races, playing the wind and currents, sail selection and trim and boat preparation, among other things, matter more.
> 
> Whether you're racing an ultralight racer or a cruiser, yacht racing within any given class is more about the skills of the skipper and crew than about raw speed.


[/QUOTE]Certainly if you are racing a cruising boat against other cruising boats that is true. That assumes you are racing in a region where the fleets are big enough to be divided into divisions that are comprised of closely matched boats.

Where I sail divisions are divided up purely based on phrf handicaps. That means I would be racing against fully race prepped boats with racing sails even if I have dacron cruising sails. Having a furling main would be even worse, but neither configuration would be competitive in that fleet. Certainly skipper and crew skill can make a difference, but it is difficult to make up for the boatspeed and and pointing advantage that the race prepped boats are going to have. 
I don't think I have ever seen a boat with IMF racing in any fleet I have raced in, aside from fun club races that target cruisers. No serious racer around here would even consider a boat with a furling mast.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Rush2112 said:


> That link was an interesting read, thanks.
> It does appear that two line reefing is the best option overall, especially if you have lines led aft to the cockpit, and it seems a pretty easy and relatively quick operation.
> 
> My first introduction to reefing was watching this guy:
> ...


That was painful to watch. You are right that he probably needed to bring breakfast, lunch and dinner and maybe a sleeping bag. That had to be one of the slowest reefing jobs that I have ever seen especially given the conditions.

Below is a picture of my mainsail.
Synergy- Double Line reefing by Jeff Halpern

I think that you can see the reefing lines. At the leech of the sail, you can see the tan and the green clew lines for the first and second reef and can tell how they are rigged. At the luff you can see the tack line for the first reef. (The second reef is not run in this picture). The tack line attaches at the gooseneck, passes through a dogbone at the reefpoint, runs through a shackle on the opposite side of the gooseneck, to a turning block at the base of the mast, and back to the aft end of the cabin top,
14 Cabin top stoppers and riser by Jeff Halpern,
(From outboard, second reef clew line, second reef tack line (empty), port jib halyard, main halyard, spinnaker halyard, outhaul, and vang)

To reef, I have the halyard marked for each position for the perfect setting for each reef. I pull out enough of the halyard so the mark is where it needs to be. Then I use the tack line to actually pull the sail down. The tack line is 2:1 so I am able to hand over hand the tack line most of the way and then take one quick turn on the winch to tension it. At that point, I slack the vang and mainsheet and hand over hand in the slack out of the clew line. I then grind in the last 6-7 feet ( if the wind is forward of abeam, the clew line is not under load since the sheet and vang are eased). Once the clew is down at the boom, I pull on the vang and mainsheet and I am done.

Because I race my boat single-hand, I practice all maneuvers including reefing. I purposely time how long it takes and test how far I travel in that time. In around 20 knots of wind, it takes a little over 2 minutes to get the actual reef in with the apparent wind at, or forward of a beam reach. The boat covers roughly 300-400 feet in that time. If the wind is aft, the loads on the clew line are much greater so the reef takes roughly twice that time and distance.

Jeff


----------



## Docsnuz (May 25, 2013)

I’m a charter skipper. Have been since 2005. So I yield the floor to the full-time skippers. However, I have a strong preference for furling mains. Especially if I’m sailing in light winds where I foolishly dropped the main and then had to haul it up again because I found that windy zone I’m always looking for. So, huge convenience both adding and reducing sail as long as you don’t get a jam.

The only time I’ve ever had one jam was when I was being silly as I furled the ail and didn’t keep tension on the leech. I’m pretty sure most of the horror stories you hear, if honestly told, resulted from taking a shortcut while furling leading to a jam while unfurling.

I’ve never had the mechanism itself jam. It’s always been the sail being too loosely wrapped inside the mast or boom causing the jam. 

I’ve heard arguments about horizontal battens being more effective than vertical battens in holding sail shape. Or that reefing an in-mast furled sail depowers less predictably than reefing towards the boom. But I’m not trying to squeeze every 10th of a knot out of a boat. I’m a cruiser not a racer and I think the extra weight of a furling system would put off a racer even if there were no concerns about a jam.

So, assuming they’re working, furling mains are safer, easier and infinitely more adjustable than a traditional sail. In 15 years of chartering I’ve seen only one jam and I know it was my fault so I have a lot of confidence in the reliability of a properly installed furling system. 

I think the time is coming when arguing for a traditional sail versus a furling sail will sound like arguing for manual transmission versus automatic transmission. You can appreciate the nostalgia but the new technology outperforms the old in every conceivable way.


----------



## Sgr30mk2 (Jul 16, 2020)

Make it as complex as ya can, becouse things on Boats never break ;-)


----------



## mickeyrouse (Oct 10, 2000)

In my 46 years of sailing I only have used in-mast furling once. Tough to roll in, tough to roll out. Glad I tried it, and glad I won’t have to again. Aside from the inconvenience, a furling main by definition can’t use battens. In light to medium air, what most of us sail in all the time, that sure effects sail performance. The benefit jusn’t isn’t there. Get lazy jacks, or Dutchman, or stak-pak, or whatever instead.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Docsnuz said:


> I'm a charter skipper. Have been since 2005. So I yield the floor to the full-time skippers. However, I have a strong preference for furling mains. Especially if I'm sailing in light winds where I foolishly dropped the main and then had to haul it up again because I found that windy zone I'm always looking for. So, huge convenience both adding and reducing sail as long as you don't get a jam.


No need to take a main down in light winds. When I head out... mail is hoisted and stays hoisted until we anchor or moor.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Docsnuz said:


> Especially if I'm sailing in light winds where I foolishly dropped the main and then had to haul it up again because I found that windy zone I'm always looking for.


This is a critical point, especially if one is short handed. It's not confined exclusively to furling mains either. The harder it is to raise, douse, trim, reef, etc, the less one will actually sail. I've seen it over and over. I am 1000% more likely to raise my sails and give lousy wind a try, than my buddy on his 49 that has to hand crank everything, for example.

The boat's crew has an uncanny ability to break just about anything. I've read no mention of a traditional flaked sail losing it's halyard up the mast. That's no fun and will never happen on in-mast furling. There are pros and cons to everything, but I think a modern in mast roller furling can be reasonably reliable tool to a cruiser. Like anything, one must learn to use it properly. We're looking at boats with in-boom furling and, while it's easy to think the traditional battens are far superior, the act of actually furling is far more complex and touchy. You get is down eventually.


----------



## DougH2 (Oct 9, 2020)

SchockT said:


> When we were shopping for our boat in mast furling was a deal breaker. It wasn't so much because of the potential for jamming, although a couple of rigger friends told me that was a common problem on many mast furling systems.
> 
> My objection to them was more around performance. Not only do you sacrifice sail area, you also give up tuneability. You have no ability to control luff tension and draft position because you can't use a cunningham. You can't flatten the sail with mast bend. As soon as you start reefing you sacrifice sail shape because the foil shape is cut into the sail, and as soon as you roll up the luff that shape is gone. (The same reason I detest roller reefing headsails).
> 
> ...


I have to agree with Schock on this. If the goal is to make everything as simple and easy as possible then we can do away with the mainsail altogether (and the headsail too if we have one). Just install a large motor and fuel tank and all of your sail handling problems will vanish. I prefer to do things with tried and true simple sail handling and shape control techniques. The satisfaction of expending the effort and knowledge to make a properly set and shaped sail is a big reason for why I sail. I get it that as we age we may have to submit to new enabling technologies, but I choose to wait as long as I physically can on that. I am seriously thinking of converting my roller furling headsail to a hanked on system. 26' S2 7.9 I have been sailing a Cal 33 with conventional mainsail and the first thing I did was remove the lazy jacks because they were always getting fouled. Raising and lowering the main the "old way" just isn't difficult if one uses knowledge and proper technique. I single-handed that Cal 33 as well. Just turn on the engine and the auto pilot kept the boat head to wind. Raising and lowering the main was no big deal at all. I am nearing 70 years old.


----------



## mickeyrouse (Oct 10, 2000)

capta said:


> So far, other than the motor and gearbox, both of which are easily repairable, even in the islands, I can't think of anything else that could break,


ha! EVERYTHING could break, and at the worst possible moment. It's a boat.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

DougH2 said:


> I have to agree with Schock on this. If the goal is to make everything as simple and easy as possible then we can do away with the mainsail altogether (and the headsail too if we have one). Just install a large motor and fuel tank and all of your sail handling problems will vanish. I prefer to do things with tried and true simple sail handling and shape control techniques. The satisfaction of expending the effort and knowledge to make a properly set and shaped sail is a big reason for why I sail. I get it that as we age we may have to submit to new enabling technologies, but I choose to wait as long as I physically can on that. I am seriously thinking of converting my roller furling headsail to a hanked on system. 26' S2 7.9 I have been sailing a Cal 33 with conventional mainsail and the first thing I did was remove the lazy jacks because they were always getting fouled. Raising and lowering the main the "old way" just isn't difficult if one uses knowledge and proper technique. I single-handed that Cal 33 as well. Just turn on the engine and the auto pilot kept the boat head to wind. Raising and lowering the main was no big deal at all. I am nearing 70 years old.


Get rid of your headsail furler? Now thats just crazy talk!

Roller furling headsails don't make nearly as many sacrifices as furling mains. Even many one design racers use furling headsails. They make far more sense than hank on sails, particularly when you are short handed!

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

mickeyrouse said:


> ha! EVERYTHING could break, and at the worst possible moment. It's a boat.


Have you even seen a Hood Stoway system? 
I guess you have a real problem maintaining things or buy inferior quality equipment, but I've done quite a few ocean crossings without breaking *anything*! Never mind a few hundred deliveries. Though to be honest, maybe a fish line or two on a few really big fish, but not boat equipment.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

DougH2 said:


> I am seriously thinking of converting my roller furling headsail to a hanked on system. 26' S2 7.9 I have been sailing a Cal 33 with conventional mainsail and the first thing I did was remove the lazy jacks because they were always getting fouled. Raising and lowering the main the "old way" just isn't difficult if one uses knowledge and proper technique. I single-handed that Cal 33 as well. Just turn on the engine and the auto pilot kept the boat head to wind. Raising and lowering the main was no big deal at all. I am nearing 70 years old.


I guess folks who day sail in sheltered waters can think like you do, but anyone who has been on the foredeck, waist deep in water and holding on for dear life while trying to manhandle a couple of sails, in a gale outside a sheltered bay, probably wouldn't think that way.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

The one time I was tossed over board was when I was attempting a sail change... Luckily I was clipped to the toe rail...


----------



## DougH (Aug 9, 2020)

capta said:


> I guess folks who day sail in sheltered waters can think like you do, but anyone who has been on the foredeck, waist deep in water and holding on for dear life while trying to manhandle a couple of sails, in a gale outside a sheltered bay, probably wouldn't think that way.


I wouldn't call the Great Lakes sheltered waters. Plan ahead, watch the weather very carefully. Don't bet your life on fancy/complex mechanisms.


----------



## DougH (Aug 9, 2020)

SchockT said:


> Get rid of your headsail furler? Now thats just crazy talk!
> 
> Roller furling headsails don't make nearly as many sacrifices as furling mains. Even many one design racers use furling headsails. They make far more sense than hank on sails, particularly when you are short handed!


I'm not nearly as pedantic about the headsail furler. But I don't like using it as a reefing mechanism, which I've seen a lot of sailers do.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

DougH said:


> I'm not nearly as pedantic about the headsail furler. But I don't like using it as a reefing mechanism, which I've seen a lot of sailers do.


I am with you on that. I have never done it, and likely never will, except perhaps in an emergency.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## DougH (Aug 9, 2020)

DougH said:


> Plan ahead, watch the weather very carefully. Don't bet your life on fancy/complex mechanisms.


Here's a thread worth reading if you haven't:








dealing with roller furling jib failures?


Hi, I was talking with a friend about the usefulness of a roller furling headsail for singlehanding. The ease of "dropping" it, the potential to "reef" it, etc, and I was told a story about a pin breaking off inside the furler, and someone being stuck with their jib up. They managed to get it...




www.sailnet.com


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

DougH said:


> I wouldn't call the Great Lakes sheltered waters. Plan ahead, watch the weather very carefully. Don't bet your life on fancy/complex mechanisms.


If you are willing to bet your life on what the meteorologists put out there, you are a much braver man than I. 
As for the Great Lakes, I did them years ago on an 80 footer and I found them one of the most unpleasant and least reliably forecast areas I ever sailed. Certainly nowhere I'd prefer to sail with hanked on sails, unless I was racing, and even then, I'd consider safety over the marginal advantage of the hanked on sails.
Plan ahead, OK, let's have a thread about how well *that* works out when sailing. If the wind is forward of the beam, you can't even plot a useful course.
It is your boat and the lives of those aboard you are choosing to send out on the foredeck to change headsails when the $hit hits the fan, not mine, so I'll leave you to your choices.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

SchockT said:


> I am with you on that. I have never done it, and likely never will, except perhaps in an emergency.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


Our yankee actually has reinforcement at the reef point, though in extreme situations, we do go past them. The thing is, if I reef the sail, then there is much less strain on it and it is more unlikely to stretch out than a full jib would, in those conditions.


----------



## Calmwater (Aug 5, 2018)

Interesting how people love to defend what they have...  I'm ok with any main preference and I had boats with and without in mast furling. I race a Farr 40 where no sail is furled, but this boat never leave without a crew of at least 8... My cruising boat that I can practically sail single handed without leaving the cockpit - Contest 43 CC, has all furled sails; main, staysail, genoa and even the asymmetrical is soon going to be furled on a continuous line furler.

Selden furling mast is extremely solid and reliable - never had an issue with the furling. My definite preference was a furling main, especially as short handed and in complicated situations offshore the need for a quick and safe reefing from the cockpit was an absolute must.

