# In-mast furler; to buy or not to buy;



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Know this message will get some response! I have read many of the message threads on the subject. Here is my problem. Two boats for sale. One of them has a hood mainsail furler, the other does not. The boats are very close matchs in value, but one of the owners (the one with the furler) is more receptive to offers, and I can probably get his boat for around 95,000 (guess of course). The other boat is 120,000, and the owner is pretty firm on the price. 
The boat in question is 40'', cutter rigged, displacing about 25,000#. I won''t name it here on the chance that the owners see this message (hey, alls fair in love and boat buying). 
The 120,000 boat has been sailed in fresh water, the 95,000 in saltwater. Both boats have factory applied epoxy bottoms, so I''m thinking blisters are not likely to be a problem. 
If the prices were even close, I would take the boat without the furler, but given the potential price difference I am tempted. I sail in the puget sound area, would be taking the boat off the coast in future, but not for some time. 
It''s a large chunk of change ($$$). While I like the boat, I don''t think I can justify 120, but 95 is more in the ball park. 
Can I learn to love (or at least tolerate main furling)?
Other thought - Can a boat with a mail furler be re-rigged with something like a harken batcar system without a whole new mast? I am thinking not, but don''t really know. Any input would be welcome (if you''re just going to bash main furlers, be my guest, I''m not really that fond of them myself, it will be good for a giggle). Thanks


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

The answer is none of the above. Neither is a good choice. The boat without the furler is too expensive and a 25000 lb 40 foot cutter is a bad candidate for in mast furling. The in-mast furling should be a deal killer if you plan to go offshore. I have friends who are delivery skippers who refuse to even deliver a boat with in mast furling if it includes an offshore leg. Keep looking. 

Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

OK, first response, pretty much as expected. As I said, I''m not a fan of main furlers in theory, but I''ve never actually used one. I am told that a "ballpark" figure for a new mast (to replace the one with the furler) would run me about 15,000 (would of course need a new mainsail as well). If I really think I''ve found the right boat, 95,000+15,000=110,000 - still 10,000 less then the 120,000$ boat. Definitly an expensive solution, but not one that would need to be implimented right away. I could use the mainfurler and see how well it works for me. If I can''t live with it, replacing it would still leave me (slightly) better off then going with the more expensive boat. Comments?
As to the comment that "100000 is too much for a 25000# 40'' boat", I don''t feel that size can be used as a very good indicator of value. A 50'' Formosa can be had for less then a 37'' Pacific seacraft. 
I would prefer the mailsail furlerless boat, but will probably make offers on both and see if I can come up with a deal I can live with on either. All advice welcome (Thanks Jeff).


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I did not say, "100000 is too much for a 25000# 40'' boat", What I said is that in-mast furling is a bad idea for a 25000# 40'' boat. In-mast furling works best on an easily driven hull and the weight for the length on the boat in question suggests a less than easily driven hull. I also said that the boat without the in-mast was too expensive, by which I mean, all other things being equal the difference in price between the boat with furling seems like too large a difference. I never would say that "100000 is too much for a 25000# 40'' boat" without a whole lot of other qualifiers.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## capttb (Dec 13, 2003)

From what little experience I''ve had with furling mains leads me to believe that personal priorties will determine wheter you decide to live with it. Most I''ve been exposed to did require that you fuss with them when you start unfurling but worked pretty good going in. There is a penalty in the loss of roach area but it does ease sailhandling when shorthanded some. I can''t address reliability while offshore but they are quite common in the sound as you are no doubt aware. It does seem a little un-common to find inmast furling with a cutter rig, I can''t quite picture it.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

With all I have heard abit main sail furling system failure I think a heavy duty single line reefing system is a better choice.... Jim


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Jeff, sorry, I misread your post on the price issue. Please chalk it up to not having my head on straight due to thinking about a new boat. Hopefully I will be able to get my head back in the game before making a decision with my heart (i.e. falling in love with the wrong boat).


----------



## jack_patricia (May 20, 2001)

Gregg, I don''t know if you''re still pursuing the Hood-equipped boat but would like to offer this comment, regardless.

What troubles me about this kind of thread is that we''re generically addressing a topic (mainsail furling systems) when in truth mainsail furling systems aren''t generic. I wish you''d mentioned the age of the Hood system and told us whether you''d checked with Hood about a) availability of parts (including 5-10 years from now), b) access to the mechanism for troubleshooting, inspection and service, and most importantly, c) the design of the system. It would also be important to note whether you think you would be sailing offshore with a relatively new mainsail vs. a ''used'' (perhaps somewhat ''tired'') one, as this can make a huge difference in furling/reefing success.

When looking at mainsail furling systems (I''ve only ''looked'', not yet ''used''...but I''ve surely talked to many who''ve used theirs offshore), I see a wide variability in these systems. Spar cross-section, mainsail design that''s consistent with furling system design (some furling vendors recommend specific lofts who better know how to build a sail for their system), top & bottom vs. bottom-only swivels, mechanism access - all these variables can heavily influence your experience when sailing with a mainsail furling system.

I''ve seen a variety of these systems, including boom furling systems, suffer total or partial failure in each of the major offshore crossroads I''ve visited, but I''d also add that the percentage of failures has been very, very small and has usually not led to a catastrophic consequence. I''ve also found a very high percentage of owners who highly value their system, with only an occasional owner being ambivalent and almost no one regretting such a system.

I''ve been researching these systems because in time I think they''ll be a more reasonable choice for my wife and I, rather than the slab reefing system we''ll continue to use on our 42'' ketch. So far, the general conclusions I''ve come up with are:
1. there are many user-related issues that can lead to problems, which means we can address them with knowledge and skill and therefore avoid them
2. there are some good systems out there (e.g. Selden) and lots of cheap ones (note those offered on high-volume, built to a price boats)
3. some systems can be maintained and visually inspected in ways that all but eliminate surprises...if it''s done, of course
4. while there are performance compromises, the same can be said for non-variable slab reefing, especially in the real world of dark nights and lazy, tired and/or seasick crews, and many owners recover some or most of the lost performance by reefing/unreefing appropriate to the conditions when they would not bother doing so with a slab system.

I don''t think this is a black-white issue and digging deeper into the details of your prospective furling system might reveal facts you should consider but don''t have.

Fill us in; what''s happening with the two boats?

Jack


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I''m happy to see this question answered in this way. I have always been curious about why in-mast systems get such bad press. I mostly read annecdotal stories of disaster, usually about sails jamming up in bad weather and blowing out. Yet, the one guy I know who has one, loves it.

Jack, I would ask, regarding mast cross-section, have you any idea of what type of cross-section gives the most problems? For example, I have seen a system in which the mast is essentially u-shaped and acts much like a cowl over a vertical roller-furling system. I would not expect a system like this to jam as easily as one in which the main has to furl through a slot.

I would also like to point out that while the in-mast furler puts more weight aloft effectively counterbalancing ballast weight, it also slows rolling motion, making motion in a heavy sea more comfortable. So considering a given boat''s particular roll characteristics should probably be included as part of the question as to whether in-mast furling is desireable or not.

Chas.


