# Just curious - why so many Hunter haters here on this board?



## cdy (Nov 10, 2013)

Seems to be a number of posters here that only have bad things to say about the brand.

I am not much of the fan of the no-backstay swept back spreader style but the older boats were pretty decent - good for coastal cruising , which is probably what 95% of sailors do at the most.

I remember reading in Latitude 38 a number of years ago about a guy who bought himself a larger Hunter ( new) taught himself how to sail and sailed it around the world - Harkrider possibly was his name - the articles about him were interesting, I believe he died of a massive heart attack a few years ago. 

Always thought the old Hunter 37 with the cutter rig would be a decent offshore boat - granted its no Pacific Seacraft but then you can pick one up for about $20K and beef it up.


----------



## alctel (Jan 25, 2014)

: popcorn :


----------



## RTB (Mar 5, 2009)

The haters will show up. Don't worry. BTW, I have the same boat as you alctel.
Ralph


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

cdy said:


> I am not much of the fan of the no-backstay swept back spreader style but the older boats were pretty decent - good for coastal cruising , which is probably what 95% of sailors do at the most.


Many would agree with you on that distinction, as do I. From a personal aesthetics point of view I'm good with up to the end of the Legend series in early 90s.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

I only speak from my own experiences with Hunter boats and not one that I have sailed is a boat that I would want to take offshore. I also speak from the viewpoint of someone who is not a coastal or weekend sailor. I'm sure every Hunter would be suitable for that sort of service.
As for taking ANY boat around the world well, anyone can get lucky. I've known Wharram cats that have made the trip without incident and they are held together (by design) with lashings. But I've been sailing long enough to have experienced several tropical cyclonic storms at sea, numerous gales and even several collisions with objects at sea that most likely would have destroyed a less well built vessel.
I would love to know what you mean by 'beef it up'. As in add a full length keelson? Double the thickness of the hull, especially at the waterline? Add a few frames and stringers?
Some of the most well made and beautiful boats from Scandinavia are total disasters as cruising boats, because they do not have decent ventilation below, an absolute necessity for any vessel cruising the tropics. Most Hunters I've been aboard have incredibly livable interiors, with wonderful innovations that many other designers could do well to follow. And others that seem totally insane, like putting the generator in a tiny compartment under the galley floor.
If you want to buy a Hunter and cruise the Caribbean, after some time coastal sailing where you live, there are ships that carry yachts at a pretty reasonable rate, if you don't feel it wise to sail your boat south (or north). I've heard that some of these carriers will even do a bottom job on your boat, so that saves the cost of a haul out.
Any boat can pretty much go anywhere if one is lucky, so I guess the Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry quote is what one want to ask one's self before one buys any boat not commonly considered a good, safe ocean cruiser.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

First you have to seperate out Hunters of today versus a number of years ago, basically it depends on the designer, some oversaw better builds than others. 

Second is what are you looking for. Hunters today are basically the Chevy's of the sea. They are absolutely fine, but they simply don't have the build quality of say an Oyster (Rolls Royce), or the performance like a J-Boat (Mustang). They aren't bad as much as built to a price, but for that price they are great. 

There was however a time period where due to pushing the knowledge Hunter turned out some seriously flawed boats. In the early days of grid construction they made some mistakes and a number of well publicized new boats had to be chain sawed because they really couldn't be fixed economically. But if you are looking at USC boats, they either had the grid problem or didn't, by now any that did have already been junked.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Arcb said:


> I think Hunters get a bad rep mostly because regular people can afford them which enrages the Yachties and the Cruisers.


:thewave:

Most of the Hunter bashers on internet forums would be lucky to have a boat as nice as my Hunter instead of their old crappy boat of 3 yesterdecades ago!

BTW - cats don't have backstays and lots of the new boats have spread back spreaders just like a B&R rig. Just another advancement that pisses off oldies.


----------



## denverd0n (Jun 20, 2008)

Hunters are like Walmart.

Everyone complains about Walmart. Talks about the poor service and cheap products. Criticizes the ticky-tacky sameness and lack of character. But their parking lots are always full. And the people who complain the most... Where do they go when they want to pick up something quick and cheap? That's right; we all know exactly where they go.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Don0190 said:


> BTW - cats don't have backstays and lots of the new boats have spread back spreaders just like a B&R rig. Just another advancement that pisses off oldies.


Every boat is a compromise. I have two issues with swept back spreaders. Most significant is that they limit how far you can ease out the main without chafe. That is a problem.

Second is the problem of an HF/SSB radio antenna. As more boats have in-mast furling this becomes less of a problem. For boats that carry sails with a lot of roach (enabled by the absence of a backstay) finding a place for an antenna other than a whip is challenging.

Otherwise, and certainly from a structural perspective, rigs like the B&R are fine.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

SVAuspicious said:


> Every boat is a compromise. I have two issues with swept back spreaders. Most significant is that they limit how far you can ease out the main without chafe. That is a problem.


My sail has chafe patches on it for where it hits the spreaders. The sail is 16 years old and the chafe patches have not yet needed to be replaced.

Like most "Hunter" type things it really is only a problem on internet forums.

BTW - I feel that SSB is going the way of the dinosaurs. Like everything I post it is only my opinion.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

I don't see it. Not too many "Hunter Haters" here, as I think that most of us understand the compromises involved in all aspects of designing any boat.

Things that I don't like about some of the Hunters that I teach on;

In-mast roller furling
Swept back spreader rig
One has a self-tending jib which $uck$
Many have relatively high freeboard
The "Hunter Arch" and bimini block your view of the sail and the top of the mast
The handling of that Cherubini 37 cutter in a confined space

Things that I like about some of the Hunters that I teach on;

The amount of interior room
The fact that the boats are loaded with ammenities, at least compared with my ancient tub
All of the through hulls are under ONE panel
Big Yanmar engines
The Cherubini 37 while crossing Buzzards Bay through chop is as stable as any boat of that size could be
The price you pay for what you get

Given the choice, in general I'd opt for a similar sized Catalina (better overall build quality IMHO. But, I have no hate for Hunters.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

Arcb said:


> Ha ha, I would love to have the close quarters handling ability of a 37' Cherubini.


You can have it! It will be for sale soon in Rhode Island. Price guesstimate is ~$40K. PM me if you want details.


----------



## alctel (Jan 25, 2014)

RTB said:


> The haters will show up. Don't worry. BTW, I have the same boat as you alctel.
> Ralph


Yeah, you've got the model with a QB right? Interested to see how that looks


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

I had serious thoughts about buying a Hunter 28.5 until I saw the Morgan 33 Out Island sitting next to it.

Gary


----------



## robert sailor (Jun 22, 2015)

Don0190 said:


> My sail has chafe patches on it for where it hits the spreaders. The sail is 16 years old and the chafe patches have not yet needed to be replaced.
> 
> Like most "Hunter" type things it really is only a problem on internet forums.
> 
> BTW - I feel that SSB is going the way of the dinosaurs. Like everything I post it is only my opinion.