Also, the performance very much depends on the design - in the C-43 the main is relatively small (yet keeps a very good shape even when furled) -The main drive comes from a 160% genoa and a 110% staysail. Also, in a center cockpit boat (Another requirement I had for a cruiser), it is difficult to reach the boom for reefing etc., so main furling has another advantage. You can see the setup here.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Calmwater said:


> Interesting how people love to defend what they have...


It isn't so much about defending what I have as trying to stop all the misinformation about IMRF. 99% who put it down haven't even used it and grasp at the worst possible scenario, which is so close to impossible, it's ludicrous. Like I keep saying, IMRF doesn't screw up any more than a boat runs aground all by itself; *people *do both.
Honestly, I couldn't care less what people choose, I'm only trying to impart information from my personal experience. I've used other methods and have found them wanting in comparison to IMRF.
People can take or leave the information , but for crying out loud don't try to tell me that *everything* on a boat breaks sooner or later or that proper maintenance (never mind a full black box) won't prevent most failures aboard.
One of the most unbelievable things I kept (pre c-19) hearing was that almost every boat that arrived in Panama from Grenada or the ABCs was arriving with a lot of serious damage. It's an easy 1300 mile *downwind* run and few had reported more than 40 knots (most more like 35) of wind for a day or two around La Guijira! How do you break gear in those conditions?


----------



## Calmwater (Aug 5, 2018)

Agree with you, Capta - the value with forum like this is in sharing actual experience as we cannot only learn from our own. There are always compromises, pros, cons and personal preferences based on actual conditions and many other factors. 
The only way to learn, make informed decisions and progress is by sharing honest information and stay objective as possible, in spite of our legitimate strong opinions.


----------



## Capt B (Oct 10, 2020)

Jeff_H said:


> You can have both in-boom furling and reef points, but it would be tricky to do so that the reef lines did not get crossed up when the boom mandrel is being rotated. You can't have both with in-mast furling since you can't get the reef cringles and reinforcing into the mast cavity.
> 
> Personally, I have never been a fan of either in-boom or in-mast furling. While I understand why it may make sense on a bigger boat where the physical weight of the sail becomes a significant factor and there are plenty of robust power sources available, I have never understood any advantage for a boat under 40 feet. The reality is that two line reefing is so cheap, so reliable, so quickly adaptable to changes in windspeed, and so fast to employ and undo that at least for me, in-mast or in-boom furling would be a deal killer.
> 
> ...


Great response


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

Certainly I have my opinion on why I don't want mast furling on my boat, and while it is true that I have never used IMF, I was told by 2 different rigger friends that they are prone to jamming, and that once they do, there is no way to get the sail down. These are guys that work on those systems for a living, so I am inclined to give some weight to their opinions.

At the same time there are sailors on these forums whose skills and experience I have come to respect, who say they have no problems with their furling units, so there is that to consider as well.

So I am inclined to believe that many furler jams are a result of operator error, or apparently, worn and bagged out sails. 

That has me considering possible scenarios. For example, husband and wife out sailing. Husband is the more experienced sailor, wife, not as much. (A very common situation, at least in my circles). Something happens to husband; he goes overboard, or has a medical emergency of some kind. Wife needs to take over the boat, get the sails down etc. With a furling main, she doesn't maintain exactly the right tension on the outhaul and manages to jam the mainsail. Now she has that to contend with on top of the original emergency. With a classic main, she just has to blow the halyard, and maybe go to the mast and pull the luff down.

Another scenario...what if the main rips? Can it still furl? How hard is it to pull a sail out of the furling system at sea when the sail is flogging?

I know, there are all kinds of "what if" scenarios, and odds are they won't happen , but these are things to consider, particularly when industry professionals warn about them.

I'm not saying I would NEVER get in mast furling. If we ever move up to a bigger boat, say 45-50ft, we may very well get it. Indeed I may not have a choice, because they seem pretty ubiquitous on boats that size these days, and by the time we make that upgrade we likely won't be as able-bodied as we are now, and looking for anything to keep us sailing instead of going over to the dark side.

But for now, in my opinion, the risks and disadvantages outweigh the convenience.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## Capt B (Oct 10, 2020)

What a great Q, same predicament, thanks to responders both Sides
Do any of the inmast furlers have the ability to drop the main when it is fully out or are they luff tape as in fore sails 
When they lock is it comparable to an override on a foresail drum or can you still unfurl
Sailshape truly, will a non battened sail pretend to be an airfoil 
Chafe ? Reef points traditionally are overbuilt, is there protection on the luff and foot for chafe
Thanks again great Q


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

On my last boat, I had two line slab reefing. It worked fine, but I wanted to "upgrade" to a one line system. It was a relatively small boat (O'day 23), so all of the lines ran outside the boom, making the project an easy one. To my surprise, the system didn't work as smoothly as I thought it would. Because of friction, I often had to give a yank on the reefing line at the clew to bring the aft end of the sail down to the boom. I thought this was probably because of the design and position of the blocks I put in rather than a systemic problem. In short, my own fault. In retrospect, I now think differently.

When I bought my "new" boat, it too had a one line reefing system. On this larger boat (Catalina 28), the reefing line runs through the boom (just like a big-boy boat). I was initially surprised to find that I have to do the same thing at the clew with this boat: the friction in the system requires help for the clew to be tensioned. That means giving the line at the aft reef point a good, hard yank down in order to get enough slack in the line to pull the line through the boom. Just too much friction.

I'm going to see if there is a way to make this easier; if not, I may just revert to a two line system. I'd leave the tack end the way it is, with the line leading back to the cockpit. But I may just install a new cheek block and cleat on the aft end of the boom to handle the clew.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Too much friction in a one line slab reefing system plus the inability to tension the tack and the clew separately. My boat has 8 line stoppers on the coach roof of which 4 are used for reefing lines, 1 for the main halyard, one for the, one for the vang, one for the topping lift and one for the outhaul. Works out fine and there was no need to "pick up" 2 line stoppers.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

mstern said:


> On my last boat, I had two line slab reefing. It worked fine, but I wanted to "upgrade" to a one line system. It was a relatively small boat (O'day 23), so all of the lines ran outside the boom, making the project an easy one. To my surprise, the system didn't work as smoothly as I thought it would. Because of friction, I often had to give a yank on the reefing line at the clew to bring the aft end of the sail down to the boom. I thought this was probably because of the design and position of the blocks I put in rather than a systemic problem. In short, my own fault. In retrospect, I now think differently.
> 
> When I bought my "new" boat, it too had a one line reefing system. On this larger boat (Catalina 28), the reefing line runs through the boom (just like a big-boy boat). I was initially surprised to find that I have to do the same thing at the clew with this boat: the friction in the system requires help for the clew to be tensioned. That means giving the line at the aft reef point a good, hard yank down in order to get enough slack in the line to pull the line through the boom. Just too much friction.
> 
> I'm going to see if there is a way to make this easier; if not, I may just revert to a two line system. I'd leave the tack end the way it is, with the line leading back to the cockpit. But I may just install a new cheek block and cleat on the aft end of the boom to handle the clew.


My Catalina 250 had a similar one-line system. I found that putting a block at the aft cringle greatly reduced the friction at the very spot where it was needed. The block had a shackle that reached through to a ring on the other side.

I then tried a similar block at the tack, but it caused more harm than good. In order to get sufficient clew tension, the tack grommet would pull below the boom and ruin sail shape. Jockeying halyard tension to compensate while underway was more hassle than I wanted. Just running reefing line through that cringle forces it down to (not below) the boom, then I can get going without worrying and adjust halyard tension independently.

I've been meaning to modify my current Catalina 34 in the same way, but having difficulty finding a big enough block that doesn't cost a fortune. I stop by the consignment shop periodically.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

SchockT said:


> That has me considering possible scenarios. For example, husband and wife out sailing. Husband is the more experienced sailor, wife, not as much. (A very common situation, at least in my circles). Something happens to husband; he goes overboard,
> 
> Another scenario...what if the main rips? Can it still furl? How hard is it to pull a sail out of the furling system at sea when the sail is flogging?


In a MOB situation, I have no plans to take down the sails, and when doing my COI tests with the USCG on an 80' 3 mas6ted schooner, even with crew, you do not have time to do so, or your allotted time has gone to that.
As long as the luff tape doesn't rip, an unlikely scenario as it is inside the mast, an IMRF sail comes down or furls just as any R\F jib would, but in our case the foil is round.
But I wouldn't advise any couple to sail beyond the range of Sea Tow/TowBoatus, if both parties can't handle the sails, and in this case, heave-to the boat, until there is time to bring them down or roll them up, whichever system one has on the boat.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

TakeFive said:


> My Catalina 250 had a similar one-line system. I found that putting a block at the aft cringle greatly reduced the friction at the very spot where it was needed. The block had a shackle that reached through to a ring on the other side.
> 
> I then tried a similar block at the tack, but it caused more harm than good. In order to get sufficient clew tension, the tack grommet would pull below the boom and ruin sail shape. Jockeying halyard tension to compensate while underway was more hassle than I wanted. Just running reefing line through that cringle forces it down to (not below) the boom, then I can get going without worrying and adjust halyard tension independently.
> 
> I've been meaning to modify my current Catalina 34 in the same way, but having difficulty finding a big enough block that doesn't cost a fortune. I stop by the consignment shop periodically.


My Jeanneau 39 has single line reefing built into the Selden boom, and it works beautifully. On my setup the first reef is on one side of the sail, and the 2nd reef on the other. Rather than the lines passing through a grommet in the sail to the other side they go through a cheek block attached to the sail and back down the same side. That seems to have solved the friction problem you guys are talking about.









And before anyone says it, I KNOW the sail looks like crap! That pick was taken before the sail went into the sailmaker for a recut and full battens conversion!
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## lilipad (Jan 8, 2019)

Rush2112 said:


> OK so this one seems a bit contentious and I'm really curious what folks around here think.
> I've read that furling mains can be dangerous as if they jam they cannot be dropped. Unless you get furling not in the mast but on the beam, then it can be dropped. Also I've read that sails are quite a bit more expensive and must be replaced more often or else they don't roll up nicely.
> 
> On the other hand, some have said they are very reliable and almost never present troubles. On person told he he would not single hand without one as conditions in The Netherlands are quite variable and it allows for such speedy and easy reefing.
> ...


My boat has in the mast furling and can't imagine sailing without. Very easy to manage the sail and reefing is of course unlimited. I feel the hassle of the sail getting stuck and having to work it free is much easier than going on deck to reef vs sitting in the cockpit. When stuck, I move the boom over to the other side and work the furling line/outhaul back and forth. I am sure it would be a nightmare if it truly got stuck but will take the chance...


----------



## OCSailor (Mar 26, 2012)

I have a Selden IMF on my Hunter 326. Everything is manual, with the outhaul and a continuous furing line. The first time I took the (16-year-old) boat out, the main was stuck in the mast. Rather than fight it outside the harbor I motored back to the slip.

The next calm day I was able to incrementally work the sail to get it fully unfurled. Then I proceeded to furl the sail per Selden's instructions (stbd tack, counter-clockwise), keeping tension on the outhaul. The main furled tightly inside the mast and I haven't had any problems since...

I wasn't shopping fir an IMF boat, but when I found a boat in the condition I wanted it happened to have an IMF so I bought it. The reduced performane wasn't an issue for me and I can handle the boat without leaving the cockpit.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

TakeFive said:


> My Catalina 250 had a similar one-line system. I found that putting a block at the aft cringle greatly reduced the friction at the very spot where it was needed. The block had a shackle that reached through to a ring on the other side.
> 
> I then tried a similar block at the tack, but it caused more harm than good. In order to get sufficient clew tension, the tack grommet would pull below the boom and ruin sail shape. Jockeying halyard tension to compensate while underway was more hassle than I wanted. Just running reefing line through that cringle forces it down to (not below) the boom, then I can get going without worrying and adjust halyard tension independently.
> 
> I've been meaning to modify my current Catalina 34 in the same way, but having difficulty finding a big enough block that doesn't cost a fortune. I stop by the consignment shop periodically.


Sound like a good idea. I'll put a new block on the list of spring projects.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

mstern said:


> Sound like a good idea. I'll put a new block on the list of spring projects.


On my single line setup the reefing line terminates at the tack. The only block is at the clew. I think the smooth operation is a credit to the Selden boom. There is some magic going on in there that is not totally clear to me!



http://support.seldenmast.com/files/1378899449/595-316-E.pdf



Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

SchockT said:


> On my single line setup the reefing line terminates at the tack. The only block is at the clew. I think the smooth operation is a credit to the Selden boom. There is some magic going on in there that is not totally clear to me!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I get the feeling that at least some of the friction in my system is in the boom itself; I'm going to do my best to see if I can figure that out and address it. But I remember how much of a difference it made on my old boat to add a block at the tack reef point, so I'm going to give that a try at the clew and maybe the tack too on this boat before I go the double-line route.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Friction is an enemy. It makes raising and dropping ANY sail more difficult. Anything that moves... a sheave... a car on a track will suffer from friction.
There are some advantages to furling mains... but those advantages come with downsides. In my mind the disadvantages out weigh the advantages... But each sailor will do their own calculus.
2 line slab reefing is almost fail safe
full battens make for better sail shape and little to no flopping of the leach
slides can be changed to those with less friction easily
powered winches can assist in raising the main.
Furling main mechanisms are expensive


----------



## LaPoodella (Oct 5, 2018)

Rush2112 said:


> OK so this one seems a bit contentious and I'm really curious what folks around here think.
> I've read that furling mains can be dangerous as if they jam they cannot be dropped. Unless you get furling not in the mast but on the beam, then it can be dropped. Also I've read that sails are quite a bit more expensive and must be replaced more often or else they don't roll up nicely.
> 
> On the other hand, some have said they are very reliable and almost never present troubles. On person told he he would not single hand without one as conditions in The Netherlands are quite variable and it allows for such speedy and easy reefing.
> ...