----------



## bob_walden (May 1, 2003)

Hi;

My only experience with in-mast furling has come from 1 charter this year of a 2003 benny 42 CC, 20,000 lbs displacement--not particularly easily driven. I found the furling unit to be simple to operate given a couple of best-practice tips: check the whole system carefully before leaving the dock, including all lines and hardware, and make sure the main sheet is completely eased before furling or unfurling. I did not do the checkout carefully enough, and thus the following story:

In my case, the actual furling unit performed flawlessly, but the furling line (the line you use to roll up the sail) was lead through several blocks to route it from the cockpit to the furling drum, and one of these blocks parted from its attachment to the deck while we were furled on a close reach in a 30 knot breeze. The entire main deployed 100% immediately, which could have been disasterous. After a near-broach I fell off onto a broad reach, and one of the crew quick-fixed the furling line problem by re-rigging it through a different block. It turned out that this boat, for whatever reason, had no cotter pins or other safety measures on any of the block attachment hardware, so the nut on the bolt attaching the block to the padeye had simply backed off. In hindsight, I was impressed that the explosive deployment of the main had not damaged the furling unit at all. Sailing performance was fine, although I suspect in light breeze the main would under-perform with no battens to give it shape. On the other hand, a lot of cruising boats, including the B42CC, typically have big 160+ genoas, and don''t rely on their mains for much in light breeze.

Jeff: I''d be interested to hear why your delivery skipper friends refuse to take furling masts offshore. Is it the possibility of jams, or is it something else? And isn''t it feasible to fully deploy the main, and then reef it traditionally? I realize it''s probably a fiddly job to drop the sail with the track inside the mast, but after all, there must be _some_ way to drop it. Isn''t it just a boltrope inserted into a track? I would think it means you''d just want to make sure you reefed even earlier than usual, so you have time to drop the sail if needed. 

bw


----------



## jack_patricia (May 20, 2001)

Chas:

"Jack, I would ask, regarding mast cross-section, have you any idea of what type of cross-section gives the most problems?"

As with any other complex system, my sense is that it''s about each of the pieces and how they work together, rather than a single design issue. The mast you mention has to have a closed section for structural integrity, so I''m not sure what you mean by ''cowl shape''. You''ll see some systems designed as ''add-on'' systems and attached to the aft end of an existing spar, while other systems are designed from the ground up and it''s the better ones in this category that I would want to consider.

For a decent benchmark when comparing systems, I''d suggest looking at the detail (first hand if possible, at a boat show) of the Selden system: top/bottom rollers, access to mechanism for servicing & inspection, good sized cross section, well-manufactured parts...and even with all this, they are still recommending specific lofts as they know the sail has to be considered an integral part of the system, as well.

Jack


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Jack,

The cross section of the mast I''m referring to is a double walled U-shape, sort of like putting a lower-case ''u'' inside an upper-case ''U'' and sealing the ends together. It forms a shape like a cresent with its points drawn together so that the inner curve becomes a u-shape. As I recall it was a single extrusion and looked pretty robust. I am told it was sailed for several years throughout the Carib and the east coast of S. America as far as Buenas Aires.

I was told that the sail was bent on a system nearly, or exactly, like a jib roller furler. The sail fits into the convexity of the mast but is not enclosed as it would be in a mast with a c-shaped cross-section. The after aspect of the furled sail is fully visible from aft of the mast, but not at all visible from the sides or front. This creates the "cowl" effect that I was talking about.

About problems with certain cross-sections, I was really wondering if there are certain mast cross-sections that have proven weaker, or more prone to jamming a sail. Amoung those you know who would not sail an in-mast furler in the ocean, did they tell you what exactly had dissuaded them from using in-mast RF, such as structural problems, jammed sails, or poor quality or poorly designed couplings?

But I really have a broader question. While I realize there is a low-level debate as to whether RF or hanked-on headsails are better suited for blue water cruising, it appears that the battle for the hearts and minds of cruisers has been won. Rarely do I see blue water boats without RFs. So, if the jury is in, and after all considerations, RFs are used by cruisers in preference to hanks, why is there such a resistance to using RFs on mainsails? Has the state of in-mast technology not yet caught up with headsail systems? Or is it a sales & marketing issue? Or is there some consideration that makes RF mainsails an irreconcilably bad idea?

Thanks,
Chas.


----------



## jack_patricia (May 20, 2001)

Chas, I''m not familiar with the mast cross-section you described tho'' your description was certainly clear; sorry.

I''m surely no more than a student of in-mast furling/reefing systems altho'' I''ve been fortunate enough to see a lot of ocean crossing boats now and talk with some of their crews. And I''ve also tried to regularly do homework on the systems I can at boat shows (last at Southampton last month; next one is London''s blow-out show in January). Thus, my growing sense of the issues and the usage history.

"Rarely do I see blue water boats without RFs. So, if the jury is in, and after all considerations, RFs are used by cruisers in preference to hanks, why is there such a resistance to using RFs on mainsails?

Lots of observations can be made in response to that; I''ll offer four. First, I think you''d be amazed at how often you see a hanked sail on an offshore boat...and yet your observation is quite correct that most crews do have a RF/RR unit for their headsail. Almost always, the offshore boat is going to have a RF/RR headsail system AND an inner stay. Richer crews might have that inner stay permanently installed and with its own RF/RR system...while poorer folks like me might have a release lever, stow the inner stay - tensioned - on the side deck, and then set up stay, sail and sheets before going offshore. But the point I''m making is that the inner stay is what frees folks up to go offshore with a single headsail on their RF/RR foil and usually not experience tons of grief in heavy weather.

Second, we''re talking headsails here - and they''re very different from mainsails, which are usually supported on two of the three sides, or at least on one side plus at the clew. Headsails can do their work efficiently without battens; mainsails can not. And remember that one of the criticisms we use to hear was the weight on the bow plus the windage that a furled headsail put on the boat. One reason you hear less about that now is that boat sizes have grown over the last 2 decades and can better handle the weight; another reason is that a furling system is such a ''given'', as you point out, that it''s now simply viewed as a norm rather than a choice.

A third reason, it seems to me, has to do with the state of technology for mainsail furling systems but not in the way you implied. As folks in earlier times worked their way through the first generations of jib furling systems, old/heavy/awkward/furling but not reefing systems were tossed as the learning curve climbed, the grapevine passed the word, and the wheat was separated from the chaff. While there are, I think, some excellent mainsail furling systems today, we''re still in that weaning process insofar as I can tell, where the minimally capable systems are often seen in greatest abundance (gracious me, look at some of those Beneteau and similar units, just to mention one of many...), we''re still in a place where mainsail furling is viewed and discussed generically (my earlier point), and the sailor is just not yet as educated or discriminating as s/he will become.

And finally, a jib reefing/furling system is a simplier system as it lacks an external spar and makes fewer line control demands, and so there are simply more things that must be right or can go wrong. (And let''s not forget the sail: a poor sail choice will produce a terrible result on a reefed headsail just as it can on a reefed/furled mainsail). Related to this, the greater complexity of the mainsail system also adds additional cost - especially if the system is built cleverly and with quality hardware - and so there''s a cost barrier sailors face with mainsail furling that doesn''t exist to the same degree with jib furling.