The chafe patches work just fine and for coastal sailing you can simply reach back and forth when you are well off the wind and your good to go. Sailing for days on end offshore on a dead downwind course is when deeply swept back spreaders are a bit of a pain because you simply can't let the main out far enough. As the breeze pipes up your main is contributing to helm which makes the vane or autopilot work more than if the sail was almost 90 degrees to the wind. The Hunter is not alone with deeply swept spreaders as the French boats share that same design. It's a cheaper rig to build so that's a plus but dead downwind is its weakness. Now being an ex beer can racer type we never sailed dead downwind because it's most often the slowest point of sail but with good steady trade winds it's not uncommon to be doing hull speed ddw so it's a favorite set up for many sailors. Main all the way out and prevented and the jib poled out, life is good.


----------



## RTB (Mar 5, 2009)

alctel said:


> Yeah, you've got the model with a QB right? Interested to see how that looks


I'll try to get you a pic or two. Right now, I'm prepping for Hermine, and the quarter berth is full of stuff!

Ralph


----------



## Siamese (May 9, 2007)

I don't know where you get the "Hunter hater" thing. And by "so many", you're talking about a large group? I don't think so. I've been a member of this site for many years, and have never noticed any "Hunter haters". 

I've seen them criticized, along with other production boats like Beneteau and Catalina, but some of that might be attributed to some people not understanding the role and function of a "coastal cruiser". 

If what you're looking for is a discussion on Hunters, that's fine, but how about dropping the "hater" label? Who needs that kind of divisiveness?


----------



## krisscross (Feb 22, 2013)

Side question: 
Which (if any) of the Cherubini Hunters had encapsulated lead keel instead of a bolt on keel?
Any info will be appreciated.


----------



## RobGallagher (Aug 22, 2001)

Ahhhh, it's like he never left.

Anyway, there are not many Hunter "haters". There are those that drop the occasional jab or snide remark, but that's life in general.

What happens is usually one of two things;

1. Someone starts a thread about how Hunters are just as good or superior to all other vessels, capable of anything and probably better at it, then the cannons fire. Then the OP backpedals and says everything is a trade off, then towards the end of the post comes another: Hunters are just as good as anything, probably better. Any attempt at reasonable conversation is taken as a jab, the cannons fire another volley.

2. Someone joins and starts a thread asking if they should buy this Hunter off craigslist to sail around the world, leaving next week, with little or no sailing experience, does the engine really need to be running and what kind of water maker do I need? They are probably never heard from again as they went off to the hang gliding or base jumping forums to ask silly questions. This leaves the rest of us arguing about stringers or keels falling off Oysters and Hunters. No one ever mentions a life raft or a Sat phone or an epirb.

Henredon sells couches, so does Ikea. If I had to take my dream couch around the world, I would do it on a Heredon couch, but others have gone 'round the world on an Ikea couch.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Interesting cheribini must of had a thing for B&R rigs. Even the 48' schooner was offered with one for the main mast. Believe they are north of 1 mil to build now. Personally like the look of a boomkin better on that boat. Both they and the various no fixed backstay square heads are by no means cheap. 
Think the philosophy of a two string boat has more to do with it. Self tacking jib, in mast furler so flying/striking or underway you only need to attend to two strings at any given time.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

robert sailor said:


> The chafe patches work just fine and for coastal sailing you can simply reach back and forth when you are well off the wind and your good to go. Sailing for days on end offshore on a dead downwind course is when deeply swept back spreaders are a bit of a pain because you simply can't let the main out far enough. As the breeze pipes up your main is contributing to helm which makes the vane or autopilot work more than if the sail was almost 90 degrees to the wind. The Hunter is not alone with deeply swept spreaders as the French boats share that same design. It's a cheaper rig to build so that's a plus but dead downwind is its weakness. Now being an ex beer can racer type we never sailed dead downwind because it's most often the slowest point of sail but with good steady trade winds it's not uncommon to be doing hull speed ddw so it's a favorite set up for many sailors. Main all the way out and prevented and the jib poled out, life is good.


Almost by definition, all catamarans have this type of rig. Done correctly, I don't see why chafe patches are only a short-term coastal thing. When we are sailing downwind, we simply let the sail lie on the shrouds - even bending over them a bit. While we haven't sailed that way for weeks on end, we have sailed that way for days on end. Many times - and our chafe patches look like new.

When the wind picks up enough, the weather helm and handling does increase, but this is a matter of degree - by the time it occurs on a swept rig, it is right on the edge of a conventional rig. So when the swept rig is taking in a reef, the conventional rig better be making plans to.

I think most offshore DDW cruising is done without the main. I doubt most cruising boats will find jibing angles to be faster than DDW. That is mostly a theoretical point that is relevant to faster boats in specific conditions.

Mark


----------



## cdy (Nov 10, 2013)

It seems not that many Hunter haters just some who see some short comings.
My belief is the "best" boat is whatever gets you out on the water the most.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

SVAuspicious said:


> Every boat is a compromise. I have two issues with swept back spreaders. Most significant is that they limit how far you can ease out the main without chafe. That is a problem.
> 
> Second is the problem of an HF/SSB radio antenna. As more boats have in-mast furling this becomes less of a problem. For boats that carry sails with a lot of roach (enabled by the absence of a backstay) finding a place for an antenna other than a whip is challenging.
> 
> Otherwise, and certainly from a structural perspective, rigs like the B&R are fine.


What is wrong with a whip? Our 28' whip works wonderfully. Catamarans don't have backstays but many do have good HF rigs. Besides a whip, an insulated shroud, free-standing rope antenna and GAM-like antennas on a shroud are common options for these boats.

The chafe thing is a non-issue if accommodated for in the sail and rigging setup. Our sail spends half of its sailing life lying against the shrouds.

In-mast furling on a B&R rig (or catamaran) is like putting a governor on a Maserrati. You can, but you give up any advantage the rig offers and accentuate any disadvantages inherent in it.

Mark


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Hunter hating is just being a boat snob, but where people with crappy boats get to feel they are part of the upper society by joining in.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

robert sailor said:


> Main all the way out and prevented and the jib poled out, life is good.


Spinnaker. *grin*



colemj said:


> I think most offshore DDW cruising is done without the main. I doubt most cruising boats will find jibing angles to be faster than DDW. That is mostly a theoretical point that is relevant to faster boats in specific conditions.


Spinnaker. *big grin*



colemj said:


> What is wrong with a whip?


From a radio performance point of view, nothing. It's just another end-fed vertical with a tuner.

Mechanically it depends on the boat. It can be difficult to properly support the whip depending on the specific boat. Depending on location the whip becomes a hand hold for people climbing on and off the boat from docks and dinghies. I've seen a number of them snagged on pilings during docking. Whips aren't a perfect solution, but a very reasonable one. Insulated backstays aren't perfect either but are also reasonable. No backstay, one less option to consider.



colemj said:


> Catamarans don't have backstays but many do have good HF rigs. Besides a whip, an insulated shroud, free-standing rope antenna and GAM-like antennas on a shroud are common options for these boats.


Insulated shrouds work well, better if the spreader tips are insulated from the rigging wire. Free-standing rope antennas (like the RopeAntenna or home-made alternatives often called alternate backstay antennas) work great. I've had quite mixed results with the GAM antenna.

I wasn't suggesting in-mast furling (to my knowledge my boat is the only one of its make and model with a conventional full-batten main). Lots of people have them however. I was simply recognizing that reality. A main with a nice full roach can make alternate backstay antennas problematic. Choices then are a whip or a shroud (or a kite or a balloon).



colemj said:


> The chafe thing is a non-issue if accommodated for in the sail and rigging setup. Our sail spends half of its sailing life lying against the shrouds.