It probably depends on which furling main system you have. Also who made the sails. And then there is maintenance but it's pretty basic on a good system. That said, I'm replacing my 32 year old Hood inmast system with a Southern Spars in boom system. I will end up with more sail area on a shorter mast allowing me to go inside from Chesapeake to SC on delivery. And as a retired racer, the shape of the sail without battens was frustrating.


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

On a boat less than about 40' I don't see any need for the expense and complication of either in boom or in mast furling and since I believe you are looking at boats in the mid 30's range, I would just go with slab reefing. JeffH mentioned 2 line reefing (one line at leech and one line at luff), I prefer to just have one line at the leech that's led forward to a cleat on the front of the boom, with just a hook or shackle to secure the reefed tack. That requires me to walk forward to the mast but once there allows me to control everything. If you prefer to remain in the cockpit you can add the second line at the luff. But it increases the amount of spaghetti so I prefer to keep it all up at the mast. 

As a read through this thread there are a lot of comments regarding in mast or in boom reefing that begin with "once when I chartered" or "I heard from a rigger, etc," and I would urge you to completely ignore all of those comments. It's like someone saying they fell off a bike and skinned their knee the first time they tried to ride one so bikes are obviously unsafe, or a Tour de France competitor dissing a particular derailleur system that would be perfectly fine for any recreational rider. Also, I would take 'some' of JeffH's comments with a pretty big grain of salt because he is primarily a relatively small boat racer and is way more into performance than most cruisers are who sail bigger and heavier boats. For example, he may have concerns about the head of his in mast sail creeping slightly downward as the day goes on and that affecting the draft of his sail, but for you and most other cruisers, though factually correct, that is a completely inconsequential consideration and only serves to clutter up the mind of someone like yourself who is new to this and is trying to figure out what priorities make the most sense to you. So, keep in mind that he's a smart guy with lots of useful information in his head, his perspective is different from yours will be as a cruiser. But I do agree with his overall opinion that nothing beats a hanked on sail when it comes to sail shape and simplicity. 

In concept, in boom furlers seem to be a superior solution because they allow you to have roach and better control of sail shape than in mast, but not quite as much control as traditional hanked on sails. But as a cruiser, they certainly offer enough control and shape to do a great job for you. But for me, I can't make the numbers work well enough to convince me to buy one. If I didn't have in mast type, I'd just got with hanked on, particularly on a boat under 40'. Which brings us to in mast systems. Yes, they increase weight aloft and it's something else that could break and sail shape isn't even close to what a hanked on or in boom furling sail allows. But it's a huge convenience and safety factor to be able to reduce or increase sail while underway without having to come up into the wind, all while sitting in the cockpit, and since you're not a racer, the additional weight aloft won't be noticeable at all, even a little bit. In mast furlers almost never jam while furling the sail so lots of the fears some people have are unfounded. Usually, if they jamb, it's because the sail was furled too loosely and as you try to pull it back out, the rolled sail rubs against the inside of the mast and bunches up just inside the slot in the mast. So, worst case, you can't get as much sail unfurled as you would like, not exactly a safety issue, but you probably can furl it back in while making sure you are holding good tension on it and there's a good chance that alone will cure your jammed sail. My current system is sort of an oddball, discontinued by Profurl, behind the mast furler that has five 'C' shaped claws behind the mast that simulates the inside of the mast with the foil running up the middle of them so the foil can't sag to leeward while underway. It's sort of ugly and when I got the boat, always having been a hanked on kind of guy, I intended to remove it and replace with a hanked on main ASAP. But it's grown on me so now I'm keeping it for as long as it lasts. When I first got the boat I managed to get the sail jammed about every other time I tried to unfurl the sail and was quite frustrated, but gradually I've learned the little tricks that make it a very convenient and reliable tool. For example, while furling my main, I need to have the main sheet somewhat loose, but keep at least some tension on the outhaul during furling. When unfurling, because of the shape of the 'claws', I have WAY better luck if on starboard tack than on port tack, and it's also important to keep the main sheet tight so the leach of my sail is held taut as it is pulled out of the claws. That's it. But anytime I did manage to jam it, I just furled it back in, while holding pressure on the outhaul and after a few minutes have always been able to clear the jam without going aloft. If you don't know those few little tricks, my system is a nightmare, but once you know them, it's reliable and easy to operate, and that is why I said to ignore the comments from folks who haven't taken the time to really get to know their furling system. Most riggers have racing oriented backgrounds so have the most experience with and prefer hanked on and tend to subscribe to unfounded fears of furling systems. 

This will be heresy to some, but as a cruiser, how much time to you plan to spend beating to windward? I think the answer most honest cruisers would give is "as little as possible." Yes, it's fun to do sometimes and of course sometimes it's necessary to get off a lee shore, but most cruisers don't do a lot of it and since beating to windward is when superior shape really helps, as a cruiser, how much of a liability is the lack of roach in your mainsail? When reaching or running, especially in winds over about 15 knots I don't think there's much disadvantage to having a roachless furling main, and though there's no doubt that a full batten, 'roachy' main will allow better performance while beating, especially in light air, if you pay attention to even an in mast furled main, you can still beat to weather very adequately in most wind conditions. So, how much sense does it make to highly prioritize great sail shape as a cruiser when the only time it makes much difference is at certain wind speeds while beating to weather, which you try to avoid doing anyway? So, while an under 40' boat like you are considering doesn't need any kind of roller furling main, I wouldn't rule out a boat that has it. But just like almost everything else about your boat, plan to take the necessary time to learn about and make friends with whatever furling/reefing system it has.


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

In fairness, one true nightmare regarding in mast systems I recently heard about was from a couple moored next to my boat last August. Theirs was a beautiful, relatively new 50 footer with in mast furling but they had managed to get one of their wire rope running back stays rapped up in their furled sail and couldn't get it to unfurl at all. Not a safety issue because their sail was fully furled but I can't imagine how to solve that problem other than to cut the runner and pull it out of the furled sail vertically. Not sure how they finally resolved it. I made a mental note to always ensure my lazy runner doesn't have too much slack in it when furling my main.....


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

jtsailjt said:


> In fairness, one true nightmare regarding in mast systems I recently heard about was from a couple moored next to my boat last August. Theirs was a beautiful, relatively new 50 footer with in mast furling but they had managed to get one of their wire rope running back stays rapped up in their furled sail and couldn't get it to unfurl at all. Not a safety issue because their sail was fully furled but I can't imagine how to solve that problem other than to cut the runner and pull it out of the furled sail vertically. Not sure how they finally resolved it. I made a mental note to always ensure my lazy runner doesn't have too much slack in it when furling my main.....


What kind of modern 50 footer has running backstays and an in mast furler?

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

jtsailjt said:


> On a boat less than about 40' I don't see any need for the expense and complication of either in boom or in mast furling and since I believe you are looking at boats in the mid 30's range, I would just go with slab reefing. JeffH mentioned 2 line reefing (one line at leech and one line at luff), I prefer to just have one line at the leech that's led forward to a cleat on the front of the boom, with just a hook or shackle to secure the reefed tack. That requires me to walk forward to the mast but once there allows me to control everything. If you prefer to remain in the cockpit you can add the second line at the luff. But it increases the amount of spaghetti so I prefer to keep it all up at the mast.
> 
> As a read through this thread there are a lot of comments regarding in mast or in boom reefing that begin with "once when I chartered" or "I heard from a rigger, etc," and I would urge you to completely ignore all of those comments. It's like someone saying they fell off a bike and skinned their knee the first time they tried to ride one so bikes are obviously unsafe, or a Tour de France competitor dissing a particular derailleur system that would be perfectly fine for any recreational rider. Also, I would take 'some' of JeffH's comments with a pretty big grain of salt because he is primarily a relatively small boat racer and is way more into performance than most cruisers are who sail bigger and heavier boats. For example, he may have concerns about the head of his in mast sail creeping slightly downward as the day goes on and that affecting the draft of his sail, but for you and most other cruisers, though factually correct, that is a completely inconsequential consideration and only serves to clutter up the mind of someone like yourself who is new to this and is trying to figure out what priorities make the most sense to you. So, keep in mind that he's a smart guy with lots of useful information in his head, his perspective is different from yours will be as a cruiser. But I do agree with his overall opinion that nothing beats a hanked on sail when it comes to sail shape and simplicity.
> 
> ...


Just a couple of points:

Riggers are racing oriented? I would say racers make up a small percentage of a riggers business. Many racers do their own work. Their bread and butter is installing and repairing things like furling systems. They see far more of them than anyone else, so I would be a fool to ignore their advice and warnings.

While it has become abundantly clear to me over the years that many cruisers can't or won't sail upwind, some regions don't have the luxury of choosing not to do it. If you want to get where you are going you either sail upwind or motor, and motoring into wind and waves can be very unpleasant.

The idea that a cruiser won't notice the performance hits that come with the extra lofted weight and poor sail shape and tuneability doesn't mean those issues aren't real. Racers are aware of such things because they know what a big difference they make. Whether someone feels the convenience is worth that trade off is one thing, but they shouldn't be ignored or underestimated.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

SchockT said:


> What kind of modern 50 footer has running backstays and an in mast furler?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


A boat that has a storm jib or uses it's staysail in heavy winds. The runners oppose the jib stay and keep it taught.

Jeff


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

Jeff_H said:


> A boat that has a storm jib or uses it's staysail in heavy winds. The runners oppose the jib stay and keep it taught.
> 
> Jeff


I thought running backstays were an old race boat thing. I have not seen a modern cruising boat with running backstays. It seems to fly in the face of modern thinking around simplifying rigs.

That is why I asked what modern boats use them.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Jeff_H said:


> A boat that has a storm jib or uses it's staysail in heavy winds. The runners oppose the jib stay and keep it taught.
> 
> Jeff


I think you meant the running backs oppose the inner staysail forestay, not the jib.

However, on large rigs, the running backs can be used to hold the mast in column, if a big genoa is pumping the mast.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

jtsailjt said:


> Also, I would take 'some' of JeffH's comments with a pretty big grain of salt because he is primarily a relatively small boat racer and is way more into performance than most cruisers are who sail bigger and heavier boats. For example, he may have concerns about the head of his in mast sail creeping slightly downward as the day goes on and that affecting the draft of his sail, but for you and most other cruisers, though factually correct, that is a completely inconsequential consideration and only serves to clutter up the mind of someone like yourself who is new to this and is trying to figure out what priorities make the most sense to you. So, keep in mind that he's a smart guy with lots of useful information in his head, his perspective is different from yours will be as a cruiser. But I do agree with his overall opinion that nothing beats a hanked on sail when it comes to sail shape and simplicity.


I would take my comments with a big grain of salt if were vaguely true that I am primarily a small boat racer. But the reality is that I am primarily a cruiser on my Farr 38. I have delivered boats as big as the mid-40 foot range and spent lots of time sailing with my Dad's Brewer 12.8 and Mom's Endeavour 41. 
So while I do race boats from 16 to 45 feet, I have a lot of time on bigger cruising boats.

As far as my experience, with in-boom furling, Dad's boat had in boom furling. While I understand that they have gotten better, that system worked so badly that the rigger and manufacture's rep went out with him to show him how to use it. They showed him the precise position that boom needed to be in and point of sail. Then they demonstrated how to use the system and proceeded to jambed it. Dad decided he needed a system he could count on and sold the main and boom, and went back to the conventional mainsail with a dutchman.

I helped deliver a 43 footer with an owner who had owned the boat for close to 10 years. The in-mast furler jambed when we went to take a deeper reach in 25 knots of wind. In fairness the Owner said that was only the second time that the furler jambed.

The late great Jon Eisberg had a hair raising story about an in-mast furler jamming on a Trinatella 43 in heavy air that he had over somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 miles delivering back and forth between New England and the Caribbean. 
But more to the point, my opinion is colored by discussions by sail makers and riggers who have had to repair jamb caused damages.

As to the creep of the sail over time adds draft to the sail causing more weather helm and more heeling especially on a heavy cruising boats because distance cruisers can spend days in a row reefed in a heavy air system.

And after a long periods of being partially reefed, the added draft from that creep makes the sail more prone to jamb when a deeper reef is needed. And that is significant because that deeper reef is more likely to be need to be reefed due to that added draft due to creep.

Lastly, once the sail creeps, it greatly point stresses the leech of the sail shortening the life of the sail.

In other words, my concerns are mostly not about performance but reliability and sail life for a cruising boat.

Jeff


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

jtsailjt said:


> This will be heresy to some, but as a cruiser, how much time to you plan to spend beating to windward? I think the answer most honest cruisers would give is "as little as possible."


Here's the thing about cruising: it isn't all passage making. For sure, most cruising routes are off-wind, and most cruisers wait for weather to be favorable on passages. However, once in a cruising area, cruisers do a lot of daysailing or shorter overnight hops around the area. This is the same as any other day/weekend sailing in a place like the Chesapeake or New England, and there will be considerable upwind sailing.

Too much is made about "cruisers never sail to windward", and the only reason this is ever true is because they have bagged out sails or made sail/rigging choices that prevent them from doing so efficiently. Otherwise, one never fully explores an area and just sits in an anchorage waiting for the next down wind passage. Or just motors.