You''ll notice that I haven''t offered any reasons that relate to performance. My impression is that, in the real world for most sailors, coastal or offshore, ease of handling and the perceived security and safety of furling over going on deck to douse or reef is more important. Thus, to offer the rationale of lesser performance as a ''reason'' why folks avoid mainsail furling is, again just as I see it, usually not correct...altho'' we hear it frequently.

You''ll also notice I didn''t say anything about the mainsail being the more critical sail in heavy air. On more modern designs with sloop rigs, I''m hearing people say they often douse the main and sail under reefed headsail (or staysail or solent sail) across or down the wind in a serious blow. I rarely hear people talking about heaving to, something that used to be far more common and often requires using the mainsail, but then this often refers these days to boats with far different underbodies. So again, while I may hear non-users saying they don''t want to risk their critical sail (aka: mainsail) to a possible failure in heavy air, in reality I wonder how many owners of mainsail furling systems actually deploy only a small segment of their reefed/rolled mainsail in serious weather.

I would surely be interested in what others have to offer on this topic.

Jack


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Hmm, this is very interesting.

I wondered if people allowed less efficiency in their headsails because they so meticulously maintained the appearance of efficiency in their mainsails.

But for skydivers, parafoils inflate to a wonderfully efficient foil depending entirely on the flow of air to give them their shape-- and they have no battens. I know that at one time gaff-rigged boats relied on three structural sides to support and help shape their mainsails, now it''s two sides, mast and boom (two-and-a-half, if you count battens). But it seems to me, that the same simple kind of design that allows the flow of air to inflate and give shape to a headsail, and give it its aerodynamic pull, can do the same thing easily and inexpensively for a club-footed, in-mast furling mainsail.

I, too, would be interested in what in-mast furlers people have, whether they use them to reef and if they''re pleased with sail shape and performance.

Chas.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Thought you might be interested in my contribution, as I have a behind mast reefing system. (Unlike the majority of people who decry it I have actually tried it)

First lets deal with one of the main criticisms - it adds weight up the mast. I refer you to http://www.zsparsuk.com/sec02.htm for a yacht of 36-38ft. The mast with in-mast reefing (Z800)is 3.5mm thick and weighs 8.3kg/metre (this is the heavier of the two options for a boat of this size) The mast for slab reefing (Z701)is 4mm thick and weighs 7kg/metre Thus the difference on a 43 ft mast is 37lb. - The lighter section (Z700E) would only be 14lb heavier. If you are concerned by this much extra then dont mount the radar up the mast cause the scanner for that weighs considerably more!

Admitedly the behind-mast add-on which I have on my present boat, does add a significant penalty, but I dont plan to go deep water with that.

Sail shape is another thing that people whinge about. A modern sail designed for in-mast reefing should also have full length vertical battens - these provide a much better shape, and also a handy guide to reefing!. I would accept that perhaps the shape is not quite as optimum as full length horizontal batterns, but the diffeerence for a cruiser is marginal, and more than overcome by the ease of reefing/increasing sail.

Loss of sail area - again a behind mast system will lose a certain amount of sail, but there is no reason why a proper in-mast system should be any smaller than is conventional slabed rival.

Yes they can get jammed if you do not follow a couple of very simple rules - when increasing sail, make sure boom is at 90 degrees. when reefing make sure that kicker is loose. A kicker line that is controlled from the cockpit soon solves that problem. 

In short, in-mast systems are coming of age as are in-boom systems. They offer tremendous advantages to short handed/more elderly sailing with very few real major disadvantages. I have been using mine all this last season, and am convinced that it has been a good investment. My boat for further affield will have an in-mast furler.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

And for you Anglophobes, kicker does not refer to what one does to wake the sleeping off-watch crew, but rather the boom vang... :^)


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

This discussion reminds me of the old discussions in the computer world about the horrible transition from 5.25" floppy disks to 3.5" floppies, to "no" floppy disk. In Mast furling is the shape of things to come. It is the future. My guess is that most of the people commenting have no experience with the in mast furing system. (They think that changing 5.25" floppy disk to 3.5" was heresy). The facts are that in mast furling works. I have used it and I am sold on it''s ease and improved safety. It is also a fact that "newer used" boats are hard to sell if they don''t have in mast furling. The change has come. Its time for change. Its time for all those old timers to admit that they are living in the past much like the opponents of the 3.5" floppy disk transition. Actually, they are much worse, they are like the breed who believe that you still need a 3.5" floppy. In mast furling is here to stay and it will gradually become major selling point for boats that have it. Tim


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

This discussion reminds me of the old discussions in the computer world about the horrible transition from 5.25" floppy disks to 3.5" floppies, to "no" floppy disk. In Mast furling is the shape of things to come. It is the future. My guess is that most of the people commenting have no experience with the in mast furing system. (They think that changing 5.25" floppy disk to 3.5" was heresy). The facts are that in mast furling works. I have used it and I am sold on it''s ease and improved safety. It is also a fact that "newer used" boats are hard to sell if they don''t have in mast furling. The change has come. Its time for change. Its time for all those old timers to admit that they are living in the past much like the opponents of the 3.5" floppy disk transition. Actually, they are much worse, they are like the breed who believe that you still need a 3.5" floppy. In mast furling is here to stay and it will gradually become major selling point for boats that have it. Tim


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

The change from 5.25" to 3.5" discs was an *improvement" in technology. A change to in-mast furling is a great step backwards if you value having good shape to a mainsail ... or a leech/roach that is adquately and properly supported by battens. 

For those that have no idea that the white triangular things that sticks-up on the top of a sailboat are important and need precision tension on the edges to be set and shaped by halyard , etc. tension .... in mast furling will be fine. 

Let me ask this question to those who favor in-mast furling: ..... how do you change the luff tension to affect the position of maximum draft (fore or aft) while sailing and already partly reefed so that you can effect proper helm balance in changing wind and sea-state conditions ???? At the extreme, this is a vital ''safety consideration'' ... and you cant do it with an in-mast furler! .... or do you just reef all the way in, turn on the engine and scurry back to the marina ???????????


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

You may have experienced success with your in mast furling but that has not been a universal experience. In talking to a gathering of experienced delivery skippers who have taken in-mast furling systems offshore, there was near universal agreement that the current state of in-mast furling should not be taken offshore and probably is not a great idea even for coastal cruisers. Most reported experiencing cases of serious jambing problems in extreme and not so extreme conditions, and a degrading of sail shape after as little as a couple hours being furled. One described having to cut a hiho jambed mainsail off of the mast in 50 knot winds to save the boat. Quite a few said that they will not deliver a boat offshore that has an in-mast furler. 

At the last boat show, I was told that the percentage of Beneteaus sold with in-mast furling peaked in 2002 and has been dropping ever since. In talking to sailmakers, there seems to be universal agreement that in-mast furling results in a shorter sail life and makes it near imposible to get proper sail shape since in-mast furlers are not as tollerant of the kind of sail shaping techniques that can be applied to roller furling jibs or to conventionally mounted sails. 

With the advent of easier to use and more reliable sail handling systems (such as two line reefing combined with the Dutchmen flaking system) I think in-mast furling will either need to get a lot better, or it will go the way of roller reefing booms of the 1960''s. Not all new technology is an improvement. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## Silmaril (Feb 22, 2003)

The "Floppy Disc" analogy is more telling than the poster may have seen. I can add some points and a different twist to it, seeing that I am the IT Director for a $400mil/yr company, AND an off shore sailor with many thousands of miles of blue water experience.