I'll take your word for your experience with sail chafe. I am a product of my training and experience and concern over sail chafe is organic to me now. I ease the sail to the spreaders, rig the preventer, and grind the sail off the rig with the main sheet. I have seen enough sail chafe on delivery boats to sustain my concern. Sailing other people's boats, responsible for their belongings, doesn't contribute to experimenting. *grin*

So share some more please. What material is your sail made of? Are the chafe panels made of the same material? Have you done anything more than tape or boots on your spreader tips? How often do you inspect for snags? On your boat does the sail slide over the rig underway or just lay there? Do you pull the sail back in higher winds? When the boat starts rolling? Any other time when you change how you trim sails?


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

If the BR rigged boat owners were to to do a lot of trade wind sailing, the smart ones would opt for a twin pole/double headsail arrangement. Seems the European cruisers have this down pat. The yanks, not so much. Wonder if most Hunter owners even own a pole?
Don?


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

SVAuspicious said:


> So share some more please. What material is your sail made of? Are the chafe panels made of the same material? Have you done anything more than tape or boots on your spreader tips? How often do you inspect for snags? On your boat does the sail slide over the rig underway or just lay there? Do you pull the sail back in higher winds? When the boat starts rolling? Any other time when you change how you trim sails?


Dacron sail. The previous one had dacron webbing sewn onto the batten pockets and the current one has some sort of HMWPE plastic sewn/glued on them. The spreaders are not connected to the shrouds (catamaran), so the tips are not an issue - just the shrouds. The shrouds have a pvc cover on them. I don't understand what you mean by snags. The sail moves on the shrouds somewhat, I guess. We have a rigid vang that prevents a lot of up-down movement, but there is always mast movement and sail pressure. Normal operation DDW is to let the battens bend a bit over the shroud and to pull in as wind increases so that they stay at that bit of bend. The vang helps a lot here. At a certain wind speed, a reef is put in. If our boat starts rolling, we have bigger issues.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

aeventyr60 said:


> Wonder if most Hunter owners even own a pole?


Sure they do. They need it to beat the dead horse.

Mark


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

colemj said:


> I don't understand what you mean by snags.
> 
> *snip*
> 
> At a certain wind speed, a reef is put in. If our boat starts rolling, we have bigger issues.


Snags to me are meathooks in the rigging, fasteners backing out - the usual stuff we all have to watch out for.

Yeah, I forgot the catamaran thing. That does generally solve rolling problems. *grin*


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

A swept rig isn't any different from a conventional one when it comes to snags. For a catamaran rig, it can be much simpler than a conventional one with fewer "parts". A B&R rig may be a bit more complicated than most with the extra diamonds, but no backstay. We check our rigging whenever we think about it or go up the mast for any reason. Probably like most, this is a once/yr thing at best, or something done only before a passage.

Mark


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

Arcb said:


> Aeyventure, what a strange comment, I don't believe I have ever been on a decent sized cruising sailboat without a pole, Hunter or other wise. All the Hunter owners I know certainly have them.


Well, Arcb, I think it's strange too, to see so many modern cruising boats, here in SE Asia without poles. Very rare to see anybody flying a cruising chute either. I'd go wander around the marina and give you a count but I'm off to Thailnad in the next few days....


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

colemj said:


> A swept rig isn't any different from a conventional one when it comes to snags. For a catamaran rig, it can be much simpler than a conventional one with fewer "parts". A B&R rig may be a bit more complicated than most with the extra diamonds, but no backstay. We check our rigging whenever we think about it or go up the mast for any reason. Probably like most, this is a once/yr thing at best, or something done only before a passage.


We're on the same page for rigging inspection. I was mostly wondering whether you checked more often associated with laying the main on the rigging.

I fully appreciate your perspective. I'm still not laying a sail against the rigging.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

aeventyr60 said:


> Don?


I'm not interested in the bait from Hunter bashers looking to start spinning some story!


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Think the issue is more about sail shape and safety. 

See in mast with Dacron and get nervous. As Dacron stretches sail gets baggy. Especially in the middle. Now when it rolls you get vertical wrinkles which cause doubling up of the thickness at each place there's a wrinkle. Especially bad if there's vertical battens. B&R doesn't permit any attempt to bend mast tip aft and middle forward to take draft out of sail in higher wind speeds which is just as well as mandrill of in mast won't function with any bend. However given sails are expensive and often replaced well after there due date and often are Dacron of that type of boat the whole system presents a risk. 
Some may say this rarely happens. Just need it to happen once. Did to me on transit back from Bermuda. Not a fan of that combo. 
Also although solents are a pita when tacking a genny back and forth they are a pleasure when DDW with both headsails out. Fly this or parasail with no main. It makes sense if there's a long board. Coastal with just two the genny on one side and main on the other is easier or just going to 160 keeping both full with the AP steering. So for 95% of boaters see nothing wrong the B&R with self tacking jib. Much less work and more fun.


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

Didmt you read the fine print in the terms of service when signing up to sailnet...hating something, anything, is a prerequisite. Required. If you dont hate on something within 10 posts, you will be suspended.
Haters gonna hate and this is the home of haters!


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

xort said:


> Didmt you read the fine print in the terms of service when signing up to sailnet...hating something, anything, is a prerequisite. Required. If you dont hate on something within 10 posts, you will be suspended.
> Haters gonna hate and this is the home of haters!


OMG, I hate negative people!


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

I hate haters. I appreciate Hunters. They do a great job as a cruising boat. Think it totally foolish to hate a brand any brand. Critiquing a feature of a boat, any boat, is a very, very different thing than hating a brand. The in mast that hung up on me was on a cc 59' Hinckley. Does that mean I hate Hinckleys. Don't think so. In fact if anyone wants to give me a SW 42 please go for it. When I think B&R I think Cheribini. Be delighted with one of those as well. 
This seems a core issue. When thinking about boats most think about design features and their pluses and minuses. That's helpful and informative. When anyone dumps on a brand it's just foolish. The B&R has many pluses. No limitation of roach, less likely to pump, rigid making furling rather than reefing systems more likely to function. But to point out minuses in no way shape or form is brand trashing. See B&R on some very high end boats. It has nothing to do with brand.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

Don0190 said:


> I'm not interested in the bait from Hunter bashers looking to start spinning some story!


Not a basher at all. I noticed if anybody starts to have any kind of discussion on design features, or how many are choosing to sail their B & rigs then the you get your panties in an uproar.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

I'm still not interested in being part of your story


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Bleemus' thread has some good info in it about in mast might want to take a look instead of being the understudy for he who was banned. Then you can be part of your own story.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

outbound said:


> Bleemus' thread has some good info in it about in mast might want to take a look instead of being the understudy for he who was banned. Then you can be part of your own story.


Is this some type of code? Did you get threads confused?


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

Don't see it. Most of the pot shots I've seen (or taken) at Hunters were to tweak a select few, usually after they had said something silly like 'my Hunter is built just as good as a Hinkley' or just because they were being generally obstinate. That being said, the newer ones are really eyesores. But plenty of people buy ugly ranches and split levels on land, too, so it depends on what you want out of your boat.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

Don0190 said:


> I'm still not interested in being part of your story


I hate to post this picture, but need to keep you informed. I know you won't like it either. I'm sure you'll hate it too. The mighty hunter, half way around the world, with no pole.