Mark


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

colemj said:


> Here's the thing about cruising: it isn't all passage making. For sure, most cruising routes are off-wind, and most cruisers wait for weather to be favorable on passages. However, once in a cruising area, cruisers do a lot of daysailing or shorter overnight hops around the area. This is the same as any other day/weekend sailing in a place like the Chesapeake or New England, and there will be considerable upwind sailing.
> 
> Too much is made about "cruisers never sail to windward", and the only reason this is ever true is because they have bagged out sails or made sail/rigging choices that prevent them from doing so efficiently. Otherwise, one never fully explores an area and just sits in an anchorage waiting for the next down wind passage. Or just motors.
> 
> Mark


Of course cruisers sail to weather when they are out having fun day sailing or not in a hurry but most cruisers motor or motor sail when on passage and faced with winds from directly where they'd like to go. My boat with a laminated roller furling main sails just fine going to weather when I want to so the additional half knot or couple degrees of pointing ability I might gain by having a full batten hanked on main isn't as important to me as the convenience and infinite reefing from the cockpit ability that roller furling provides. Look around whatever harbor you're currently in at center cockpit boats over 40' and you'll see that most have either in mast or in boom systems so I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Also, I'm more inclined to sail rather than motor than I was with my hanked on sails because it's so easy and fast to press the button on the electric winch to unroll the sail with no sail cover to remove and I know I can so easily reef if the wind kicks up.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

jtsailjt said:


> Of course cruisers sail to weather when they are out having fun day sailing or not in a hurry but most cruisers motor or motor sail when on passage and faced with winds from directly where they'd like to go. My boat with a laminated roller furling main sails just fine going to weather when I want to so the additional half knot or couple degrees of pointing ability I might gain by having a full batten hanked on main isn't as important to me as the convenience and infinite reefing from the cockpit ability that roller furling provides. Look around whatever harbor you're currently in at center cockpit boats over 40' and you'll see that most have either in mast or in boom systems so I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Also, I'm more inclined to sail rather than motor than I was with my hanked on sails because it's so easy and fast to press the button on the electric winch to unroll the sail with no sail cover to remove and I know I can so easily reef if the wind kicks up.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I can only speak from my own experience of local cruising, lots of weekend mini crusing, ocean passages and some day sailing.

When time is an issue meaning I need to get to a destination in a timely manner... I will often motor sail and sail higher (pinch). I rarely will motor head to wind as it's usually more uncomfortable. This is for weekend cruising.

When time is not an issue I will tack and get no where fast!

On ocean passages point of sail is driven by the big picture (weather) and comfort.

I've never had the ability to "infinitely" adjust reefing and so I can't comment on whether it would make a difference, Theoretically YES practically I don't see it.

I carry a fully battened fairly heavy weight largish roach dacron (vektron) main which is on nylon slides in a mast tract with 2 "deep} slab reefs. I carry the full hoist when motor sailing in light winds and find the main makes the ride more comfortable. Reefs are easy to set and remove. Sail is raised with the assist of a Milwaukee drill with a winch bit as AP keeps boat heading into the eye of the wind. I manage single handed or with one crew just fine.

I am not convinced that there is an upside to converting my rig to a furling main... which I presume would be behind the mast or a new boom. Cost would be in the multiple thousands for a new sail, boom and the hardware.

I can understand the move toward mechanization for new boats... I did convert my hank on head sail to a roller furler and that was no more than at the time $1,500 and the head sail was converted. If I bought a new boat of 35-45' I would not pay $5-10,000 more for the convenience of a furling main.... considering that the sail shape/performance IS limited with furling systems. You get "less" and you pay more!

Cost benefit is not there.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

SanderO said:


> Cost benefit is not there.


I believe, by observation of friends without furlers or powered winches, that they are far more discriminating over when they'd raise sails. With both, from the cockpit, it's fairly simple for even a single hander and an autopilot to give it a go. More use, in more conditions = more value. IMO.

If the sail plan is small enough, I do agree that it can be muscled up, but having to go on the foredeck to untie the main, raise it or reef it, can limit desire. IMO.


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

Jeff_H said:


> I would take my comments with a big grain of salt if were vaguely true that I am primarily a small boat racer. But the reality is that I am primarily a cruiser on my Farr 38. I have delivered boats as big as the mid-40 foot range and spent lots of time sailing with my Dad's Brewer 12.8 and Mom's Endeavour 41.
> So while I do race boats from 16 to 45 feet, I have a lot of time on bigger cruising boats.
> 
> As far as my experience, with in-boom furling, Dad's boat had in boom furling. While I understand that they have gotten better, that system worked so badly that the rigger and manufacture's rep went out with him to show him how to use it. They showed him the precise position that boom needed to be in and point of sail. Then they demonstrated how to use the system and proceeded to jambed it. Dad decided he needed a system he could count on and sold the main and boom, and went back to the conventional mainsail with a dutchman.
> ...


When I mentioned small boat racer I had in mind your Farr 38. It's not a pure race boat but you can't seriously suggest that a 38' boat with only 20 gallons of fuel capacity and with a sail area to displacement of almost 23 was designed for cruising. I bet it's tons of fun to sail but definitely reflects different priorities than most cruisers have.

When you mention your experience with "dads" roller furler I assume that wasn't anytime recently? I'm leery of boom furlers too because of the stories I've heard about the necessity to have such precise boom angles to prevent jams but I'm sure they've improved over the years as has the knowledge base regarding how to use them properly. Lots of folks seem to be willing to pay lots of $$$ and like them or they wouldn't still be being sold in the numbers they still are. I'm not willing to shell out the dollars for one but I certainly wouldn't reject a boat I was considering buying because it was so equipped. But my experience is with a behind the mast furler that acts a lot like an in mast furler and in 5 seasons of sailing with it I've never even noticed the creep that you mention or any performance degradation associated with this creep. It's not even anywhere on the long list of things to worry about while cruising or when choosing a cruising boat to buy.

Though it's highly unusual for someone familiar with its operation to jam an in mast furler so the sail is stuck and can't be quickly cleared, as you mentioned, it's possible and I fully appreciate that it could be frightening and dangerous if it happened in high winds. Of course in high winds it's almost impossible to get a loose wrap that could cause a jam but I suppose it could happen if you'd furled it loosely in light winds and then it got jammed after the winds increased. The situation sort of reminds me of a friend who found himself in a similar situation with his hanked on main. He had the old wire rope braided halyards that were common before low stretch rope was available for halyards and when he came in from sailing one day his main dropped a few feet but wouldn't come down any further. Luckily winds were light so he grabbed a mooring and got someone to pull him up the mast where he discovered that the wire rope had somehow jumped off the sheave and had jammed down beside it. I've had both hanked on mains and my current furling one and luckily have never experienced either type of jam that I couldn't clear but I'm aware both are possible and you should be too.

As I said, I don't question your considerable knowledge of sailing and sailboats but I do think your perspective is much more oriented towards performance than operating a comfortable, convenient cruising boat, and sometimes the advice you give to newbies like Rush is colored by that. I realize that your boat is probably great for the Chesapeake's light summer winds and exciting to sail in a moderate breeze and you can make it work for weekend cruises, but it's not what most people who want to cover long distances over the ocean would choose. The fact that you did is fine, I'm not being a bit critical of that because I'm sure it's appropriate for the type of cruising you prefer or your current lifestyle allows, but for most cruisers a lightweight boat with 20 gallons of fuel wouldn't even come close to filling the bill for what they want to do.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> I believe, by observation of friends without furlers or powered winches, that they are far more discriminating over when they'd raise sails. With both, from the cockpit, it's fairly simple for even a single hander and an autopilot to give it a go. More use, in more conditions = more value. IMO.
> 
> If the sail plan is small enough, I do agree that it can be muscled up, but having to go on the foredeck to untie the main, raise it or reef it, can limit desire. IMO.


I set up the boat in the most cost effective way to single hand and that means not having to go to the deck for sail work. Millie was more economical and more flexible than converting one winch to electric. My main is actually quite large at 440sf and it was never easy to get it more than 10 or 15 feet from full hoist without using a winch. As friction inevitably increases over time... manual winch was also quite an effort so with MIllie it's very simple. I have two Millie batts and one is always fully charged and being charged when I motor from mooring to raise the sail to actual sailing without the motor. I have almost all the benefits of furling systems at a fraction of the cost and some added benefits of having a powerful drill for projects and use on other any winch. win win win....


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

jtsailjt said:


> When I mentioned small boat racer I had in mind your Farr 38. It's not a pure race boat but you can't seriously suggest that a 38' boat with only 20 gallons of fuel capacity and with a sail area to displacement of almost 23 was designed for cruising. I bet it's tons of fun to sail but definitely reflects different priorities than most cruisers have.
> 
> When you mention your experience with "dads" roller furler I assume that wasn't anytime recently? I'm leery of boom furlers too because of the stories I've heard about the necessity to have such precise boom angles to prevent jams but I'm sure they've improved over the years as has the knowledge base regarding how to use them properly. Lots of folks seem to be willing to pay lots of $$$ and like them or they wouldn't still be being sold in the numbers they still are. I'm not willing to shell out the dollars for one but I certainly wouldn't reject a boat I was considering buying because it was so equipped. But my experience is with a behind the mast furler that acts a lot like an in mast furler and in 5 seasons of sailing with it I've never even noticed the creep that you mention or any performance degradation associated with this creep. It's not even anywhere on the long list of things to worry about while cruising or when choosing a cruising boat to buy.
> 
> ...


Mainsails are not hanked on.... head sails are, Mainsails have sail slugs which ride up a groove "track" in the mast section of a track attached to the mast section,.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

jtsailjt said:


> When I mentioned small boat racer I had in mind your Farr 38..


To address your points, I am not sure where each of us would draw the line on small boat racing. In my case I think of small boat racing as boats well under 25 but in some cases maybe up to 30 feet. But for the sake of discussion, I will accept that your definition of 'small boats' as being boats under some length longer than than 38 feet. If for the moment we agree in principal that definition to be true, then you would be correct that the majority of the racing I do these days would be by your definition 'small boats' since they are under 40 feet in length. As a 70 year old it has progressively become more difficult to effectively crew on the bigger race boats that I used to sail. On the other hand, the majority of my time spent sailing is not spent racing.



jtsailjt said:


> It's not a pure race boat but you can't seriously suggest that a 38' boat with only 20 gallons of fuel capacity and with a sail area to displacement of almost 23 was designed for cruising. I bet it's tons of fun to sail but definitely reflects different priorities than most cruisers have..


I absolutely do strongly, and seriously go beyond suggestion to stating emphatically that I believe that a "38' boat with only 20 gallons of fuel capacity and with a sail area to displacement of almost 23 was designed for cruising." Here is my case for that statement.

I would readily agree that there is no doubt that my views on sailing and cruising reflect a different point of view than that of many, if not most cruisers. I am more much more concerned with ease of handling, motion comfort and performance than most seem to be, and I am willing to live with a more spartan level of interior than most cruisers to obtain those preferences. As to the question whether the Farr 38 is a cruising boat or not, I think that there is no doubt in any one's mind who has cruised one that they make great distance cruisers. To provide a basis for that opinion, I will begin by noting that my boat was single-handed into Annapolis from South Africa where she was built. Under various prior owners my boat has been sailed shorthanded as far north as Halifax, Nova Scotia and as far south as the southern Caribbean. I would consider those to be pretty serious offshore cruising, even if those represent only a single anecdotal set of data points. .

But when I bought Synergy I wanted a boat that I could sail to Europe and spend years cruising on and so did a lot of research on the various candidates that I was considering. I spoke to a lot of people before buying her, came to a conclusion based on that research and put my money where my mouth was.

During that research on the Farr 38, I spoke with a number of people with extensive experience cruising these boats. I spoke with a couple who were in their late 70's, and at that point owned one for around 15 years. They had cruised around South Africa for a number of years on both coasts including an extensive cruise of east and west coasts of Africa. The southwest coast of South Africa in particular is known for its heavy air and big seas. As a couple in their 70's, those two eventually made a non-stop passage from South Africa to Scotland to be with their daughter when she gave birth. After a few years they sailed their boat down to the Caribbean, at some point they sailed her back to Scotland, and when I talked with them, they were back living aboard the boat in the Caribbean.

I also spoke with a man who had sailed his Farr 38 from South Africa to Annapolis by way of the Caribbean who had spent the first 10 days in 30 to 50 knot winds and in what he described as often 12 meter waves. That man used less than 12 gallons of fuel on that trip and averaged better than 150 miles a day, including going through the doldrums. He eventually sailed the boat back down the US east coast, through the Caribbean, through the Panama Canal, and eventually sailed his boat up the west coast to Canada, where he sold her. The last I heard, the new owners had sailed her to New Zealand.

I exchanged email with a South African Farr 38 owner. At that point, there was still a one-design class of Farr 38's doing the Cape Town to Rio race across the south Atlantic. While they raced across the south Atlantic with a crew of 6 or 7 crewmen, they typically brought the boats back with just 2-3 people on board. He claimed that the boat was perfect for that kind of thing.

I also read about the extensive cruising record of these boats in New Zealand and Australia, cruising areas that put an emphasis on both Light air and heavy air sailing ability.

With all of that input I concluded that these were indeed a highly capable cruising boat, one that offered very good performance in light or heavy air, albeit one that had a pretty simple interior.

Since then I have cruised my boat for multiple weeks at a time on many occasions, and in a broad range of conditions. While I am appreciative of the boat's light air performance, I have single-handed my boat in winds gusting into the 40 knot range and been pleased at how well she handled those conditions. While she definitely is somewhat spartan, and old school, and she definitely is high performance for a cruiser, I would none the less seriously and strongly describe her the same way Bruce Farr, the designer, described her when he designed her. "a 'pure' design concept to produce a fast, comfortable, easily handled and relatively economical yacht....It is simply a very fast cruising boat....The interior design is definitely cruising oriented. It features wide safe companionway steps, 2 or 3 double berths, big galley with fridge and freezer, separate navigation area, separate head and shower. There is an abundance of storage space in the main cabin area and in the wide stern. " In other words, although I have very successfully raced her single- and double handed, and with full crews, I would agree with Mr. Farr, and unambiguously describe her as a cruising boat.