Yes, for the personal computer, the off machine storage has changed over the years. And for the casual user, there may have been a bit of a paradigm shift in changing formats. So agreed, for the CASUAL sailer, an in mast/boom main furler would be fine. Sure it is a paradigm shift for the "Old Salts" but hey, things change, but one must move on.

HOWEVER.... in the real-world of mission critical systems, like my main UNIX transaction processor that handles about $100,000/hr in business, it hase never even SEEN a floppy disc, no matter what the size. It uses hi-speed DAT drizes, a fully mirrored RAID-5 SCSI-2 drive array and a high speed optical juke box for triple redundant data storage. Seems like I want to never have any issues with data. 

Would the CASUAL user ever need to go to such lengths for his humble home PC? I think not. What would you lose from a PC failure? It may be a major inconvenience if you lose data, but nothing insurmountable. But for me it is absolutley necessary. My systems go "Down" (An intersting nautical analogy) and my company loses $100,000 an hour!!!

Just the same applies when looking at off shore systems for your boat. Yes, in mast/boom furling is just fine for the casual sailor. Never traveling so far that help is always just a VHF call to a tow company away. But when you are talking "Mission critical" systems that have people''s lives at stake, there are STILL too many variables that can cause serious problems.

Ever hoisted a Storm Tri-sail? Has its own track on the mast. How about a storm jib? These are items in the serious off shore sailors inventory that are necessities, and they had better work. I will always stand by with my opinion on how a sail is handled on a real off shore boat. Main on slugs, no bolt rope, with slab reefing. Storm Tri-sail on separate track. All head sails ON HANKS for the most relible handling out there. (There is a previous discussion on this where I added my 2 cents worth).

When you are looking at mission critical, the experts will always agree. Whether you are talking computers or sailing. I always get a kick at work when we have a new hire who is a "Computer Expert" in sales. Yeah, they may know their way around their home PC, but you should see their jaw drop if they ever get a peek at the corporate data center. Just like when a sailor who is a wiz at the local marina, sees a true blue water sailboat and does not understand the the reason for how the boat is rigged.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

In Europe lots of boats come standard with a furling mast.

I agree with Jeff even if ocean going yachts tend to come also with furling masts as standard. 

I am interested in furling booms.

The Luffe, a very fast cruiser racer is equiped with one and it looks like it doesn''t take out performance (significantly). 

I see no reason for a boom reefing system not to be backed up with a manual traditional(emmergency) reefing system. 

I would like to hear comments on this.


http://www.luffe.com/links/wallpapers/1280x1024/luffe48.jpg

http://ww833w.furlerboom.dk/default.asp?V_DOC_ID=

Paulo


----------



## Saileric (Dec 14, 2010)

*Experienced In-mast Furler Sailor*

There seems to be lots of speculation in this thread about in-mast furling. I wonder if the original post purchased the boat with the furling or not, six years ago.

I purchased a used 36' Pearson three years ago that had been demasted and then re-masted with an in-mast furler (like the "u" inside a "U" post described). Here's my observations:

1. It's safe if you inspect it and services it, like everything else on a boat. I've never had a problem. My offshore limit on this boat has been maybe only 60 miles West of California in the Pacific, and lost of Coastal Cruising time.

2. I miss battens and a full size sail. The furling main means that there are no battens and the shape of the sail has to be reduced, accordingly. I definitely lose some power and the subtle controls that a larger mainsail brings. This is the greatest disadvantage of the in-mast.

3. The mast is heavy, and in lighter winds I feel it.

4. I love the convenience. I single-hand sail much of the time, and I can be 'sails up' in seconds, and when it's time to go home... zzziiippp! 15 seconds and the mailsail is put away. I love that. (It takes longer to put away the furling headsail.) No more wrangling the sails into a bag in high winds at the end of a great day.

5. I have not seen anything that would indicate the sail is taking on permanent curl. That's ridiculous unless your mainsail is made our of sheet metal.

6. Serious Danger in 50kt winds... Well - I suppose it would be a good idea to reef the sails in 50kt winds, regardless of in-mast or not. That post sounds more like a lack of planning than a mechanical problem.

7. Furling Boom - this is an idea I could get behind. I absolutely love the in-mast furling for the convenience, and presumably an in-boom furling would allow full battens. Given the chance, I would very likely switch to in-boom.

Overall, most of my sailing is year-round coastal cruising. I do the beer-can races, but if I was a serious racer, this reduced mainsail would be a nuisance. I get to sail where I want to and it's easy and fun. If I were going to spend some time offshore, passage making, or cruising, I would probably switch to an in-boom furling or to a traditional mainsail to have more sail area. But for lifestyle sailing, coastal cruising, entertaining, and relaxation - I love the in-mast furling.


----------



## COOL (Dec 1, 2009)

Saileric said:


> I love the in-mast furling.


As long as were giving this another go around,
I hate in the mast furling. I can fold my main and
have the boom cover on in five minutes. I would never
compromise my boats performance for a minor convenience.
If you are elderly or an invalid, and have a larger boat,
then the need for a furling main is understandable.
But for me sailing is a sport, and bit of exertion now
and again is a good thing.


----------



## sailordave (Jun 26, 2001)

Convenient, yes. At least for sheltered waters/maybe coastal cruising. I used one on an IP while chartering w/ some friends. For the kind of sailing we were doing it was fine. BUT, I felt like I didn't have a full toolbox so to speak in that I didn't have a full repertoire of sail adjustments available to me. And as a sometime racer versus the casual sailors I was with it was very frustrating.
Speaking as someone who has several thousand miles of blue water sailing, probably half under race conditions, I want nothing to do w/ them.
In fact I was very seriously looking at a few boats this fall and found one I really liked.... but. It had a Hood Stoway mast. Broker couldn't understand why I wouldn't want that on the boat. I didn't bother arguing w/ him. Just told him it was a deal breaker, not interested.


----------



## sailordave (Jun 26, 2001)

Six years later and still an interesting thread.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

OK, I'll play with the old thread.

In mast furling is the only way we can possibly shorthand our boat's main. Its difficult for two people to get the main down, and you can't physically reach the entire boom without a small ladder. It swings about 8 ft above the cockpit.

In mast furling is a god send. Love it.

As for performance..... max speed has been over 10kts in a 20kt wind. Routinely sail at 8 kts (which my daughter insists is the mandatory minimum or she taunts the skipper). I don't see any performance shortcomings. At least none I can't live with.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Just curious, but what boat do you have?



Minnewaska said:


> OK, I'll play with the old thread.
> 
> In mast furling is the only way we can possibly shorthand our boat's main. Its difficult for two people to get the main down, and you can't physically reach the entire boom without a small ladder. It swings about 8 ft above the cockpit.
> 
> ...