So i did the dock walk today, looks like 20 percent of the modern production boats don't have poles. You'd be shocked at the Bene's, Bava, Jeanues, without basic sail controls.

Would you like a picture of some modern Selden masts without fittings for a pole too?


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

A useless subject post except to support your boat snob identity need


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

Arcb said:


> Since Aeventyre60's profile says his boat is a 1977, I wonder if it would be fair to post a pic of a random 1977and claim all boats made that year are unfit for sea? Me thinks it would not be hard to find a 40 year old boat that was unfit for sea.
> 
> My boat also is from the 70's, so I don't feel this is the case, I'm just illustrating the invalidity of the above pics.


Looks like some of you guys have reading comprehension issues. In an early part of this thread I mentioned that some of the modern production boats I see out here don't have poles. Another poster kinda shrugged and mentioned that most or all of the cruising boats he see's have poles.

Just to satisfy my own curiosity, and to see if I was just talking out my azz, I took a walk around the marina and took a few pictures. I am/was really surprised at the number of boats without poles. So I took a few pictures. There was only one Hunter in the fleet. So I took the picture. Does it prove any point? Probably not.

On SN the entire Hunter bashing idea was most likely a way to poke fun at Smackdaddy. Now it's Don's turn because he gets so easily butt hurt.

I actually don't really give a rat's ass what you sail. Never made any claim about any boats seaworthiness either. Maybe you should go back to school and working on your reading comprehension skills.


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

Arcb said:


> Since Aeventyre60's profile says his boat is a 1977, I wonder if it would be fair to post a pic of a random 1977and claim all boats made that year are unfit for sea? Me thinks it would not be hard to find a 40 year old boat that was unfit for sea.
> 
> My boat also is from the 70's, so I don't feel this is the case, I'm just illustrating the invalidity of the above pics.


With all the design elements you can pick on, I think a pole might be gilding the Lilly a bit. I'd also point out that those Hunters got there. Wouldn't be my choice to do it, but they aren't total junk.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

Arcb said:


> My reading comprehension was good enough to discredit your ridiculous photo and reduce you to whining rather than posting a legitimate defence.


Nope you missed it dude. Your reading comprehension didn't do jack. How do you discredit a photo? Did you need more? Some nice Bene's, Bavaria's, Jeauneu's , some steel, alloy and maybe a ferro one too with out sticks I don't think it's a boat issue either, something maybe about the owner? Time to outfit, availability, perhaps lack of sailing skills or confidence to work on deck. Maybe you can enlighten us on why 20 percent of the boats I looked at didn't have poles? Are you capable of enunciating some reasons? Just presenting the story. I'll let you have your own whine counselor.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

If they both got here how would we know who the better sailor was? What's the inferior boat criteria? Whats the superior boat criteria?


----------



## Siamese (May 9, 2007)

This thread got off to a lame start, and somehow got lamer.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

aeventyr60 said:


> In an early part of this thread I mentioned that some of the modern production boats I see out here don't have poles. Another poster kinda shrugged and mentioned that most or all of the cruising boats he see's have poles.


I think I agree with you.

There is a difference between a whisker pole and a spinnaker pole.

I see lots of boats with no poles at all. I see a number of whisker poles. I see some spinnaker poles. If you look carefully it is apparent that the poles that are there don't get used much if at all.

That says much more about the sailor than the boat.


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

SVAuspicious said:


> aeventyr60 said:
> 
> 
> > In an early part of this thread I mentioned that some of the modern production boats I see out here don't have poles. Another poster kinda shrugged and mentioned that most or all of the cruising boats he see's have poles.
> ...


Or perhaps more about the type of sailing they do. It's often easier to simply gybe a few times than rig a spin when you aren't racing. Keep the sails full and don't go DDW and you don't need to set a poll. Is it as sexy? No. But sometimes more practical when you're short handed and getting there takes precedence over getting there fast.


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

SVAuspicious said:


> aeventyr60 said:
> 
> 
> > In an early part of this thread I mentioned that some of the modern production boats I see out here don't have poles. Another poster kinda shrugged and mentioned that most or all of the cruising boats he see's have poles.
> ...


Or perhaps more about the type of sailing they do. It's often easier to simply gybe a few times than rig a spin when you aren't racing. Keep the sails full and don't go DDW and you don't need to set a poll. Is it as sexy? No. But sometimes more practical when you're short handed and getting there takes precedence over getting there fast.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

seaner97 said:


> Or perhaps more about the type of sailing they do. It's often easier to simply gybe a few times than rig a spin when you aren't racing. Keep the sails full and don't go DDW and you don't need to set a poll. Is it as sexy? No. But sometimes more practical when you're short handed and getting there takes precedence over getting there fast.


Sure. Which says something about the sailor. That isn't a judgment. It's an observation.

Carrying a pole you never use seems like a waste of space and resources.

I like flying a spinnaker. I don't find it that much work. I like getting as much out of the boat as I can without breaking anything.


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

SVAuspicious said:


> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> > Or perhaps more about the type of sailing they do. It's often easier to simply gybe a few times than rig a spin when you aren't racing. Keep the sails full and don't go DDW and you don't need to set a poll. Is it as sexy? No. But sometimes more practical when you're short handed and getting there takes precedence over getting there fast.
> ...


Agree, but you also may be a bit more spry than some. And a bit less lazy than others. I still think saying it's about the type of sailing rather than its about the sailor is a potentially less perjorative way of getting to the same place.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

Some of those modern production boats design features make working on the fore deck less then user friendly. I'll bet Dave's boat is very user friendly, and know he could point out why too. It would be interesting to hear Dave's view on this as he regularly delivers a whole host of different types of boats.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

Aeventyr, why are you so interested in every one elses pole?


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Wow, its threads like this one that makes me want to plead for Smackdady’s return to Sailnet. Like or hate him, he at least, is not afraid to stand up for Hunter against all the sailing snobs out there. 

Does anyone out there have a polar diagram for a B&R Hunter that they can post here? That would go a long way to explain the differences (virtues?) of the rig. Isn’t the B&R a ¾ fractional rig making for a (relatively) small “J” dimension? As most of the power is derived from the mainsail, wouldn’t spending money on a whisker pole or a kite be a diminishing return on a cruising budget? Rather than the usual beauty pageant arguments I’d be more interested in making this a more technical discussion. This last fall I was surprised to see the large number of Hunters down in Mexico. They have totally eclipsed Catalina (and to a lesser degree, Beneteau) as the “coin of the realm” down there during the last cruising season.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

seaner97 said:


> Agree, but you also may be a bit more spry than some. And a bit less lazy than others. I still think saying it's about the type of sailing rather than its about the sailor is a potentially less perjorative way of getting to the same place.


As I think I said, my points here weren't intended to be judgmental. If someone doesn't want to put the effort into learning to fly a spinnaker (which isn't really all that hard) that is their choice. There is no way that I'll ever say you have to fly a chute to be a real sailor. I will say you (big you - everyone you - not seaner97 per se) should (and "should" is always an opinion) put some energy into getting the most you can from the sails you have and use. In my (continued) opinion saying "I'm just cruising and it doesn't matter" is a cop out. YMMV.