To discuss the specifics of your basis for disqualifying the Farr 38 as a cruising boat, boats like the Farr 38 are designed to voyage under sail, by which I mean, not rely on the engine except to a minimal extent. That appeals to my own preferences in that I am a big believer in voyaging under sail to the greatest extent possible without using an engine. If having a smaller diesel fuel capacity than 20 gallons would disqualify a boat as being considered a boat designed as a cruiser, then you would need to disqualify Lin and Larry Pardey's 'Seraffyn' as not being designed to be a cruiser since they only carried enough fuel for the stove and running lights. I doubt few of us would seriously suggest that 'Seraffyn' was not designed as a cruiser.

(Just for the record, when distance cruising, there is an area located low in the Farr 38 that some owners have installed a 20-25 gallon second tank bringing the fuel capacity up to into the mid-30 gallon range, and giving the boat around a 350-400 mile motoring range without breaking out any deck mounted jerry cans.I had planned to do that If I sailed her to Europe) The Farr 38 does carry close to 80 gallons of water which is a pretty high capacity for a boat with a dry weight of 10,600 lbs.

Regarding the SA/D of 23, that is very much in keeping with the current science on what makes a good cruising boat. The reason that SA/D's around 20 have become the norm is that modern cruising boats have significantly more stability than prior generations of cruising boats. That higher stability allows them to carry higher efficiency sails that are also more easily depowered sails. Those higher efficiency sails appear to increase the sail area flown by the boat mainly because of the way that sail area is measured and not because they are carrying that much more sail area than a more traditional cruiser. That is the case since these modern sail plans typically sail with minimally overlapping headsails marginally larger than the 100% foretriangle, while older designs with SA/D's in the 15 to 17 range, make up for what would otherwise be their inadequate sail area by flying a similar sail area, but one which is generally larger sail area making up the shortfall with a 130% or more genoa. The nice thing about the modern high efficiency sail plans is that these boats will generally have a much wider wind range before they need to be reefed and for coastal cruising are easier to tack or jibe.

This is borne out if you look at recent cruising designs from respected companies like Amel, Hallberg Rassey, X-boat (distance cruising series). They all have gone to sail areas in a range around SA/D near 20. A proportionately large amount of the weight on these boats comes from the interior fit out and the 'all the comforts of home' approach to interiors and equipage that is in vogue with long distance cruisers. While those heavy interior fit outs are appealing to many people, (and I do not judge comfort oriented cruisers in any way for that), a boat designed for a more spartan form of cruising can be designed lighter enough to drop the displacement of the boat sufficiently to end up with the SA/D of the Farr 38. That weight savings does not necessarily result from reducing the strength of the boat or impact resistance of the boat or reduce carrying capacity. For example, much of the weight savings on the Farr 38 comes from eliminating hull liners and using balsa cored doors on lockers and drawers. To put that in perspective, the weight of a typical interior liner would drop the SA/D of the Farr down to around 19.



jtsailjt said:


> When you mention your experience with "dads" roller furler I assume that wasn't anytime recently? I'm leery of boom furlers too because of the stories I've heard about the necessity to have such precise boom angles to prevent jams but I'm sure they've improved over the years as has the knowledge base regarding how to use them properly.


I readily acknowledge that roller boom technology has improved since Dad's in-boom furler, but essentially agree that even the current versions of in-boom furling have sufficient limitations on boom angle and wind angle that they do not appeal to me.

Jeff


----------



## redline (Feb 15, 2010)

Jeanneau SO 45.2 with in-mast furling; love it and never had it hang up or cause problems. There is a spiral track for the reefing line so I don't see how it could "jump off". I singlehand far far more than I would without it. Also more forgiving of wind angle while furling - if it's not blowing too hard I can firm with the wind abeam or even farther back; convenient in the channel approaching our yacht club (not saying it's a great practice, but it's certainly possible).

I've even used the mast as a long aluminum sail bag over the winter - carefully tucking in almost the entirety of the sail save for the outhaul block; it's certainly no worse than being rolled and folded into a bag in a locker.

Oh, and it's the original 1998 Jeanneau main'sl, so age isn't an issue (though it is in pretty good shape) .


----------



## redline (Feb 15, 2010)

p.s. my biggest downside of the in-mast furler: on the (rare) occasions when the sail is removed while the boat is still afloat, the furler extrusion in the boat clangs against the inside of the mast - think of a slapping halyard or antenna coax, but a thousand time worse. The inside of the boat is unlivable, and you wouldn't even want to be in the next slip (or two). But a rare occurance (if I ever had to spend significant time in that state, I'd rig some sponges or similar on a boltrope to haul up and stabilize it).


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

redline said:


> p.s. my biggest downside of the in-mast furler: on the (rare) occasions when the sail is removed while the boat is still afloat, the furler extrusion in the boat clangs against the inside of the mast - think of a slapping halyard or antenna coax, but a thousand time worse. The inside of the boat is unlivable, and you wouldn't even want to be in the next slip (or two). But a rare occurance (if I ever had to spend significant time in that state, I'd rig some sponges or similar on a boltrope to haul up and stabilize it).


Does it ever make howling noises when the wind is not from the bow? Whenever we are in a marina and the wind blows strong, there are always boats with in-mast furlers howling like they are possessed - like a convention of drunk ghosts. You can hear them from the other side of the marina. Usually nobody is on them, but I've always wondered if that noise was also loud inside the boat.

Mark


----------



## JimInPB (Oct 5, 2020)

My experience with main furlers can be summarized as follows:

In boom furling - tends to work well as long as you have the boom angle set EXACTLY right & the furling line is correctly installed & the correct diameter. This system lets you drop the main even if the system gets jammed up.

In mast furling - works well when it work well, but when it jams up, you can't get the sail down & that can be a serious problem if you have heavy weather inbound. This system prevents you from using horizontal battens.

Behind mast furling - similar to above, but lets you roll up the main when you are not so close to being head to wind.

All - There is generally some reduction is quality of sail shape/performance so that the sail will be able to roll up well.


----------



## redline (Feb 15, 2010)

colemj said:


> Does it ever make howling noises when the wind is not from the bow? Whenever we are in a marina and the wind blows strong, there are always boats with in-mast furlers howling like they are possessed - like a convention of drunk ghosts. You can hear them from the other side of the marina. Usually nobody is on them, but I've always wondered if that noise was also loud inside the boat.
> 
> Mark


Not usually, very seldom if at all. A previous boat with a regular boom-flaked main'sl WOULD set up an unearthly howl if the wind blew across the slot at just the right angle, so I think having the sail in there sort of stuffs up the whistle.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

redline said:


> I've even used the mast as a long aluminum sail bag over the winter - carefully tucking in almost the entirety of the sail save for the outhaul block; it's certainly no worse than being rolled and folded into a bag in a locker.


I'm not so sure. It would stay damp, if not actually get wet inside the mast. Freeze/thaw cycles, etc. Not to mention a proper furl is in more tension than an easy fold in a bag. Still, seems to have worked for you, so that's good.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

redline said:


> when the sail is removed while the boat is still afloat, the furler extrusion in the boat clangs against the inside of the mast


That is brutal. BTDT If you play with a downhaul attached to the head tack and pull it partly up the mast, in tension (holding it up with the halyard and down with downhaul) you can sometimes find a place that reduces the effect.


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

Jeff_H said:


> To address your points, I am not sure where each of us would draw the line on small boat racing. In my case I think of small boat racing as boats well under 25 but in some cases maybe up to 30 feet. But for the sake of discussion, I will accept that your definition of 'small boats' as being boats under some length longer than than 38 feet. If for the moment we agree in principal that definition to be true, then you would be correct that the majority of the racing I do these days would be by your definition 'small boats' since they are under 40 feet in length. As a 70 year old it has progressively become more difficult to effectively crew on the bigger race boats that I used to sail. On the other hand, the majority of my time spent sailing is not spent racing.
> 
> I absolutely do strongly, and seriously go beyond suggestion to stating emphatically that I believe that a "38' boat with only 20 gallons of fuel capacity and with a sail area to displacement of almost 23 was designed for cruising." Here is my case for that statement.
> 
> ...


I think your first 3 sentences in your 3rd paragraph above pretty well summarize the point I tried to make. You are very focused on performance and are willing to have a somewhat more spartan existence than most other cruisers. That's pretty much it. You see mainsail creep affecting the draft of a furling main as a problem and I've never even noticed it being a problem and I doubt that most cruisers or prospective cruisers do either. It's not wrong for you to pay attention to that and I think I was pretty clear that (not that it matters) if your boat suits you and the way you like to sail, then good for you. I mean that. But it doesn't have the qualities most cruisers are looking for or would appreciate, especially new cruisers. For most cruisers comfort is a higher priority than you require. I'm sure you'd sail right by me on a light air day and I'd be envious, but I'd sure enjoy that hot shower to rinse off the salt spray along with the days perspiration at the end of the day. I found it interesting to learn all the long distance sailing Farr 38's have done but most of these folks making these passages aren't typical cruisers. To go seriously cruising in your boat, most cruisers wouldn't have the discipline to keep its weight even close to 10K, probably closer to 13K or 14K and we both know what that would do to the SA/D ratio and its performance. Yes, you can singlehand or shorthand sail a performance boat like yours across an ocean but it's one heck of a lot of work and not very comfortable either. So most prospective cruisers would be happier with somewhat less performance and more comfort and more tankage. With that small amount of fuel you pretty much have no choice but to beat into the wind a lot on a long passage and I'm sure your boat does that well but if the wind is strong and nearly on the nose I prefer to furl up the jib and staysail and flatten the main and 'motorbeat' about 20 degrees off the wind and you can do that too, but only for about a day or so if you want to have any reserve left for as you approach shore.

As for the Pardeys 2 boats, of course they are cruisers but not cruisers that would appeal to many and certainly not for a less capable sailor than Larry who was a racer and delivery skipper before he built them. In other words, even if you were Lin or Larry I don't think you'd be doing a newbie like Rush a favor by trying to persuade him to get a boat like yours because it's unlikely he'd last very long as a cruiser and it's pretty likely he'd soon find himself aground or anchored with a tide or current pushing him towards a rocky shore praying his anchor holds or some wind arrives or becalmed at sea with a storm bearing down on him that he has no experience dealing with and no way to avoid it or even get to the more favorable side of it.

So, you obviously are very happy with your choice of boats and I think deep down we all tend to think our own choices are the best ones. But your boat requires someone be willing to have less comfortable accommodations and it requires someone who has the patience to wait for the wind and who is a savvy enough sailor to take advantage of and appreciate the increased performance it is capable of. Suits you to a T but would be wasted on and probably drive a novice sailor out of cruising due to frustration by your limited range and lack of creature comforts. So when you undertake to advise (at great, great length) a newbie sailor and prospective cruiser like Rush on what boat he should buy, I think you'd be doing him a bigger favor if you try to put aside what suits you and try to remember what it's like to be brand new to all the many thousands of things there are to learn about sailing and cruising. For someone like him, or even someone like me who isn't far behind you in age or years sailing, the small difference in performance between a traditional mainsail and a battenless furling main isn' all that large and is a minuscule factor in choosing a cruising sailboat. As boats increase in size past about 40' the convenience and safety while reefing some kind of furling main clearly outweighs any gains in performance that a battened sail with roach might provide for most cruisers.

Having said all that, my 47' center cockpit sailboat has an old Profurl behind the mast furler that I've found to work very well but Profurl no longer supports. When/if something on it breaks that I can't fix, I'm not going to spend $50K+ replacing the whole rig or on a furling boom and sail and instead would just add a Tides Marine strong track system to my existing mast and have a full battened main with lazy jacks and stack pack built for it. I enjoy the convenience of the furler but am not willing to pay the additional $$ to retrofit one if mine eventually fails. But I have an electric halyard winch in the cockpit and am a pretty athletic person and have a good amount of experience dealing with all the considerations that reefing in bad weather requires. So while I'm confident I could design and make a traditional slab reefed sail setup work well for me, I'm hoping that my current furling system lasts and lasts!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

JimInPB said:


> My experience with main furlers can be summarized as follows:
> 
> In boom furling - tends to work well as long as you have the boom angle set EXACTLY right & the furling line is correctly installed & the correct diameter. This system lets you drop the main even if the system gets jammed up.
> 
> ...


I hope you include the main halyard as part of both the traditional main and furling boom systems because it's a rather integral part of both and a jammed halyard will mean that unless you're willing to go up the mast to free it or disconnect it from the sail, (not advised in the heavy weather you mentioned) you can also get stuck with too much sail out with either a traditional main or with in boom furling. But happily, jammed halyards are rare nowadays and most in mast furling jams can be cleared in just a few minutes or prevent the sail from being unfurled rather than furled, so I think the potential danger of any of the 3 systems putting you in the situation you mentioned where you are stuck with too much sail out and a storm bearing down on you is pretty far down the list of things to worry about.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

jtsailjt said:


> For someone like him, or even someone like me who isn't far behind you in age or years sailing, the small difference in performance between a traditional mainsail and a battenless furling main isn' all that large and is a minuscule factor in choosing a cruising sailboat.


This is boat-specific. For example the difference on most multihulls is huge. So would be the difference on a monohull boat like a Sundeer, Freedom, Nonsuch, or many modern rigs today that are main-driven fractional large roach sail plans.

Mark


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

JeffH is certainly not advocating for Rush to get a boat like his, and anybody who says he is has not been paying attention to this thread at all! 