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

OK let me introduce the option of a sound technically based question to be submitted and asked of any competent sailmaker that you may choose:
*"Mr. Sailmaker, What is the approximate maximum Sail Area SA reduction possible of **ANY** sail (jib/genoa/staysail/mainsail) on **any** reefing-furler that can still produce adequate SHAPE in a sail for upwind usage?" * (.... you silently remembering that 99% of all the sails's 'broadseaming' (curvature of cord-length) is located from the front edge of the luff to about 30% of cord length aft of the luff). 
The stock sailmakers answer will be ... "*30% SA max. reduction is typical*, the same as the typical reduction for the normal first reef in a slab/jiffy reef system .... beyond that reduction causes the shape to be too flat and too distorted to be of any 'upwind' use, although some of the 'newer' reefing furlers (Harken, etc.) can increase this limit to 40, etc. %". 
So, equating that 30% 'typical' value it means that rolling in beyond 30% of the typical MAXIMUM SA reduction of a 'first reef' in a traditional slab or jiffy reef, you will have 'grotesque' sail shape ..... if you need to equate to a 2nd or even 3rd reef position you will have only flat, non-curved (~ZERO draft) sail sections exposed (because principally all the 'broad-seamed' area is now within the 'roll') ..... good only for 'downwind' reaching or running where aerodynamic shape isnt important. If board flat sails 'worked', then we'd all be flying sheets of plywood!!! 
I ask those with in mast furlers, *how does your boat 'really' perform when that main is rolled in to a 3rd or deep reefed position and you HAVE to go upwind?* ..... (expect to get total silence instead of a reply).

One has to remember that sails are not triangular flat rolls of fabric but are quasi-spherical in shape and that most of the curvature is designed into the sail between the luff and 30+% back from the luff ... and if you roll-in beyond that ~30% of cord length, you have nothing but a totally FLAT (but distorted) surface aloft .... and that almost totally flat shape is only good (safe) for sailing at less than beam reach angles.

If one needs to critically decide between the efficacy of in-mast furling vs. slab reefing or in-boom furling-reefing, simply ask the above simple question to your sailmaker..... .

;-)


----------



## COOL (Dec 1, 2009)

RichH said:


> If one needs to critically decide between the efficacy of in-mast furling vs. slab reefing or in-boom furling-reefing, simply ask the above simple question to your sailmaker..... .


In the case of an 'in the mast furling' main,
the picture is often worse than you paint it.
The furler requires a straight mast to work properly,
so once the sail is set you can not bend the mast
to flatten it. The sail can not be cut with much luff
curve to add draft forward, and the cloth must be
lighter and softer than would be used in 'real' sail
of the same area. Any roachless mainsail tends to
get large hook to windward in the leech when sheeted 
in hard. 
All this adds up to a very inefficient sail upwind in
a breeze, with a flat entry and a full back end with the
draft much too far aft. This is why more often than not,
a boat with such a rig is usually motored to any destination
that involves upwind work.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Then there's the additional weight aloft. Then there's the fact that you can't use horizontal battens, which are more efficient than vertical battens.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

sailingdog said:


> Just curious, but what boat do you have?


A Jeanneau 54DS. Built before they switched to the fake teak and plastic seacocks on the 53s and 57s!

The cockpit is actually two levels. The rear level is where the aft most end of the boom extends. I'm 6'1" and the boom is well over my head, I estimated the 8ft. The fore of the cockpit is a bit higher, but the dodger covers it entirely and removes access to the entire mid-section of the boom. Still, it is 6+ ft above that deck. About a third of the boom is easily reached at the end by the mast.

When we drop the furled main for maintenance or winter, it is a royal PIA. (The Genoa is worse) Only my wife and I crew the boat, no way one person would drop and flake a traditional main. I suppose with lazy jack, etc, it would be possible. Just hope nothing requires you to reach it and fix it.

So far, zero hang ups with either furler (knock on wood) and, as you read, she loves to sail.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Ah, that makes some sense then... the main on that beast must be pretty big. 



Minnewaska said:


> A Jeanneau 54DS. Built before they switched to the fake teak and plastic seacocks on the 53s and 57s!
> 
> The cockpit is actually two levels. The rear level is where the aft most end of the boom extends. I'm 6'1" and the boom is well over my head, I estimated the 8ft. The fore of the cockpit is a bit higher, but the dodger covers it entirely and removes access to the entire mid-section of the boom. Still, it is 6+ ft above that deck. About a third of the boom is easily reached at the end by the mast.
> 
> ...


----------



## sailordave (Jun 26, 2001)

Minnewaska said:


> A Jeanneau 54DS. Built before they switched to the fake teak and plastic seacocks on the 53s and 57s!
> 
> The cockpit is actually two levels. The rear level is where the aft most end of the boom extends. I'm 6'1" and the boom is well over my head, I estimated the 8ft. The fore of the cockpit is a bit higher, but the dodger covers it entirely and removes access to the entire mid-section of the boom. Still, it is 6+ ft above that deck. About a third of the boom is easily reached at the end by the mast.
> 
> ...


All the more reason I don't want a boat over 40' in length. No offense but if I can't do MOST jobs on the boat by myself...
But that's my personal preference.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

Sailordave is profoundly correct on this one. 

If one single person cant manhandle (reef,stow,remove,replace) a single sodden sail on a pitching deck during howling storm conditions ... when such a sail HAS to come off, now ... the boat is either too big, the sailor bought a bill of goods, etc. etc. 

Usually the limit for a single healthy person to safely remove a sodden sail under any conditions is about ~400 sq. ft. ... and that SA limits one to about ~40-42 ft. LOA. for 'serious' single/double handed sailing.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

RichH said:


> Sailordave is profoundly correct on this one.
> 
> If one single person cant manhandle (reef,stow,remove,replace) a single sodden sail on a pitching deck during howling storm conditions ... when such a sail HAS to come off, now ... the boat is either too big, the sailor bought a bill of goods, etc. etc.
> 
> Usually the limit for a single healthy person to safely remove a sodden sail under any conditions is about ~400 sq. ft. ... and that SA limits one to about ~40-42 ft. LOA. for 'serious' single/double handed sailing.


You guys are funny. My boat's too big. Geeesh. :laugher

I never said one person couldn't drop the main at all. In fact, I've done it alone on the deck in near 20kts of wind. Didn't enjoy it, but that wasn't the requirement. I said that flaking a traditional main over the boom isn't going to happen, so having the furler for day to day ops is great.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

The real problem is if you're incapacitated, can your wife manhandle the sails if necessary??? IMHO, I agree with RichH, everything on a boat should ideally be capable of being handled by the smallest, least capable full crew member.



Minnewaska said:


> You guys are funny. My boat's too big. Geeesh. :laugher
> 
> I never said one person couldn't drop the main at all. In fact, I've done it alone on the deck in near 20kts of wind. Didn't enjoy it, but that wasn't the requirement. I said that flaking a traditional main over the boom isn't going to happen, so having the furler for day to day ops is great.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

Nobody said your boat is too big.

What was implied is that a 600 sq. ft. sail made from ~9oz. material is going to weigh about 120+lb. ... soak it with water and maybe 160#. and unless your physique is extraordinary, a normal person isnt going to able to wrestle with it ... and probably not two either.

For a point of comparsion, a 400 sq. ft. main of equivalent cloth will only weigh about 75-80# dry. and thats approximately the 'historical' limit that a single person can 'fight' on a pitching deck ... when such HAS TO come off. So, maybe your boat is too big ... to be safely handled by a single hander when the conditions so merit, probably too big for even two.