I may be more spry than Gary--although that is by no means certain--but I can assure you that my body reflects what I have done to it over the years. I'm kind of a wreck. *grin* I do what needs to be done and am never too proud to crawl.



aeventyr60 said:


> Some of those modern production boats design features make working on the fore deck less then user friendly. I'll bet Dave's boat is very user friendly, and know he could point out why too. It would be interesting to hear Dave's view on this as he regularly delivers a whole host of different types of boats.


You'll hear the same thing from me that you hear from a lot of people who sail a lot. Rig things early. Avoid tripping hazards. Think things through. ALWAYS think about what could go wrong and how to respond. Sort the wheat from the chafe. Simple and elegant are always better than complicated. Always. Redundancy is your friend.

Follow the rules:
1. Keep the boat in the water
2. Keep the water out of the boat
3. Stay on the boat


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

My point wasn't that you were being judgmental, but that your choice of phrase gave the effect.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

seaner97 said:


> My point wasn't that you were being judgmental, but that your choice of phrase gave the effect.


Hmm. Okay. I love flying a chute. I guess that comes through. *grin*


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

SVAuspicious said:


> Hmm. Okay. I love flying a chute. I guess that comes through. *grin*


I, generally, agree with your sentiment. I just think the language chosen had inherent judgment in it, that, intended or not, came through. But I guess I think language has importance, and choosing words carefully is worthwhile. I know most don't share this feeling with me.
To the OP, my point was I don't see Hunter hating. I see some getting their knickers twisted when what they bought (Hunter or otherwise) isn't immediately recognized as the best of all worlds by everyone.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

GeorgeB said:


> Wow, its threads like this one that makes me want to plead for Smackdady's return to Sailnet. Like or hate him, he at least, is not afraid to stand up for Hunter against all the sailing snobs out there.
> 
> Does anyone out there have a polar diagram for a B&R Hunter that they can post here? That would go a long way to explain the differences (virtues?) of the rig. Isn't the B&R a ¾ fractional rig making for a (relatively) small "J" dimension? As most of the power is derived from the mainsail, wouldn't spending money on a whisker pole or a kite be a diminishing return on a cruising budget? Rather than the usual beauty pageant arguments I'd be more interested in making this a more technical discussion. This last fall I was surprised to see the large number of Hunters down in Mexico. They have totally eclipsed Catalina (and to a lesser degree, Beneteau) as the "coin of the realm" down there during the last cruising season.


I don't have polars, but yes the idea with the BnR rig is you can swing a square top massively roachy main. The extra sail area in the main means you can get away with a much smaller jib and keep the HP up. Also since extra mainsail is easier to reef, and easier to trim than a big jib in makes the labor required lower. It also allows for smaller primary winches, lighter deck hardware, etc. Its basically a monohull adaption of a multihull rig.

The issue is that Hunter then went and put in mast roller furling mains on the BnR. This immediatly undercuts a good bit of the advantages for the rig. Main sail area gets cut by a third, and since you have a tiny fractional jib, the boat becomes grossly under powered.

Again it doesn't mean it's a bad boat, but the combination of BnR and a roller furling main is a really bad idea from a performance boat.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

seaner97 said:


> I, generally, agree with your sentiment. I just think the language chosen had inherent judgment in it, that, intended or not, came through. But I guess I think language has importance, and choosing words carefully is worthwhile.


I absolutely agree with you. Vocabulary, spelling, punctuation, and word choice are important. Language is all we have to communicate with (with which to communicate *grin*).

I'm open to feedback. I appreciate your approach at providing it.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Stumble said:


> The issue is that Hunter then went and put in mast roller furling mains on the BnR.


Let's be clear here; Hunter didn't "went and put in mast furling mains" on boats. The boats don't come standard with that, some owners went and did it!


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

Don0190 said:


> Let's be clear here; Hunter didn't "went and put in mast furling mains" on boats. The boats don't come standard with that, some owners went and did it!


I have no issue holding a builder responsible for even allowing their buyers to have that option. BnR rigs are fine, roller furling mains are fine, the two together are a disaster. When combined they force a boat to not point, and be underpowered.

The whole point of swept back spreaders instead of a backstay is to allow for a big roach. So you can get away with a small non-overlapping jib. The main provides the power and the jib keeps everything balanced. Get rid of the roach and you loose all the power in the rig. Sure you can try and fix it by switching to a a large headsail, but because the spreaders are so swept back the sheeting angle is awful.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Stumble said:


> I have no issue holding a builder responsible for even allowing their buyers to have that optionl.


When I was going through the specification process for Auspicious there were a few things I asked for that the builder wouldn't do. I'd have to go through my notes to see what they were. You'll have to imagine a Swedish accent saying "I'm sorry we don't do that."

I did have one idea (old-fashioned slab reef on the staysail) they thought interesting. They put it on a couple of employee boats and tested before agreeing to sell it to me.

I'm not sure Hunter could get away with an attitude like that.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Stumble said:


> BnR rigs are fine, roller furling mains are fine, the two together are a disaster.


A "disaster", that's just ridiculous!


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

The pole discussion is interesting so will pull my pants down and display the attitude of the cruisers I know.

I have a lovely light expandable CF pole. It's easy to deploy. Still it's rarely used. In the bay usually day sail with just the bride. Much easier to gybe without the pole and avoid DDW. Beside there's a lot of traffic and I have no destination in mind anyway. I'm happy with the boat at hull speed or near it on those days. Don't care about a course or point of sail. I do care about back winding a sail on a pole to avoid a catastrophe. 

With company I'd rather be in the cockpit shooting the ****e. Yes I'll "sail the boat " but rather do it in earshot of the conversation. 

But about a dozen times a year the pole goes out. When it does go out its out for a day or more. Then it's worth every d-mn penny. My VMG is better, chafe and wear on the sail is less and the passage shorter.

I've said before I'm a wimp. Don't need to race against every boat that comes close. Do want sails in trim but that's as far as I go. Want good trim because I think it's easier on the sails and boat. Think my view of things is fairly common among cruisers. Have a blast making fun of us but the pole will still only go out on long legs.

As regards the big main small jib. Recall a Marion Bermuda. We got whooped bad by a Nonsuch 36. All main and no jib. So see small or no jib boats can move along. My issue is concern for the AP or windvane. Understand how you can vary placement of the fin keel so the boat will balance at some points of sail. Don't understand how you can have the boat balance at all points of sail. Particularly downwind.


----------



## robert sailor (Jun 22, 2015)

Coastal sailing .....poles are not used very often and as others have said it's fun to set the chute. Offshore poles are used a lot and I would not want to be without one. As to the popularity of swept spreaders, I believe in most cases it's about saving money, in the B&R rig not so much.


----------



## albrazzi (Oct 15, 2014)

outbound said:


> The pole discussion is interesting so will pull my pants down and display the attitude of the cruisers I know.
> 
> I have a lovely light expandable CF pole. It's easy to deploy. Still it's rarely used. In the bay usually day sail with just the bride. Much easier to gybe without the pole and avoid DDW. Beside there's a lot of traffic and I have no destination in mind anyway. I'm happy with the boat at hull speed or near it on those days. Don't care about a course or point of sail. I do care about back winding a sail on a pole to avoid a catastrophe.
> 
> ...


I would love to sail one of those for a while just to see how it feels to heel downwind. Without a spin anyway.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

robert sailor said:


> As to the popularity of swept spreaders, I believe in most cases it's about saving money, in the B&R rig not so much.