In terms of a "miniscule" performance difference between classic and furling mains, I think that cruisers under estimate how much all of the factors discussed can affect overall sailing performance. Going a knot slower, or pointing 10°lower can make even a short trip into a long day. Or you end up motorsailing, which to me defeats the purpose of having a sailboat, and on a long trip burns up a finite fuel supply. 

The better a boat performs under sail, the more sailing you will do.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

SchockT said:


> Going a knot slower, or pointing 10°lower can make even a short trip into a long day.


I'd have to agree, if the impact was that dramatic. As many have mentioned, how impactful is variable, based on different sail plans and hulls. There is no way the IMF has that kind of impact on our boat.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

jtsailjt said:


> On a boat less than about 40' I don't see any need for the expense and complication of either in boom or in mast furling and since I believe you are looking at boats in the mid 30's range, I would just go with slab reefing. JeffH mentioned 2 line reefing (one line at leech and one line at luff), I prefer to just have one line at the leech that's led forward to a cleat on the front of the boom, with just a hook or shackle to secure the reefed tack. That requires me to walk forward to the mast but once there allows me to control everything. If you prefer to remain in the cockpit you can add the second line at the luff. But it increases the amount of spaghetti so I prefer to keep it all up at the mast.
> 
> As a read through this thread there are a lot of comments regarding in mast or in boom reefing that begin with "once when I chartered" or "I heard from a rigger, etc," and I would urge you to completely ignore all of those comments. It's like someone saying they fell off a bike and skinned their knee the first time they tried to ride one so bikes are obviously unsafe, or a Tour de France competitor dissing a particular derailleur system that would be perfectly fine for any recreational rider. Also, I would take 'some' of JeffH's comments with a pretty big grain of salt because he is primarily a relatively small boat racer and is way more into performance than most cruisers are who sail bigger and heavier boats. For example, he may have concerns about the head of his in mast sail creeping slightly downward as the day goes on and that affecting the draft of his sail, but for you and most other cruisers, though factually correct, that is a completely inconsequential consideration and only serves to clutter up the mind of someone like yourself who is new to this and is trying to figure out what priorities make the most sense to you. So, keep in mind that he's a smart guy with lots of useful information in his head, his perspective is different from yours will be as a cruiser. But I do agree with his overall opinion that nothing beats a hanked on sail when it comes to sail shape and simplicity.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the detailed response. That was very helpful.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

Minnewaska said:


> I'd have to agree, if the impact was that dramatic. As many have mentioned, how impactful is variable, based on different sail plans and hulls. There is no way the IMF has that kind of impact on our boat.


Perhaps not on a boat where the genoa is a big part of the sail area. My boat is a fractional rig with a small headsail. It is already a bit underpowered with a classic full batten main. I have no doubt the same boat with ìn mast furling would be significantly slower.

We had a fun race a while ago, and in the fleet was a Beneteau 393 which has similar specs to my boat, but the performance difference between our boats was dramatic in light winds.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

SchockT said:


> JeffH is certainly not advocating for Rush to get a boat like his, and anybody who says he is has not been paying attention to this thread at all!
> 
> In terms of a "miniscule" performance difference between classic and furling mains, I think that cruisers under estimate how much all of the factors discussed can affect overall sailing performance. Going a knot slower, or pointing 10°lower can make even a short trip into a long day. Or you end up motorsailing, which to me defeats the purpose of having a sailboat, and on a long trip burns up a finite fuel supply.
> 
> ...


Here's the deal as I see it.
I engines were not intended to be used... they would be OPTIONAL for sailboats (mid 20s and higher)
No sailor WANTS to use their motor. Most HATE to have to do it.
I see no point in trying to be a ludite/purist.

If we want to sail say.... 60 -70 miles to a destination.... it is prudent to do the sail in fair weather, and favorable tides and that is not something reliable in the real world. I did love sailing in the Eastern Carib PRECISELY because the winds etc. were so reliable and favorable.
In LIS for example I make a calculus which involves arriving with good light and reasonably well rested. Sailing can be exhausting!... even staying up watching for 12 or 15 hrs is exhausting.
Real world means... no I can't choose a time to catch a favorable tide.

And so using an engine is something I turn to because it makes sense.
When I can sail.... it love it.
When I have to motor sail... I love it less
When I have to motor... I hope it will end and think.... why did I get a sailboat?

When I have to get to and from a dock... I need a motor.
Some fuel docks don't even allow sailing on and off

Mooring and berthing are almost infinitely easier with an engine.

I consider a reliable motor mission critical to use of the boat.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

SanderO said:


> Here's the deal as I see it.
> I engines were not intended to be used... they would be OPTIONAL for sailboats (mid 20s and higher)
> No sailor WANTS to use their motor. Most HATE to have to do it.
> I see no point in trying to be a ludite/purist.
> ...


Don't get me wrong, I'm not against motoring when necessary. We were in a similar situation to what you describe this summer. We were determined to get to a destination over 50 miles away, and wind and current were both against us. We sailed for a few hours, but seeing vmg numbers in the 3kt range we realized we just were not going to get there for a very long time, so we but the bullet and motored, although I did feel tremendously guilty not sailing on such a lovely day. If we didn't have so far to go we would have been content to continue sailing upwind.

I am more sensitive to sail area and performance sacrifices because we are in an area where winds are typically quite light in the summer, and having a boat that is under powered can mean the difference between sailing and not. Having small sails probably doesn't matter so much to someone who gets to sail in 20kts all the time.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

jtsailjt said:


> I think your first 3 sentences in your 3rd paragraph above pretty well summarize the point I tried to make. You are very focused on performance and are willing to have a somewhat more spartan existence than most other cruisers. That's pretty much it. You see mainsail creep affecting the draft of a furling main as a problem and I've never even noticed it being a problem and I doubt that most cruisers or prospective cruisers do either. It's not wrong for you to pay attention to that and I think I was pretty clear that (not that it matters) if your boat suits you and the way you like to sail, then good for you. I mean that. But it doesn't have the qualities most cruisers are looking for or would appreciate, especially new cruisers. For most cruisers comfort is a higher priority than you require. I'm sure you'd sail right by me on a light air day and I'd be envious, but I'd sure enjoy that hot shower to rinse off the salt spray along with the days perspiration at the end of the day. I found it interesting to learn all the long distance sailing Farr 38's have done but most of these folks making these passages aren't typical cruisers. To go seriously cruising in your boat, most cruisers wouldn't have the discipline to keep its weight even close to 10K, probably closer to 13K or 14K and we both know what that would do to the SA/D ratio and its performance. Yes, you can singlehand or shorthand sail a performance boat like yours across an ocean but it's one heck of a lot of work and not very comfortable either. So most prospective cruisers would be happier with somewhat less performance and more comfort and more tankage. With that small amount of fuel you pretty much have no choice but to beat into the wind a lot on a long passage and I'm sure your boat does that well but if the wind is strong and nearly on the nose I prefer to furl up the jib and staysail and flatten the main and 'motorbeat' about 20 degrees off the wind and you can do that too, but only for about a day or so if you want to have any reserve left for as you approach shore.
> 
> As for the Pardeys 2 boats, of course they are cruisers but not cruisers that would appeal to many and certainly not for a less capable sailor than Larry who was a racer and delivery skipper before he built them. In other words, even if you were Lin or Larry I don't think you'd be doing a newbie like Rush a favor by trying to persuade him to get a boat like yours because it's unlikely he'd last very long as a cruiser and it's pretty likely he'd soon find himself aground or anchored with a tide or current pushing him towards a rocky shore praying his anchor holds or some wind arrives or becalmed at sea with a storm bearing down on him that he has no experience dealing with and no way to avoid it or even get to the more favorable side of it.
> 
> ...


*Here is where we agree:*
"_I would readily agree that there is no doubt that my views on sailing and cruising reflect a different point of view than that of many, if not most cruisers." _
That was my earlier statement and there is no doubt that I tend to place a greater focus on ease of handling, and motion comfort than most cruisers.
_" As boats increase in size past about 40' the convenience and safety while reefing some kind of furling main clearly outweighs any gains in performance that a battened sail with roach might provide for most cruisers."_
Similarly, I acknowledged earlier in this discussion that a some point over 40 feet, some mix of mechanical assistance moves from being a nice to have to a must have. The form that takes, whether its in-mast furling, in-boom furling, some form or lazyjacks/Dutchman, powered winches or coffee grinders, depends on the preferences of the individual sailor. But I agree 100% that there is no doubt that as boats get bigger and people get older, sooner or later, something has to give.
_"So when you undertake to advise (at great, great length) a newbie sailor and prospective cruiser"_
I agree that my discussions with Rush have been at a great, great length. My posts often are. There is a reason that this is the case. Embedded in Rush's posts were a slew of issues that any new sailor might encounter and without experience have difficult placing in context. While I was posting to specifically help Rush in his understanding of sailing and yacht design, I saw them as having a broader purpose of explaining to a broader audience of readers the often nuanced and counter-intuitive realities of what makes a good or bad choice for a first boat. While these concepts can quickly be demonstrated on the water, often these topics are not easily explained in a few words. When I have given lectures to groups, I have had the benefit of preparing power points that illustrate the concepts I am discussing. In this media, I only have words, albeit lots of words......

*Here is where we disagree:*
_"You are very focused on performance and are willing to have a somewhat more spartan existence than most other cruisers." _
Your statement is not really correct nor does it reflect the basis of my comments. I am far more concerned with ease of handling, seaworthiness, and motion comfort than I am with performance. If I was solely focused on performance, I would have bought an Express 37, Dehler 36, or J-35 which are all faster boats than mine and which had examples on the market at the time that bought my boat. I will comment on what I mean by spartan below.
_"You can single-hand or shorthand sail a performance boat like yours across an ocean but it's one heck of a lot of work and not very comfortable either."_
Certainly as I sail her coastally, I enjoy the physicality of pushing her hard, and keeping sail trim optimized. But that does not translate to a "_sail a performance boat like yours across an ocean ...it's one heck of a lot of work " _I completely disagree about the boat being 'A heck of a lot of work to sail'_. _As I noted, I chose my boat based on ease of handling by a couple or single-handed. As I pointed out, if you look at the hull forms and rigs on modern distance cruisers, they share most the rig and hull characteristics present in the Farr 38. The sail plan proportions, and high stability makes the boat more forgiving and requires fewer reefs to deal with changing conditions. As a part of the ease of handling calculus, the lighter weight means lower line loads. The lighter helm loads allow the boat to be sailed under vane steering in a broad range of conditions. The buoyancy and weight distribution damps roll and pitch.

Regarding comfort, we may look at this differently. I started out looking for a boat with a sailing displacement around 12,000-13,000 lbs (for eased of handling) and then looked for boats of that general weight that offered the best motion and seaworthiness. From my perspective, comfort starts with motion comfort before creature comfort. And while I refer to my boat as being spartan compared to the current crop of cruising boats, it is not physically uncomfortable for a cruising couple. As designed, there are 4 good sea berths (2 on each side of the boat), There is a very generously sized Vee berth. The galley is a pretty typical size for a 38 footer with refrigeration, a deep sink, pressure hot and cold and lots of lockers. There is a fixed table and dinette. The head is small compared to modern heads but it's size reflects the design of offshore cruising boat heads where you can brace yourself from being thrown around. There is a sink that can be used at any angle of heel, and a shower. There is good ventilation and lots of storage. In my mind the it is the simplicity of the interior that makes it spartan, and the minimization of electrical devices which make it spartan.
_"To go seriously cruising in your boat, most cruisers wouldn't have the discipline to keep its weight even close to 10K, probably closer to 13K or 14K"_
While the dry weight is 10,600 lbs, the boat was designed to be cruised or raced long distances with somewhere around 13-14,000 lbs all up weight without it negatively impacting performance. That is actually is a huge amount of excess carrying capacity for a 10,500 lb dry weight boat, The recognition of that carrying capacity is in part why she was designed with an SA/D around 23. The 10,500 lb dry weight reflects a design preference for more carrying capacity rather than lugging around 'useless' weight in interior liners, solid teak cabin soles, trim, fit out, etc.
_"With that small amount of fuel you pretty much have no choice but to beat into the wind a lot on a long passage and I'm sure your boat does that well but if the wind is strong and nearly on the nose"...."I prefer to furl up the jib and staysail and flatten the main and 'motorbeat' about 20 degrees off the wind and you can do that too, but only for about a day or so if you want to have any reserve left for as you approach shore."_
Few small boats carry more fuel than 3-400 miles of motoring in their installed tanks. And so if on a long passage, the skipper choses routing that requires the boat to go upwind for more than that, then, yes, the boat will be on a beat for much of that time. And at some level this comes down to preferences of the individual. For me, beating is no different than any other point of sail. It is sailing and that is what I am out there for. But I also understand that for others, that is less important. I do not believe that my preferences are universally right nor somehow more virtuous. But I do think that they are a relevant data point for someone considering crossing oceans short-handed in a small boat.

_"You see mainsail creep affecting the draft of a furling main as a problem and I've never even noticed it being a problem and I doubt that most cruisers or prospective cruisers do either."_
At some level, this gets to the purpose of these kinds of discussions. At least in my mind, the purpose is to see a broad range of opinions and why those positions are being postulated. It is up to the reader to sort through the posts and filter the comments based on credibility and more significantly the relevance to their own sailing realities.

While performance loss due to in mast furling may be significant to some folks, creep results in a more serious problem for longer distance cruisers who tend to keep sails partially furled for longer periods of time during heavy weather and are more likely to take deeper reefs as conditions deteriorate. With that in mind. I am not focusing solely on creep as a problem because of performance. I agree that most cruisers would not notice the performance difference. I base that concern about creep as a problem based on discussions with furler manufacturers, riggers and sailmakers. The problem with creep for a cruiser is that the added draft means that there is a higher likelihood of getting a jamb in heavy conditions due to the added draft that results from creep. (A Selden rep claimed that was the predominant cause of jambs for long distance cruisers.) But beyond that, my concerns are that the high point-loads on the leech do shorten the life of the sail. The greater heel and weather helm issue might be considered as a performance issue that would not be apparent to a distance cruiser. In the end whether those concerns are reasons that someone might chose not to buy an in-mast furler is solely a matter of the reader's personal preference (which has little to nothing to do with why I personally would not buy an in-mast furler).