The point remains, that when an in-mast furler affects much more than a 30% SA reduction you dont have a 'sail' anymore, you then have essentially a 'pointy on the top' shaped flat-plate aloft. ... and youre not going to be able to go anywhere but 'downwind'. With a slab/jiffy/boom-roller reefing, the important 'broadseamed'/curved sections are always exposed to airflow.

So I guess what Im stating is that for greater SA reduction than a 'first reef' an in-mast furler is ..... almost *TOTALLY WORTHLESS* for sailing at any angle much above a beam reach.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Okey dokey.

SD makes a good point. Whatever happens, my wife does need to be able to handle it alone. The good news is, she's a pretty tough gal and I give her better than 50/50 odds in the worst scenario. She makes it a point to wanting to be able to do all sailing tasks herself. In fact, she usually volunteers to grind up the main (when we're on a boat that need to be  ) I fell in love with her when I walked into her apartment years ago and found her crawling around her attic replacing her dryer vent. She's a keeper.

I get the point about a heavy rain soaked sail. First, heavy weather procedure is not to drop the main, it is to furl her in and run another up the slot on the outside of the mast with the spare halyard. That isn't so tough with a smaller sail. In the worst case scenario, we would drop the main on the coach top and lash it all down at the base of the mast. My wife could undoubtedly do that. Ugly, but it would do in an emergency, there is plenty of room, the boom is chest high at the mast.

Also, keep in mind that she will sail just fine at 20kts of true wind with all the sheets fully out and just easing off the main a bit. You'll see 9+ kts all day long in those winds. When reefing that much sail becomes an issue for us, you've found yourself in some real snot that was probably avoidable for the coastal cruising we typically do.


----------



## duster (Jan 18, 2011)

mennewaska,

thanks for the info...what brand furling system do you have?

thanks


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

duster said:


> mennewaska,
> 
> thanks for the info...what brand furling system do you have?
> 
> thanks


The mast is made by Selden, so I assume that is who makes the in-mast furling inside it. The genoa furler is made by ProFurl.


----------



## danielgoldberg (Feb 9, 2008)

For the past 2+ years I've been living with my first in-mast furling mainsail. There are plusses and minuses, to be sure. That said, I think some of the more vociferous criticism seems to come from people who don't actually have the system. Here's my take on it, FWIW:

1. You definitely lose some performance, both because of size and also because of roach. It's not nearly as bad as it is being made out here. We have vertical battens, so we don't have negative roach. I wouldn't say we have too much roach at all, but it's there. The lack of sail area is something though. It's hard to "measure" because I haven't pulled our rig and replaced it with a standard mast and mainsail to figure out exactly how much more weatherly we would be, but it is my sense that we're not pointing as high or are as fast as I expect at times, and I'm attributing that to the main (because it certainly can't be my fault!).

2. You do have plenty of sail controls with an in-mast furling main. They are just different from a conventional main and you have to learn that. You certainly can have a cunningham, though granted most don't seem to be equipped that way. Likewise, you can effect draft with the outhaul and furling line. I have to say, you actually have a little bit more control and I can get my furling mainsail flatter than any other mainsail I've had. By playing the furling line, outhaul, vang and sheet, you can push, pull and stretch the sail just about any way you want it. If someone thinks there's a sail control for a main that you can't apply with a furling main, please speak up (seriously), as I'd be curious to see if I could pull it off.

3. I've taken ours offshore, and it has never given us a moment's problem. This was my BIGGEST concern about going to a furling main. I was very concerned about reliability, and what do I do if the main gets stuck halfway out (can't get it in, can't get it out to drop it). That fear still remains somewhat, but our system hasn't come close to giving us a problem on that front. Though the lines are led to winches, I have yet to be unable to furl or deploy the sail by hand. I probably just jinxed myelf, but there you have it.

4. The ease of use just can't be beat. CruisingDad one time advised me that we'll use our mainsail more because it's easier to use and put away. He was so right, and then some. Not only is it easier to use, but from a safety and performance standpoint, I am MUCH more likely to reef early, shake out a reef, adjust draft, etc., because it's so easy. The worst thing about changing gears with this thing is that it's too easy so I feel compelled to do it, yet I still have to put down my beer to make it happen, whereas with a traditional main I had the excuse of it being a hassle, so I could just keep on sippin'.

5. As I mentioned, we've had ours for about 2.5 years, and we don't see any more wear and tear than I would expect from a traditional main. And that includes some offshore trips with constant use. I'm not sure I see the point some make about the sail getting more wear because it's rolled. I sure don't seem to be experiencing that.

6. You do go through telltales. We seem to need to replace them every year, and sometimes in-season. I guess they don't tolerate getting rolled up too well.

As to the point some have made about requiring that everything on the boat be susceptible to being handled by one person alone, I'm not sure I'm buying that at all, and you would be concluding that a very large percentage of boats out there shouldn't be sailed because they require crew. FWIW (I know, "nothing"), I pretty much singlehand our boat all the time, but there in fact are some things with which I need help. I don't think that means our boat is "too big," but I guess others may disagree.

DG


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Can your wife singlehand the boat? If not, what happens if you get knocked overboard or hit in the head by the boom??? Exactly what is she supposed to do then? This is why I advocate having a boat that the smallest full-time adult crew can singlehand.



danielgoldberg said:


> As to the point some have made about requiring that everything on the boat be susceptible to being handled by one person alone, I'm not sure I'm buying that at all, and you would be concluding that a very large percentage of boats out there shouldn't be sailed because they require crew. FWIW (I know, "nothing"), I pretty much singlehand our boat all the time, but there in fact are some things with which I need help. I don't think that means our boat is "too big," but I guess others may disagree.
> 
> DG


----------



## danielgoldberg (Feb 9, 2008)

sailingdog said:


> Can your wife singlehand the boat? If not, what happens if you get knocked overboard or hit in the head by the boom??? Exactly what is she supposed to do then? This is why I advocate having a boat that the smallest full-time adult crew can singlehand.


It depends on the circumstances. Under most, she could manage to get the boat into port. But if everything goes wrong and the situation turns very ugly, and all the things go wrong that could go wrong, then who knows, to be candid. But the same holds true for me under a variety of circumstances. If you are going to cruise with kids, the practical reality is that there always are going to be theoretical circumstances where those on the boat might need help. That's just the reality, and it's the case just about every day on the water with, I dare say, the majority of the boats out there.

Are you suggesting that only boats that can be single-handed should be sailed? Really?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

No, but that should be a major consideration when looking at larger boats. Many larger boats become a huge problem if the primary sailor is injured or incapacitated in some way. There have been quite a few stories about boats having to be abandoned when one person out of the couple sailing aboard her was injured or incapacitated.



danielgoldberg said:


> It depends on the circumstances. Under most, she could manage to get the boat into port. But if everything goes wrong and the situation turns very ugly, and all the things go wrong that could go wrong, then who knows, to be candid. But the same holds true for me under a variety of circumstances. If you are going to cruise with kids, the practical reality is that there always are going to be theoretical circumstances where those on the boat might need help. That's just the reality, and it's the case just about every day on the water with, I dare say, the majority of the boats out there.
> 
> Are you suggesting that only boats that can be single-handed should be sailed? Really?