Are there a lot of swept spreader rigs outside of B&R and multis? I can't see the cost in savings - the lack of one backstay and chainplate, but the addition of several diamond shrouds and intermediates. On multi's the rigging is of larger size, and that is definitely more expensive (we recently rerigged from 3/8" to 7/16" and the cost was ~60% more). I don't know if the rigging on swept rigs on monos are of larger size.

Mark


----------



## albrazzi (Oct 15, 2014)

Not a hater but as I shopped this time I was and still am impressed with the general fit and finish of my CS. Looking at many Hunters and Cats as well as O'days there is just not the quality I desire, not a need certainly a want, and just whats important to me. In my CS I think I have a general build quality beyond the visual which is another valuable thing. As with any Boat built for many years there are designers and builders alike that determine the final quality. Much debated just my thoughts.


----------



## robert sailor (Jun 22, 2015)

colemj said:


> Are there a lot of swept spreader rigs outside of B&R and multis? I can't see the cost in savings - the lack of one backstay and chainplate, but the addition of several diamond shrouds and intermediates. On multi's the rigging is of larger size, and that is definitely more expensive (we recently rerigged from 3/8" to 7/16" and the cost was ~60% more). I don't know if the rigging on swept rigs on monos are of larger size.
> 
> Mark


Take a look at a typical Benni or similar design with swept spreaders and compare it to straight spreaders. The swept designs have no lowers, much cheaper rig. It's normally discontinuous with the wire from the deck to the first spreaders one size and from the spreader up a smaller size all attached to a single chainplate, much cheaper than a straight spreader rig with large cap shrouds and intermediates on one chainplate then fore and aft lowers each with their own chainplates.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

robert sailor said:


> Take a look at a typical Benni or similar design with swept spreaders and compare it to straight spreaders. The swept designs have no lowers, much cheaper rig. It's normally discontinuous with the wire from the deck to the first spreaders one size and from the spreader up a smaller size all attached to a single chainplate, much cheaper than a straight spreader rig with large cap shrouds and intermediates on one chainplate then fore and aft lowers each with their own chainplates.


Yet I think the cost difference is meaningless in the cost of building, marketing, and selling a boat for a profit that allows a company to stay in business.

While I did consider and research my boat's B&R rig before I got it, it was very far down on the matrix of getting the boat. Yet for some reason it is about the biggest debated thing by Hunter haters.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

robert sailor said:


> Take a look at a typical Benni or similar design with swept spreaders and compare it to straight spreaders. The swept designs have no lowers, much cheaper rig. It's normally discontinuous with the wire from the deck to the first spreaders one size and from the spreader up a smaller size all attached to a single chainplate, much cheaper than a straight spreader rig with large cap shrouds and intermediates on one chainplate then fore and aft lowers each with their own chainplates.


Swept spreaders are really not a cost savings issue, it's more about the loads. By increasing the angle between the mast head and the shrouds you decrease the loads the wire have to carry. A change of just a couple of degrees can cut the load in half, so the wider the angle the better.

This does have the beneficial effect of being able to reduce mast weight and rigging size, which has some effect on the cost of the boat but thats incidental to the real gain. Reduced weight, reduced size, and reduced windage are all very good things, the weight in the rigging particularly is a good thing since it allows you to shave weight out of the keel, or have a stiffer rig.

Hunter at least probably winds up with a more expensive rig, because the BnR is a very complicated rig to put together. Lots of fittings, expensive boot caps, and a good bit of time is required to get all the wires to fit right. It's the cure of dis continuious rigging. But it does save weight and again reduces rigging loads.

As multihulls figured out, once you go wide enough and back enough you can also get rid of the backstay.when this happens you get to add a massive amount of roach to the main for almost no cost. On extreme examples you can increase the size of the main by almost 40%, which is a lot of horsepower. If you then push the rig forward and go to a non-overlapping headsail it just gets groovy.

The massive main provides a lot of power for very little trimming work at all points of sail. The jib becomes easy to tack, and self tacklers become possible (even if rare) at the downside of minimal power when reaching/running. But the off the wind power issue is easily made up for by adding an easy to use asymmetric on a furler.

Upside
Reduced rigging loads
Larger main
Easier tacking jib
Smaller lighter rigging

Downsides
More technical to rig
Off the wind with white sails you can be power starved


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

From a Coastal Cruising and Daysailing standpoint (face it- the VAST majority of the new boat market- which is all Hunter or any other manufacturer really cares about), I always thought Hunter's B&R was one of the things they got right. For all of Stumble's reasons, it wouldn't be my choice for an ocean crossing, trade wind rig, and there are plenty of comments elsewhere about the way they are attached to the boat, but for the market they sell to, it's hard to say it's an overall bad rig.


----------



## alctel (Jan 25, 2014)

When I got my standing rigging redone (that is the usual 4 lowers, 2 uppers and a backstay) and was talking to the rigger over the phone about it, he originally thought it was a B&R rig cos it's a hunter and he mentioned it was more expensive than a standard rig.


----------



## robert sailor (Jun 22, 2015)

Stumble said:


> Swept spreaders are really not a cost savings issue, it's more about the loads. By increasing the angle between the mast head and the shrouds you decrease the loads the wire have to carry. A change of just a couple of degrees can cut the load in half, so the wider the angle the better.
> 
> This does have the beneficial effect of being able to reduce mast weight and rigging size, which has some effect on the cost of the boat but thats incidental to the real gain. Reduced weight, reduced size, and reduced windage are all very good things, the weight in the rigging particularly is a good thing since it allows you to shave weight out of the keel, or have a stiffer rig.
> 
> ...


Couple of things, generally I agree with you but two things...today's boat builders throw nickels around like man hole covers, that's why they use fender washer's rather than proper backing plates and brass thru hulls rather than bronze. They are counting pennies on every build they do. 
Secondly I agree with you that swept spreaders do have many real advantages but sailing DDW is not one of them but considering that 99% of today's buyers are coastal sailed s it only makes sense as they are cheaper and do the job for their buyers.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

So... what makes a 'B&R' rig a B&R rig?

Swept spreaders?
Diamond shrouds?
No Backstay?

The early Hunter Legends (mid 80s - 31,34, and 40) had strongly swept spreaders and diamond stays but also had a conventional backstay. My understanding of this particular rig setup is that it allowed use of a lighter section, 'trussed' up by the diamond stays for stability. Aside from the swept spreaders (possible downside) I'd expect the pre bend on those rigs wasn't 'tunable' on the fly with backstay adjustments.

The later Legends, (33.5, 35.5, 37.5 and 40.5 - my favourite Hunter era) reduced the spreader sweep by nearly half, and reverted to conventional shrouds, and a standard backstay.

It was the next generation that began to eliminate the backstay, widen the shroud base, lengthen the spreaders and once again implement the radical sweep.

Our (non Hunter) rig has swept spreaders, is fractional and we use a dyneema backstay on a whip to accommodate a used J105 main. The spreader sweep allows that backstay setup. We enjoy the slightly added power of the roachier main, since our I measurement is so small (however headsails are sized in the 30 footer range so we fly kites more frequently than we might with a masthead rig)

So - are all diamond stayed rigs 'B&R'? or only the backstay-less ones?

And what about the Hunter HC50 (and at least one other model) with 3 rigid struts to the gooseneck area?


----------



## Sundeer64 (Apr 22, 2016)

I have sailed for extended periods on some fast desireable boats like the
Dashew Sundeers and heard many poor comments about the Hunters.