_"So when you undertake to advise (at great, great length) a newbie sailor and prospective cruiser like Rush on what boat he should buy, I think you'd be doing him a bigger favor if you try to put aside what suits you and try to remember what it's like to be brand new to all the many thousands of things there are to learn about sailing and cruising. For someone like him, or even someone like me who isn't far behind you in age or years sailing" _
This is probably where I disagree with your assertions most strongly. I did set aside my sailing style completely and solely thought about my experience teaching several hundred people how to sail, buy, and own boats. The way I saw this, Rush came to this forum with a set of goals that had some level of mutual exclusivity. I took his sailing goals and realities into full consideration before making my comments with the sole intent to try to help him find a boat that genuinely met his needs, and capabilities. Boiling them down, Rush was seeking a boat with the following characteristics.

A good live aboard
A good platform to learn to sail
Inexpensive to buy
Easy to maintain
Rugged
Stable
Easy to sail short-handed
Seaworthy
Capable of crossing oceans
I focused on all of those goals, except 'capable of crossing oceans', since eliminating that last goal seemed to offer the prospect of being most achievable in a single first boat. I chose to make suggestions that pushed towards more modern hull forms and rigs, lighter displacement, and simplicity as offering his best shot at achieving a balanced mix of those goals in an affordable price range.

One of the main driving forces behind going smaller, and lighter was his need for a platform to learn to sail, and the goal of short-handed sailing. When you look at boats that were purpose built for sailing schools or the majority which are chosen by sailing schools, they typically are comparatively small and responsive, fin keel- spade rudder, tiller steered, sloop or cat rigged designs. That is the case because having feedback where cause and effect can be detected, greatly shortens the learning curve. Without that feedback it is almost impossible to learn to sail well in a reasonable period of time. While I have thrown in some higher performing designs (mainly because they were cheaper and simpler than more conservative designs), most of the boats that I have recommended have been pretty conservative compared to the higher performance boats that I personally would buy.

Lunch over- Back to work.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

jtsailjt said:


> Yes, you can singlehand or shorthand sail a performance boat like yours across an ocean but it's one heck of a lot of work and not very comfortable either.


I don't know how you are defining "performance boat", but if it is the type of boat that is lighter, wider (wedgier?), high aspect foils and sails, etc, then I disagree with this point.

Every non-race performance design I've sailed on is much easier to sail and requires less work than every heavy narrow full keeled boat (and I've owned both types). This easier to sail and less work also equates to being more comfortable because the boat isn't heeled at large angles, or wallowing in seas, or corkscrewing down waves.

Performance boats power up easier, have a wider margin for trimming error, carry sail longer, react under autopilot better, keep speed in lighter air instead of wallowing, ship less water in seas - pretty much easier to sail and more comfortable all around.

Perhaps performance boats need more active storm management techniques, since they generally aren't good at just lowering sails and lying a hull. However, real storm management is so a rare an event that most here have never needed to do any.

Mark


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

colemj said:


> I don't know how you are defining "performance boat", but if it is the type of boat that is lighter, wider (wedgier?), high aspect foils and sails, etc, then I disagree with this point.
> 
> Every non-race performance design I've sailed on is much easier to sail and requires less work than every heavy narrow full keeled boat (and I've owned both types). This easier to sail and less work also equates to being more comfortable because the boat isn't heeled at large angles, or wallowing in seas, or corkscrewing down waves.
> 
> ...


I think I was pretty clearly referring to performance boats 'similar to his Farr 38.' The reason they are more work is that on a long voyage, motoring or motorsailing for any extended length of time isn't possible so you are committed to constantly tweaking the sails to maximize performance. That's great fun on a nice day or for a few hours on watch, but I imagine it can get pretty old when you're short or singjehanded and know it's a necessity 24/7 for the whole voyage. Sometimes it seems pretty nice to make progress towards your destination without having to pay close attention to sail trim all the time. While motor sailing the main is up and acts as a stabilizer but it's not like you have to pay much attention to it so you can relax and focus more on other aspects of enjoying the voyage other than keeping the mainsail optimally trimmed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

OK, so performance boats are more work and less comfortable only if they don't carry a lot of fuel and have to motor a long distance.

Couldn't you flip that around and say non-performance boats are more work and less comfortable all other times?

Your thesis falls short when you consider that many non-performance designs like the Hinckley Pilot 35 also don't carry much fuel. These will be even more work and less comfortable under the same low wind and upwind conditions.

BTW, for most long passages, very few boats carry enough fuel to motor a significant part of it. For example, few carry enough fuel just to motor through the doldrums on a Pacific crossing.

Almost certainly, none of the boats Rush2112 is looking at will have large fuel capacity, so why not suggest performance boats that sail well and comfortably?

Mark


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

colemj said:


> OK, so performance boats are more work and less comfortable only if they don't carry a lot of fuel and have to motor a long distance.
> 
> Couldn't you flip that around and say non-performance boats are more work and less comfortable all other times?
> 
> ...


Since you mention the Pilot, they had 35 gallon (almost double) fuel tanks and a smaller Diesel engine than the Farr 38 so their motoring range would be almost double. I realize that many sailboats don't have the fuel capacity to motor for a lot of the voyage but 20 gallons seems like a particularly small amount of fuel. Also, the Pilot already has a high D/L ratio so will be less affected by the additional weight of "stuff" a cruiser usually accumulates aboard. I once had a Pilot 35 and thought it was a great little boat and I consider it to be surprisingly seaworthy for its size, but if I could afford it I'd prefer something with more storage room and a longer waterline.

A lightweight performance boat isn't less comfortable only because of its simpler accommodations and very limited motoring range, it's also going to give you a much more 'active' ride in typical offshore conditions. That's exciting and fun for a day sailor but can be pretty fatiguing over the long term.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

jtsailjt said:


> I think I was pretty clearly referring to performance boats 'similar to his Farr 38.' The reason they are more work is that on a long voyage, motoring or motorsailing for any extended length of time isn't possible so you are committed to constantly tweaking the sails to maximize performance. That's great fun on a nice day or for a few hours on watch, but I imagine it can get pretty old when you're short or singlehanded and know it's a necessity 24/7 for the whole voyage. Sometimes it seems pretty nice to make progress towards your destination without having to pay close attention to sail trim all the time. While motor sailing the main is up and acts as a stabilizer but it's not like you have to pay much attention to it so you can relax and focus more on other aspects of enjoying the voyage other than keeping the mainsail optimally trimmed.


As Mark and I both noted, very few boats carry enough fuel in their fixed tanks to be able to motor more than 90-100 hours, and that includes dedicated cruising designs. Example 1: (these happen to be two prior generation cruising boats that I personally know better than others). The first is a Brewer 12.8. The Brewer carries just a little over 110 gallons of fuel in three tanks. It burns 1.2 gal. at 6 knots. if you ran all of the tanks dry, that would be around 91 hours of motoring and around 550 miles. Example 2: Norseman 447, which I consider to be one of the best distance cruisers of that era, has a 100 gallon tank ( less if the original iron tanks have been replaced) and burns slightly more than a gallon an hour at 6 knots. .That yields around 95 hours of motoring for a range of around 570 miles when the tanks run dry. While most Farr 38's were only fitted with the standard 12 to 20 gallon fuel tank, the boat was actually designed to carry two tanks that took the capacity up to a little less than 40 gallons. (My boat has the beds for the second tank, but does not have the second tank. With the second fuel tank, the Farr 38 ends up with close to 40 gallons of fuel, and burns around 3/8 gallon per hour at 6 knots. Assuming 38 gallons, that amounts to roughly 100 hours of motoring, and a range of around 600 miles when the tanks run dry. None of those three boats have enough range to motor through the doldrums or the 1100 mile light air, mostly prevailing upwind passage from say Gibraltar to Sicily without having to break out the jerry cans lashed on deck.

To explain why I have not fitted the second fuel tank on Synergy, I am typically out sailing on Synergy roughly 50 days, cover 1,000 to 2,000 nm in a typical year and typically use about 8-10 gallons of fuel over the whole season.

So assuming that at some point, any distance cruiser will need to sail in less than ideal winds, I would take any modern cruising boat over one of the older heavier designs in terms of ease of handling. And while the Farr 38 is not a modern cruising boat, its sailing characteristics are pretty close in terms of seaworthiness, motion comfort, and ease of handling. You really should try to get aboard a modern design. You will be amazed at how well they sail, and how easy they to handle, and how much less sail trim you do on them as compared to the older heavier designs.

Jeff


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

Jeff_H said:


> As Mark and I both noted, very few boats carry enough fuel in their fixed tanks to be able to motor more than 90-100 hours, and that includes dedicated cruising designs. Example 1: (these happen to be two prior generation cruising boats that I personally know better than others). The first is a Brewer 12.8. The Brewer carries just a little over 110 gallons of fuel in three tanks. It burns 1.2 gal. at 6 knots. if you ran all of the tanks dry, that would be around 91 hours of motoring and around 550 miles. Example 2: Norseman 447, which I consider to be one of the best distance cruisers of that era, has a 100 gallon tank ( less if the original iron tanks have been replaced) and burns slightly more than a gallon an hour at 6 knots. .That yields around 95 hours of motoring for a range of around 570 miles when the tanks run dry. While most Farr 38's were only fitted with the standard 12 to 20 gallon fuel tank, the boat was actually designed to carry two tanks that took the capacity up to a little less than 40 gallons. (My boat has the beds for the second tank, but does not have the second tank. With the second fuel tank, the Farr 38 ends up with close to 40 gallons of fuel, and burns around 3/8 gallon per hour at 6 knots. Assuming 38 gallons, that amounts to roughly 100 hours of motoring, and a range of around 600 miles when the tanks run dry. None of those three boats have enough range to motor through the doldrums or the 1100 mile light air, mostly prevailing upwind passage from say Gibraltar to Sicily without having to break out the jerry cans lashed on deck.
> 
> To explain why I have not fitted the second fuel tank on Synergy, I am typically out sailing on Synergy roughly 50 days, cover 1,000 to 2,000 nm in a typical year and typically use about 8-10 gallons of fuel over the whole season.
> 
> ...


As I've mentioned at least a couple of times before, I fully accept and have no argument with your lightweight boat and a tiny fuel tank working very well for the type of cruising YOU like to do. But as we've both noted, YOU are not typical of most cruisers.

Your comparison of boats makes a couple of interesting points, some misleading. It's true that many boats don't have the fuel capacity to motor all the way through the doldrums, but there are many other times a cruiser would like to motor a lesser distance than all the way through the doldrums and most cruisers would like to have the fuel capacity to do that. Then, you don't compare the boat we've been discussing, your Farr 38 with its 20 gallon capacity, but instead switch to one with double that capacity and a fuel burn of only 3/8 GPH at almost hull speed (my 5.5kw genset burns about that so maybe you're being a little optimistic?) to make your comparison seem more viable. I get it that you plan to sail through whatever nature throws at you whether you make it to port by nightfall or not and whether you're becalmed for an extended period or not and I have absolutely no problem with that choice, but why can't you just gracefully accept that most cruisers would like to have a much greater motoring range than YOUR, as currently equipped, Farr 38 allows?

I did get a chuckle out of your condescending recommendation that I get out on a modern design, especially coming from someone with a boat that was designed in 1977! Was that a back handed attempt to suggest I have no idea what I'm talking about because my opinion of various types of cruising boats differs from yours? I probably won't be posting much for a few weeks starting in about a week because I'll be helping a friend sail his much more modern design sailboat (that I've sailed before) from New England to the Caribbean.

I really wish you didn't seem so defensive about your choice of 'cruising' sailboat because I think I've made it quite clear a number of times that I mean no criticism of that choice for YOU But let's not try to make your boat into something it's not by doubling its fuel capacity or suggesting that avoiding burning fuel by paying strict attention to sail trim 24/7 wouldn't be fatiguing for most cruisers, no matter how easy you say it is.

This discussion began when you suggested that 'creep' in a furling mainsail that affected the draft was a reason for avoiding furling mains in favor of traditional slab reefed ones and I pointed out that was a "problem" very, very, very far down the list for most cruisers. I think we've hijacked this thread by our little Farr 38 discussion long enough so let's let it return to the pros and cons of various ways of reefing mains. I'll concede that all those sailors who are worried about creep in their furling mains probably should stick with slab reefing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

So I think where this discussion has ended is in agreement that for any given fuel capacity, a performance-oriented type boat will be more comfortable and less work than a non-performance type.

Fuel capacity seems to be the key to comfort and easy handling.

Mark


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

jtsailjt said:


> As I've mentioned at least a couple of times before, I fully accept and have no argument with your lightweight boat and a tiny fuel tank working very well for the type of cruising YOU like to do. But as we've both noted, YOU are not typical of most cruisers.
> 
> Your comparison of boats makes a couple of interesting points, some misleading. It's true that many boats don't have the fuel capacity to motor all the way through the doldrums, but there are many other times a cruiser would like to motor a lesser distance than all the way through the doldrums and most cruisers would like to have the fuel capacity to do that. Then, you don't compare the boat we've been discussing, your Farr 38 with its 20 gallon capacity, but instead switch to one with double that capacity and a fuel burn of only 3/8 GPH at almost hull speed (my 5.5kw genset burns about that so maybe you're being a little optimistic?) to make your comparison seem more viable. I get it that you plan to sail through whatever nature throws at you whether you make it to port by nightfall or not and whether you're becalmed for an extended period or not and I have absolutely no problem with that choice, but why can't you just gracefully accept that most cruisers would like to have a much greater motoring range than YOUR, as currently equipped, Farr 38 allows?
> 
> ...