----------



## bosn181 (Feb 7, 2010)

*in mast furling debate (war of the roses)*

I have been sailing for 20+ years. When I say sailing I mean not being "alongside" and out on the ocean. My boat is faster than yours and my boat does this and yours doesn't is really getting tired. Being on the water is something to behold and enjoyed!
They make all kinds of boats and gear for different folks! Power boaters think wind power is slow and sailors think they are purists.
Opinions of systems should always consider the users ambitions.
Enjoy the journey.

By the way I am a sailor. I have enjoyed all the valid points, just think the constructive criticism on this topic was being lost.


----------



## dhays (Jul 9, 2010)

bosn181 said:


> By the way I am a sailor. I have enjoyed all the valid points, just think the constructive criticism on this topic was being lost.


You're not trying to bring rationality into a religious discussion are you? 

I recently moved to a boat with a furling main. I do miss the sail shape of even the old, blown out main on my last boat. I love the convenience and we sail more than we used to. For how I use the boat, and where we sail, in-mast furling is wonderful. If I lived elsewhere, raced again, did blue-water cruising, I would not only use a different system but would have a different boat.

I'm sold on in-mast and will never go back unless there is a better solution for my needs developed.


----------



## robfox (Aug 9, 2008)

*In Mast furler*

Once again I have learned a lot from reading a sailnet thread.
I am fortunate that we bought our present 37 foot yacht set up with Harkan Batcars & a very good single line reefing system for the main.It enables me to put in reefs without leaving the cockpit and at any point of sail.
Just before Christmas we were on a 60 mile coastal sail when our forecast 15 knots (on a broad reach) went to 30knots and gusted up to 40 knots.I put 3 reefs in without drama while my wife steered downwind.A couple of rolls in the headsail and comfortable sailing at up to 8.5 knots.
We are looking for our next yacht which will be bigger and many of those available have in mast furling.
What I have learned from this forum has reinforced my previous views that, for me,single line reefing is essential. It also rules out any yacht that has in mast furling because of the cost to change over.
This is a personal decision of mine and no reflection of anyone elses choice.
Thanks again for your contributions and advice.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

One point. A double line reefing system is actually a lot better in terms of being able to control sail shape. This is especially the case as the sails get larger. With a single line system you can not control the tension on the foot of the sail as well and can't control the sail shape as easily as you can with a double line system.



robfox said:


> Once again I have learned a lot from reading a sailnet thread.
> I am fortunate that we bought our present 37 foot yacht set up with Harkan Batcars & a very good single line reefing system for the main.It enables me to put in reefs without leaving the cockpit and at any point of sail.
> Just before Christmas we were on a 60 mile coastal sail when our forecast 15 knots (on a broad reach) went to 30knots and gusted up to 40 knots.I put 3 reefs in without drama while my wife steered downwind.A couple of rolls in the headsail and comfortable sailing at up to 8.5 knots.
> We are looking for our next yacht which will be bigger and many of those available have in mast furling.
> ...


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

There's a 'functional' problem with in-mast furlers as most discussions of the in-mast 'furlers' only dwell on the 'mechanicals' ... and there is a vastly more important consideration - SAIL SHAPE. The following will hopefully explain why in-mast reefing is of very LOW BENEFIT, (beyond 'ease of use' and disregarding entirely the _reliability_, etc. issues of the 'hardware') in controlling the all important sail SHAPE: ...

Sails are not 'flat sheets of cloth', they are quasi-spherical 3 dimensional shapes ... for a damn good reason: aerodynamics. Just about any sail has most of its camber or position of max. draft (POMD) at somewhere near mid-cord of the full-up sail; the 'approach or entry shapes' to the POMD will usually be found to begin @~15-20% of cord length. Most sails that are roller reefed are left FLAT, essentially NO GOOD for 'aerodynamic flow' and typically when beyond 30% 'roll-up' are no longer or greatly reduced 'aerodynamic shapes' .... and simply cannot be used effectively when beyond the 30% 'roll-up'.

Plus, when in conditions that require one to reef you usually (when in non-FLAT water) need a 'full drafted' sail for the POWER it supplies for punching into waves and steep chop; when roller reefing (beyond ~30%) all you're going to get is a distorted FLAT (the panel shape aft of the mid-cord is ~'FLAT') and that 'flatness' is for SPEED SAILING in FLAT WATER and definitely NOT the 'shape' you want for *PUNCHING THROUGH" and over waves and steep chop. If you roller-reef beyond that ~30% then all you're going to have aloft is something akin to an NON-aerodynamic 'flat sheet of plywood --- something with very much LESS than the 3 dimensional shape of a 'sail', although it may 'look like' a sail because its 'triangular'. 
With a roller boom or slab reefed sail you can always 'move' the important POMB back and forth via halyard and/or cunningham tension .... try that with a in-mast furler and you will JAM the furler and without any change in POMD because it can be thus trapped deep within the 'roll' !!!!! therefore NO change in the POMB fore/aft location. With inmast roller reefing, you can adjust the outhaul until you have a spinnaker like shape or a flat as a sheet of plywood shape .... but NOTHING that you can do with an in-mast roller furler-reefer will change the position of the POMB!!!!!!!!!!! (the position of the POMB is the functional item that has the GREATEST effect on 'balancing the helm pressure' and much more effect than the amount of sail area exposed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Roller BOOM reefing, or better - slab reefing, will keep the POMD where it belongs, AND, you can power-up or power-down by changing the luff tension (via halyard or cunningham strain), etc. to change the location of Point of Max. Draft POMD to where its 'most effective' for the present wind and seastate conditions .... and can do this POMD relocation when single reefed, double reefed or 'deeper'.

So, If your cruising plans include venues wherein you might possibly be beating instead of ~100% of the time 'going downhill', then that FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENT to have an aerodynamic shape aloft in high wind range conditions would almost entirely, ... or should, EXCLUDE an in-mast furler. 
If however your intended venue is only for 'moderate' conditions that almost all of the time will only need a maximum 'single reef', then in-mast furling/reefing will be 'fine' .... (and with NO comments about 'reliability').

My emphasis here is SAFETY, not 'performance' as if you cant 'point' when you 'really NEED' to ... you're now vulnerable and 'dangerous'.

;-)


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Nicely said Rich.


----------



## rjcaudle (Jun 27, 2010)

I took my sailing lessons on boats with conventional mains, but purchased a 34' Tartan with in mast furling.

We have made two offshore trips and on one encountered significant storm. For a newbie I would have been very nervous trying to reef the main in those conditions, as the squall came up quickly. Howerver with the in mast furler, the sail was brought in within seconds without leaving the cockpit.

Also for me in learning I can change the amount of main up very easily by myself and experiment in different levels of wind. I doubt I would do that with a conventional reefing system (just too lazy)

I am sure there are compromises as there is less sail and no battens, but the advantages at this point in my skill set seem to outway the disadvantages. 

I have yet to have any problem with furling or unfurling, but the boat is rel new (2006)

rjc


----------



## HeartsContent (Sep 14, 2010)

It is my understanding that you roll in what you need to "flatten" and "reduce" the sail for the conditions. I think the comparison to slab reef points doesn't really work as this system is variable - set what you need.

I suspect that these systems are not targeted at the "purist" sailor which equates to a tiny minority of the sailing population. Some of these roller furler mains are getting some really good reviews on their upwind and overall performance and speeds that work for me. Couple that with ease of use and it's pretty attractive for most sailors.