Four years ago I was invited to crew on a Hunter 466 aft cockpit down Mexico way and was very pleased to find that this vessel was very comfortable, strong and sailed with authority on most points of wind.
She handled heavy going like a champ and never showed signs of weakness.

This particular vessel had some upgrades like running stays and an inner forestay. Sailing wing n wing was limited with the spreader sweep.

Its now been four seasons on the same vessel and in that period a number of other Hunter owners that I met with similar vessels have cruised for years of offshore and no complaints or issues.
From what I have observed over the years comparing other modern production boats the Hunter is under rated and the vast majority of slaggers probably have never been on a Hunter.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

The primary characteristics of the BnR rig are
- 30 degree swept spreader so there is 120 degrees between shrouds (forstay and two side shrouds
- no backstay
- chainplates on the edge of the boat (the longest spreaders possible)
- revers diagonals (from the spreader tip down)
- large roach, almost square headed main combined with either a non-overlapping or tiny overlapped jib

Technically it should also be designed by B and R (Lars Bergstrom and Sven Ridder). 

As for cost... Frankly it would probably depend a lot on the specific hull and rig. It does allow for a smaller mast section, so there is less aluminium than in a standard rig. On the other hand the standing rigging is more complicated which adds cost back to the equasion. My guess is that on net it's a push. 


Robert - if you thought I was saying its a good rig for DDW then we mis-communicated. It absolutely is not. It trades DDW ability for ease of trimming at all other points of sail.


----------



## robert sailor (Jun 22, 2015)

Stumble said:


> The primary characteristics of the BnR rig are
> - 30 degree swept spreader so there is 120 degrees between shrouds (forstay and two side shrouds
> - no backstay
> - chainplates on the edge of the boat (the longest spreaders possible)
> ...


No sweat my friend I wasn't referring to the B&R rig as much as I was to the typical Benni type when it comes to cost and I do agree with your points. Offshore sailing downwind it's nice to have a rig that doesn't add a lot of helm in the gusts and larger headsails do help compared to large mains that can't be let out far enough so we both agree these rigs are a compromise for downwind sailing. That aside most of these boats we are talking about rarely leave the marina much less sail offshore so I think the builders have a very good idea who their customers are and have designed excellent boats for their customers . All these boats can be used for sailing offshore in the trade winds after some mods but probably there are better choices for those that plan to really work their boats..


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

Keep in kind that the basics of the BnR can be found on a lot of modern boats. Pogo uses it, Beneteau and Catalina use something similar. All of the TP, VOR, and multihull classes... 

Getting rid of the backstay allows a radical change in the main sail area. And even downwind the boats tend to be pretty neutral. One of the advantages of a square headed sail is the helm balance stays very similar regardless of the point of sail. It's just that instead of the sail area moving forward by easing the jib, the mast is a little further forward, so as you ease the main, a good bit of it shifts forward of the pivot.


----------



## robert sailor (Jun 22, 2015)

Stumble said:


> Keep in kind that the basics of the BnR can be found on a lot of modern boats. Pogo uses it, Beneteau and Catalina use something similar. All of the TP, VOR, and multihull classes...
> 
> Getting rid of the backstay allows a radical change in the main sail area. And even downwind the boats tend to be pretty neutral. One of the advantages of a square headed sail is the helm balance stays very similar regardless of the point of sail. It's just that instead of the sail area moving forward by easing the jib, the mast is a little further forward, so as you ease the main, a good bit of it shifts forward of the pivot.


I've seen a square top sail on a Pogo but have never seen on on a Beneteau Hunter or Catalina. Most of these boats carry in mast furling and don't get the benifits you describe. I'm not saying that these sails are not out there, just that I have never seen one on these cruisers.


----------



## gonecrusin (Aug 23, 2016)

Stumble said:


> Keep in kind that the basics of the BnR can be found on a lot of modern boats. Pogo uses it, Beneteau and Catalina use something similar. All of the TP, VOR, and multihull classes...
> 
> Getting rid of the backstay allows a radical change in the main sail area. And even downwind the boats tend to be pretty neutral. One of the advantages of a square headed sail is the helm balance stays very similar regardless of the point of sail. It's just that instead of the sail area moving forward by easing the jib, the mast is a little further forward, so as you ease the main, a good bit of it shifts forward of the pivot.


Well, actually no. The Pogo uses a "heavily swept" rig, it's not a B&R. And further, to really control headstay tension and properly support the top of the tube runners are required. Or live with an under rigged boat.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

There are other potential advantages to variations of the the B&R. You can generate what mast rake you want and maintain a mast in column. You can decrease diameter of the mast to just a few percent of sail chord and still not get a convex mast under load. But would think if you want to stay with soft sails to aid ease in reefing and a monohull so stays are limited by the beam of the hull a unstayed rotating mast with a squarehead sail may make more sense for the cruiser. You get a near rectangular sail. No rigging to tune or fall. And a fast boat with little heel and much lift.


----------



## gonecrusin (Aug 23, 2016)

Outbound, with a B&R you cannot change rake easily. Typically headstay tension is achieved by tensioning the headstay. A B&R rig is not an adustable rig, you set it and forget it. Want to add depth to the jib by sagging the rig, forget it, can't do it with a B&R rig. Want to board out the main by bending the spar, forget it, can't be done with a B&R rig. Unless you want to add hydraulics to the headstay and the diamonds, it gets very complicated very quickly. The B&R rig is fine if you don't want any adjustments or sail controls that are related to standing rigging.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

gonecrusin said:


> The B&R rig is fine if you don't want any adjustments or sail controls that are related to standing rigging.


Which in fairness is the market Hunter is going after. Why should customers pay for adjustments they will never touch? I love my adjustable backstay and running backs. I'm not everybody and everybody is not me.

I saved a rig on a delivery because I had running backs. I would like to think I could have saved the rig on a B&R. I hope.


----------



## gonecrusin (Aug 23, 2016)

SVAuspicious said:


> Which in fairness is the market Hunter is going after. Why should customers pay for adjustments they will never touch?


Of course. But it's interesting that Hunter continues on with the B&R rig even though most of their boats have in mast roller furling which loves a perfectly straight tube. Whereas a B&R rigs strength is built upon diamond induced prebend. Quite the dichotomy. Marketing I guess....


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

You miss my point. The whole idea is the thing is built with a rake of let's say 10* from the get go. Yup it's a fixed 10* from then on. No sag, no bend, no nothing. A straight rigid stick always in column. Yes there's no hydraulic backstay to bend the stick and flatten the main or decrease jib stay sag. Yes there's no backstay. Understand this I think but upside is the absence of these complexities. 
I know my boat but when someone else gets on her it's a long conversation as to how much vang, how much on the backstay, what halyard tension, where the car and traveler go. Then repeat for each point of sail. Day sailing it's ok to blow this off as long as the telltales go straight back and nothing flogs but otherwise you tweak and tweak. A lot of people don't want to do that. You can look at some of the new B&Rs as basically a square head una rig and a very small jib added. Decent angle of attack and the boat goes good. Easy . A pogo will horizon me in two seconds flat with a lot less effort.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

gonecrusin said:


> Well, actually no. The Pogo uses a "heavily swept" rig, it's not a B&R. And further, to really control headstay tension and properly support the top of the tube runners are required. Or live with an under rigged boat.