On the original topic, cutting to the chase:
I have repeatedly agreed that that most cruisers would not notice the performance difference, heeling or weather helm increase that resulted from deep draft due to creep. But I still suggest (as I have above) that the more compelling issue for a long distance cruiser might be that the added draft means that there is a higher likelihood of getting a jamb in heavy conditions and that the higher point-loads on the leech, once the sail does creep, does shorten the life of the sail.

I don't know why you are so obsessed with me and how I use my boat, or feel compelled to distort the responses that I have given. The Farr 38 came into the discussion with the statement, " you can't seriously suggest that a 38' boat with only 20 gallons of fuel capacity and with a sail area to displacement of almost 23 was designed for cruising."

Since you implicitly asked, I merely wanted to explain that I did think that a 38' boat with only 20 gallons of fuel capacity and with a sail area to displacement of almost 23 could be designed for cruising and attempted provide a basis for what I readily acknowledge as an opinion.

On the fuel issue I was equivocal, I pointed out that that there are people (other than myself), who were choosing to successfully voyage extremely long distances on 20 gallons or less of fuel. But I also pointed out that based that the original design for that provided for nearly 40 gallons and that given at the (measured on my actual boat) 3/8 gal/hr. fuel consumption rate of a 3GM30 at 2500 to 2600 rpm and the resultant speed through the water (6.1 knots in flat water) that is a pretty creditable range for a small cruising boat. Given that the original designer chose to show almost 40 gallons, then my answer would be that 20 gallons of fuel would not be enough for some, or most people going long distance cruising.

On the SA/D I pointed out that most modern cruising boats from respected builders of the current crop of serious cruising boats end up with SA/D's around 20, so an SA/D around 23 is not all that extreme.

I apologized if I ruffled your feathers by suggesting that you might want to spend more time on modern distance cruisers. I suggested that because you have repeatedly made statements about modern cruisers, like " paying strict attention to sail trim 24/7 wouldn't be fatiguing for most cruisers" , : "much more 'active' ride in typical offshore conditions", and ."it's one heck of a lot of work and not very comfortable either." I seriously had suggested that you spend time offshore on some because if you had spent much time on some of these boats with SA/D's around 20, you would have noticed how much easier they are to sail, and how much less sail trimming, reefing, furling etc. that a cruiser would have to do. I would have also thought that you would have noticed that the motion was much more comfortable and predictable on these newer boats with D/L's in the 170's and 180's as compared to older designs with D/L's up in the mid 200's and above.

We agree that my boat make sense for me. We agree that it is not a modern design, and for most folks its not what they would want in a cruiser. I agree that I would probably install the second fuel tank if I wanted to cross the Atlantic or cruise the Med. But that has little to nothing with my comments in this or other threads.

In the end. we all own what we own and use them the way we use them. In reality, most of the folks who come here don't aspire to owning much newer boats. But that does not change the fact that the science of yacht design has come a long way in the past 3-4 decades and that many of the old saws about what made an ideal cruising boat are the stuff of legend rather than physics and ergonomics. And that was the primary point that I was trying to make here and elsewhere.

Enjoy your cruise.

Jeff


----------



## s_ruffner (Aug 5, 2019)

I am always surprised at the...angst?...tension?...emotional investment?...that I see on some of these threads. I don't think I recall seeing anything like it in beachcat world, or in the motorcycle sport-touring world, though admittedly, the capital investment in those is an order of magnitude smaller, so the emotion may be proportional to investment to some degree.

Nevertheless, this has been a super-useful thread for me (another person seeking to learn what features I want in a boat). I was originally - for the performance reasons - kind of leery of IMFS systems. Not that the appeal of continuous reefing on-the-fly isn't huge, but a stack-pack and slab system are still feeling pretty awesomely convenient to me. I've (for other reasons of comfort and performance) been gravitating to the newer beamy-stern euro-bateau, and IMFS seem to be pretty standard there (at least on shoal-draft cruising-oriented setups). My wife definitely likes the idea of push-button furling. 

Anyway, very helpful debate here and I appreciate the gleaned wisdom on this and motor range.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

s_ruffner said:


> I am always surprised at the...angst?...tension?...emotional investment?...that I see on some of these threads. I don't think I recall seeing anything like it in beachcat world, or in the motorcycle sport-touring world, though admittedly, the capital investment in those is an order of magnitude smaller, so the emotion may be proportional to investment to some degree.
> 
> Nevertheless, this has been a super-useful thread for me (another person seeking to learn what features I want in a boat). I was originally - for the performance reasons - kind of leery of IMFS systems. Not that the appeal of continuous reefing on-the-fly isn't huge, but a stack-pack and slab system are still feeling pretty awesomely convenient to me. I've (for other reasons of comfort and performance) been gravitating to the newer beamy-stern euro-bateau, and IMFS seem to be pretty standard there (at least on shoal-draft cruising-oriented setups). My wife definitely likes the idea of push-button furling.
> 
> Anyway, very helpful debate here and I appreciate the gleaned wisdom on this and motor range.


IMFS means you are not raising and lowering the sail constantly to use the boat... or to reef. It costs more and compromises performance, Because it is mechanically more complex it will tend to fail more and be more a PITA to repair. The retrofit cost may be a completely different calculus than ordering a new boat and deciding IMFS or traditional. As a retro fit on a boat I have owned for decades it makes no sense. But having worked with old style for decades I am not seeing the need for the change... nor the cost.


----------



## Calmwater (Aug 5, 2018)

Agree IMFS original mast costs more. The sail itself costs less. Retrofits on mast were not good and largely abandoned. 

Alternatively, in boom furling is a great solution but extremely pricy if you add it to an older boat; The quotes I received when considering purchasing a boat with conventional main and retrofitting in-boom furling reached $30K including a new sail for a 42-46’ boat. So, as IMFS was important for me, it narrowed my options to (cruising) boats with original Selden IMFS (I don’t like the other systems).

As for the performance; for non racing boats, these are marginal, especially if the boat design and mast stepped more to the aft, increased headsail(s) area and a smaller main. (Head to main ratios of say, 60:40)

As usual, nothing to argue about. It is first of all a matter of preferences and each owner conditions. Not less the boat design - certain boats and rigging designs are simply not suitable for IMFS while in other boats, especially center cockpit cruisers, cutters etc. an IMFS is almost a must for many owners.


----------



## s_ruffner (Aug 5, 2019)

Yeah, I'm not thinking about retrofitting; I'm thinking about whether I'd avoid a particular boat because of the way it is set up.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Calmwater said:


> As for the performance; for non racing boats, these are marginal, especially if the boat design and mast stepped more to the aft, increased headsail(s) area and a smaller main. (Head to main ratios of say, 60:40)


The problem with that ratio is that a sail plan with a mix of 60% headsail and 40% mainsail makes a boat that is much harder to sail, and which is not as capable of easy gear shifting with changes in wind speed and sea state. That would pretty much wipe away any advantage that a furling main would have in terms of being able to deal with changes in windspeed by being partially furled. Ignoring the loss of performance from that ratio, the loss of ability to deal with rapidly disintegrating conditions is the reason that recent serious long distance cruising boat designs have shifted to ratios where the jib is smaller than or equal to the size of the mainsail.

Jeff


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

It's the big head sail problem!


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

Jeff_H said:


> The problem with that ratio is that a sail plan with a mix of 60% headsail and 40% mainsail makes a boat that is much harder to sail, and which is not as capable of easy gear shifting with changes in wind speed and sea state. That would pretty much wipe away any advantage that a furling main would have in terms of being able to deal with changes in windspeed by being partially furled. Ignoring the loss of performance from that ratio, the loss of ability to deal with rapidly disintegrating conditions is the reason that recent serious long distance cruising boat designs have shifted to ratios where the jib is smaller than or equal to the size of the mainsail.
> 
> Jeff


Jeff: I have a 1991 Catalina 28. Masthead rig, with a main and a 150 genoa, which I believe are the original sails. I am planning on buying new sails in the spring. How do you recommend those of us with "big head sail syndrome" address this when designing new sails?


----------



## Calmwater (Aug 5, 2018)

Jeff_H said:


> The problem with that ratio is that a sail plan with a mix of 60% headsail and 40% mainsail makes a boat that is much harder to sail, and which is not as capable of easy gear shifting with changes in wind speed and sea state. That would pretty much wipe away any advantage that a furling main would have in terms of being able to deal with changes in windspeed by being partially furled. Ignoring the loss of performance from that ratio, the loss of ability to deal with rapidly disintegrating conditions is the reason that recent serious long distance cruising boat designs have shifted to ratios where the jib is smaller than or equal to the size of the mainsail.
> 
> Jeff


it is all a matter of the boat design. Poorly designed boats with inappropriate sail plan will always be hard to sail and this is a result of many other factors: keel design, rudder size, displacement etc. and the design ratios taking all these into consideration.

For example, my cruising boat (vs. my racing Farr 40), is a brilliantly designed Contest 43 cutter. https://sailboatdata.com/sailboat/contest-43

Perfectly balanced under almost any conditions with both genoa and staysail furlers. The flexibility in quick adjusting of all three sails (not to mention the asymmetrical continuous furling option on the bowsprit) - right from the cockpit make sailing extremely comfortable where steering of this 13 metric tons can be done with two fingers... - in most normal conditions.

Agree there is an advantage in having a smaller headsail, especially for quick tacks and self tacking rigging, but in many cases it has a negative performance effect on a close reach. A well designed staysail setup, can cover this as well.

This is of course not the typical daysailer design but very common with offshore cruisers.

Again, it is all a matter of the original design.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

mstern said:


> Jeff: I have a 1991 Catalina 28. Masthead rig, with a main and a 150 genoa, which I believe are the original sails. I am planning on buying new sails in the spring. How do you recommend those of us with "big head sail syndrome" address this when designing new sails?


There is not one universally right answer to that question. The decision matrix that goes into making the decision depend on a collection of factors.
Where do you sail? (Is it a reliability windy area, or predominantly light air?)
How do you use your boat? (Daysailing, racing, cruising with tons of stuff onboard? Don't mind ghosting in light air, or clicks on the motor as soon as the knotmeter drops below 2-3 knots? Get a kick out heavy air sailing or motors anytime that the wind gets above 15 knots? Likes playing with adjustments on the sail or adjust it and leave it?)
How is the boat set up? 
(Backstay adjuster, jib furler, towable adjustable jib leads? None of the above?)
Budget?
Depending on the answers on one of the spectrum you might do a 135-140% genoa with a foam luff and the foot cut high enough to clear the life lines from a reputable sail loft, and made from a premium high modulus polyester fabric with the fibers oriented for the load paths and a foam luff. That would be a pretty affordable sail, and one that might have a wind range between 5 and 15 knots. It should have a reasonably long life, especially if you don't race and are not concerned with optimal performance.
At the other end of the spectrum, you might do a cruising membrane sail, maybe with high modulus load oriented strands with tafetta on both faces, and a foam luff. If you specified a higher level of load carrying fibers, that sail might have a range of maybe 2-3 knots up to maybe somewhere around 20 knots. That would be an expensivke sail, maybe 40-60% more than the dacron sail, but it will have a much longer lifespan than the dacron measured by how well it still holds it's shape. The key to making that sail work across such a wide wind range would be dependent on a few things. You would need to have and use an adjustable backstay. The sail would the be cut slightly full when There is more headstay sag. The sail would need to kept light enough to keep a decent flying shape in light air. At the other end of the wind range, the fiber load and material will need to minimize stretch, and the foam luff be aggressive enough to really flatten the sail. You will want to move the sheet lead slightly aft to open the head of the sail.
But the real answer will need to come from a discussion between the sail maker and you.

Jeff


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

mstern said:


> Masthead rig, with a main and a 150 genoa,


We have that exact setup. When we replaced our sails last year, Quantum recommended going with a 135. I declined, because the 150 we already had does a great job down wind. When I first bought the boat, I was frustrated trying to sail it downwind, like I always had previously. It took my thick head a while to realize I don't need the main at all, when deep downwind.

It also took me a while to get through my head that reefing the big genoa upwind was better, regardless of the amount of wind. One reef, which probably takes it down to a 130ish anyway, is much more efficient upwind, not to mention the wraps raise the foot a bit, making it easier to see in the heel. We did have a foam luff added. Working the genoa car is critical too, but ours is adjustable, via block and tackle, from the cockpit.

I assure you we get much better and deeper downwind performance. Do we lose speed upwind? I don't know, it never feels disappointing, but it can't be measured in anything more than tenths, if we do.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> We have that exact setup. When we replaced our sails last year, Quantum recommended going with a 135. I declined, because the 150 we already had does a great job down wind. When I first bought the boat, I was frustrated trying to sail it downwind, like I always had previously. It took my thick head a while to realize I don't need the main at all, when deep downwind.
> 
> It also took me a while to get through my head that reefing the big genoa upwind was better, regardless of the amount of wind. One reef, which probably takes it down to a 130ish anyway, is much more efficient upwind, not to mention the wraps raise the foot a bit, making it easier to see in the heel. We did have a foam luff added. Working the genoa car is critical too, but ours is adjustable, via block and tackle, from the cockpit.
> 
> I assure you we get much better and deeper downwind performance. Do we lose speed upwind? I don't know, it never feels disappointing, but it can't be measured in anything more than tenths, if we do.


Shiva is a fractional w/ a 130 I believe. Downwind the main is doing most of the moving of the boat,,, When running it helps to pole out the head sail. Sail plan works nicely on beam and close reach... but loves a broad reach.


----------