----------



## Iolanthesf (Jul 5, 2010)

A thought regarding weight aloft: Permanent weight aloft will slow roll due to inertia at the masthead, but will also cause more heeling. If you really want it in a particular situation, it is easy to hoist a weight aloft. Another alternative would be to put a section of PVC pipe inside the mast at the top, and provide to pump water aloft when needed. This would be aerodynamically clean, lightweight when not needed, and much more socially acceptable than hoisting a nervous passenger up the mast in a storm.


----------



## WDS123 (Apr 2, 2011)

In mast furlers are a disaster, how does one control the mainsail shape if one can not change the Pre bend of the mast.....

Open up the leech ?
Tighten up the forestry ?

They also tend to have massive sections which eliminates 20-30% of the mainsail from having effective laminar flow.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

WDSchock said:


> .....how does one control the mainsail shape if one can not change the Pre bend of the mast.........


The only large impact shape adjustment we can make is with the outhaul. It is pretty effective to alter the curve front to back, since the foot is loose from the boom, and we use it to match the genoa after it has been trimmed.. The vang and travelers can be used too, but more subtly.

Since our boat was originally designed to have a furling main, I suspect the 135 genoa (you can fly a 150 as well), was designed to do most of the work. It certainly does. In fact, deep downwind, we are often tempted to reef or entirely furl the main just to get it out of the way. We are very pleased with performance overall and mainsail shape is not usually a concern.


----------



## VIEXILE (Jan 10, 2001)

No to in-mast furling. When it goes sideways, you're goose is cooked. I dealt with one with electric winches on a Jeanneau 56DS. I was never fully comfortable with it, always expecting a failure, and I recall it jamming once and causing several hours of . . . contemplation. And digging. I can't remember how we got the whole main out, but we did and were very, very careful with it thereafter. Seems as though you had to have just the right tension on the outhaul or it would bunch up in the spar or something. Could be wrong.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Huh. How does this 9 year old thread come back to life for the second time? It started in 2004.

The number one problem with jamming the sail in a modern furling main, is the sail, not the furler. Once blown out, they bunch too much, when furling. Do I recall correctly that you chartered the 54DS (no such thing as a 56DS) and charter sails are often a problem. Outhaul tension does become more of a focus, as the sail starts to blow out, but it's putting a band aid on the real problem. Proper sails require no special effort on the outhaul. It is, however, critical, that the vang and mainsheet have enough play to allow the boom to move as the sail goes in or out. I also prefer to have wind coming 5-10 degrees from the side of the mast the sail furls into. You don't want to have it coming from the other side, causing the sail to drag along the slot.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

Lol! After this thread dies down maybe we should dredge up an old "what is the best anchor" thread for more fun!

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## VIEXILE (Jan 10, 2001)

Minnewaska said:


> Huh. How does this 9 year old thread come back to life for the second time? It started in 2004.
> 
> The number one problem with jamming the sail in a modern furling main, is the sail, not the furler. Once blown out, they bunch too much, when furling. Do I recall correctly that you chartered the 54DS (no such thing as a 56DS) and charter sails are often a problem. Outhaul tension does become more of a focus, as the sail starts to blow out, but it's putting a band aid on the real problem. Proper sails require no special effort on the outhaul. It is, however, critical, that the vang and mainsheet have enough play to allow the boom to move as the sail goes in or out. I also prefer to have wind coming 5-10 degrees from the side of the mast the sail furls into. You don't want to have it coming from the other side, causing the sail to drag along the slot.


 Nope. A Dr. owned it and I drove it some over the course of a couple years around the V.I., PR and the BVI. And it was a 54DS. That was over 10 years ago. She showed up brand spanky new.


----------



## VIEXILE (Jan 10, 2001)

This is light years different than "best anchor" arguments. A crappy in-mast furler - and there are some out there - ain't worth spit. A great one is undoubtedly worth it's weight in gold.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

VIEXILE said:


> Nope. A Dr. owned it and I drove it some over the course of a couple years around the V.I., PR and the BVI. And it was a 54DS. That was over 10 years ago. She showed up brand spanky new.


Was that the MARY ELLEN? Dr out of RI/MA owned it, kept it in Red Hook. I knew of it. Ridden hard, put away wet. If sails were not furling properly day one, it was not the furler. If I have the boat right, I guarantee it.


----------



## VIEXILE (Jan 10, 2001)

It was delivered back and forth at least twice from MA to VI, one very rough delivery. He loved to race it, so yes, ridden hard. The sails were furling fine for the first year or so. I only recall it jamming once, and it was an inopportune time. I called it the "Hairy Melon." Nice boat. Ridden hard and put away wet. Sold to a guy, as I recall, with MI-6. For 1/3 of what he had into it. I believe the furler was working fine at the time.
I didn't say your DS had a crappy furler. I said this one jammed _once. _ Easy big boy.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

VIEXILE said:


> I didn't say your DS had a crappy furler. I said this one jammed _once. _ Easy big boy.


Not feeling anything personal at all, or any criticism of my boat. I recognized you said it jammed once, but you also said you were never comfortable with it. I wouldn't be either on that particular boat.

Sounds like we are talking about the same guy/boat. It was beat on and for sale for literally years. He had to give it away.


----------



## VIEXILE (Jan 10, 2001)

Not the boat I recall. It probably shouldn't have been raced, but Amantha Yacht Management took pretty good care of it in the slip and kept it spotless, techs came down to deal with tuning the funky standing rigging, and the delivery captain knew what he was doing. Things happened, I hit a coral head with the rudder, but that was all professionally repaired. He did blow the dodger off at night headed to SXM across the Anegada Passage. I don't remember it ever being damaged beyond me hitting the coral head coming out of the STX Yacht Club, but I got it hauled immediately. No big deal. It was never a charter beater like the others over in the BVI , , , just checked Yachtworld. He got more for it than the current asking prices on the first page of 54DS. Where did you get your inside information? Did you see the boat at Sapphire or sail it? It doesn't really matter. I'm grabbing a quick Sun Odyssey to refit and flip right now. The sail the Tartan 37 down in April/May.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I know two people who crewed on that boat, one I know pretty well, the other I met on STT. If I got more specific, I'd be afraid of that owner getting wind of this and dragging them into something they didn't volunteer for. 

I also follow the North American market for my boat, so knew of it's availability for many years. It sold many years back, so not fair to compare it to today's 16 year old values. Many 54DS sold in the time it was available, for a reason.

I have a bit more, but really don't need to drag that boat or owner through the mud. I was only trying to make the case that it wasn't the best specimen for judging the reliability of boat systems. 

Other than beat up bunchy sails being a generic problem, the outhaul car from the factory on these boats came with ball bearings. Sounds like a nice thing, but the aluminum housing would wear and one bearing would sneak out of the gap and jam and cause serious problems getting it to slide. This would happen prematurely, the more side pressure was on the car. I replaced them with graphite slides and it's been like butter ever since.


----------



## VIEXILE (Jan 10, 2001)

I jumped off the boat end of the 2nd year. I know all about it. All new "crews" that had nothing to do with the original delivery crew or people that helped in the beginning. I got lots more, but know enough to stay out of it.


----------