Ya, I am well aware that the 12.50 isn't a BnR, not all the characteristics I mentioned above that define a BnR the pogo is missing. But it also doesn't have a backstay or runners. The BnR uses a small section aluminium mast with lots of wires to provide stiffness. Structures got around it by switching to a carbon rig with a lot more stiffness instead of the wiring required on an aluminium mast. It's two very different ways to achieve the same thing, allow for a massive roach while keeping the rigging simple.

If it wasn't clear, multihulls don't have BnR's either, they just start with a lot of the same principles. Same for every other no backstay, swept spreaders. Because Hunter has a trademark on the BnR, so no one else can use them.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Since the B&R thing is still going I'll post some of my 6 years of experience with it:

- the power is in the mainsail, I never sail on just the headsail and if you see someone doing so it is them not Hunter's fault
- the big mainsail and fraction head moves the center of movement aft and there is very little weather helm, if you have more than 5 degrees ruder you are doing something wrong
- the sails balance easy, which fools you sometimes into thinking your trim is good but you can be better
- yes you can sail wing on wing, if you cannot it is you, but the boat is faster and makes better VMG if off the wind some so except for being in a narrow seaway WOW isn't worth it
- yes the sail needs to go onto the spreaders sometimes, just get over it and do it
-I have never missed having a backstay being in my way or the need to be adjusting the dam thing

The biggest problem with the B&R rig in forums is that someone sails it a short while and posts how they "can not do" something. The problem isn't the rig it's them because they try to sail the rig the same as some other design.

Maybe if all I sailed was downwind the rig would be a negative, but since that isn't the way wind works for most of us it isn't a problem.

Hunter sells a lot of boats, that is the reason they are in business. If the B&R rig was really as bad as forums make them out to be it would affect sales, in which case Hunter would change the rig!


----------



## gonecrusin (Aug 23, 2016)

Outbound, rake is just rake, prebend is prebend, so? A B&R rig ( as used by Hunter) is static, add wind and sail and it isn't static. To much wind and you have unwanted draft an no way to remove it, to little wind and you are left starving for draft and power and no way to soften the rig. The reason a Pogo 12.5 is faster then an Outbound 46 is simple horsepower and righting moment, the Pogo has it in spades over an Outbound 46. The only advantage I see for the Hunters use of a B&R rig is simplicity, it's certainly not adjustable. And again, the Pogo DOES NOT use a B&R rig, it's a heavily swept rig only that can probably be optioned to include checks and runners.


----------



## gonecrusin (Aug 23, 2016)

Stumble said:


> Ya, I am well aware that the 12.50 isn't a BnR, not all the characteristics I mentioned above that define a BnR the pogo is missing. But it also doesn't have a backstay or runners. The BnR uses a small section aluminium mast with lots of wires to provide stiffness. Structures got around it by switching to a carbon rig with a lot more stiffness instead of the wiring required on an aluminium mast. It's two very different ways to achieve the same thing, allow for a massive roach while keeping the rigging simple.
> 
> If it wasn't clear, multihulls don't have BnR's either, they just start with a lot of the same principles. Same for every other no backstay, swept spreaders. Because Hunter has a trademark on the BnR, so no one else can use them.


The key characteristic of the B&R rig is the diamonds, that is how they prebend the spar and achieve stiffness. I think the B&R rig is a very limited type of rig with few advantages and many disadvantages.


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

As we are boat shopping I have to explain this to my wife, why I hate hunters. I have been on only a few of them and my experiences with them were mixed.

I have crewed on a 45 center cockpit in the Bahamas. I don't remembered how it sailed but loved the layout and a week in the Bahamas was also nice.

The 37.6 I have gone out on sail nicely. Even though I enjoyed how it sailed I felt the layout below with a dinette forward was terrible.

I have only been the skipper once on a H33 I chartered. The sailing characteristics left was unimpressive and it's turning radius when docking was very wide, compared to my Capri 22s, and Catalina 320 I had been renting up to that point. At that point I was less experienced and was not able to recover smoothly. It made me look bad to my crew and the charter company, which rightfully questioned my docking ability at that point. 

When I walk the docks with my wife looking for our next boat, she once pointed to a new Hunter and asked, "is that two stories?" I had to explain what freeboard was and why you would have to motor more with that boat.

I am a performance sailor, and lean towards performance over creature comforts. On the well performing Hunters I have been on, I did not like the cabin configuration. On the nicely laid out below boats, I did not like the way they sailed.

When my wife walk's the docks with me she now recognizes the Hunter,s and says "ew it's a Hunter." I tell her there is nothing wrong with Hunters. It would be wonderful to spend the weekend at Catalina on a Hunter, we would just want to sail there on a different boat. Sail there on a Farr 40 and spend the weekend on a H45cc.


----------



## TomMaine (Dec 21, 2010)

jephotog said:


> When I walk the docks with my wife looking for our next boat, she once pointed to a new **** and asked, "is that two stories?" I had to explain what freeboard was and why you would have to motor more with that boat.


Your wife has a good wit.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

GC think we're on the same page difference is my sloppy use of language.

Given cheribini in their advertising of the 48 make specific mention it can be ordered with a BnG don't understand how H can have exclusive rights?

Agree with Don( omg!!!). In common use there's nothing wrong with the Hunter BnG. Neighbor on a 50 when daysailing with me waiting for his engine pointed out when he buddy boats with a friend usually he ends up quicker to the destination with his BnG and (omg) in mast furling. He stated he thinks it's because of ease and speed of furling. More difficult to get it wrong on trim and prevailings usually generate a lot of reaching.
I think the more spaghetti and controls the better sail shape you can get but many for diverse reasons( not only lack of knowledge) boats are commonly not sailed to their polars.
Even by PHRF they aren't slow pokes with the 49 going out at 111.
So much of the hits Hunters get maybe be germaine to racers, those who like to tweak and max their VMG but totally irrelevant in actual usage.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Well I looked up the PHRF for my 410 in New England. I was surprised they have it so slow at 126 as I don't get passed much unless I'm more busy grilling. Must not be a lot of 410s racing (I don't) and maybe that was a furling main with shoal draft. But regardless that is acceptable speed to me for a CRUISING boat.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

A couple of comments. First, Catalina does not do a B&R. All have backstays. Some boats like the C42 have swept back spreaders, but they are still are masthead rigs. The amount of pounds in aluminum and SS that are “saved” in a B&R is infinitesimal compared to the cost of the rest of the boat. I think the real reason is Hunter used the B&R so they could move the mast forward to give a more commodious room in the main saloon. This ¾ rig also makes for much smaller (and easier to tack) jibs. A 111 rating for a 49 footer is nothing to brag about. Note that boats nine feet shorter like a Cal 40 rate a 117 and a flat out race boat like a Farr 40 rates a 2. What kills Hunter in their PHRF ratings is their lousy displacement to length ratio and their relatively small sail area. But again, they are more about crew comfort than getting anywhere fast. Case in point, no one has been able to produce a polar for a B&R Hunter. Now, be honest, how many of you other guys can produce polars for your own boats? How about PHRF Certificates?


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

GeorgeB said:


> . What kills Hunter in their PHRF ratings is their lousy displacement to length ratio and their relatively small sail area. ......... Case in point, no one has been able to produce a polar for a B&R Hunter.


Say what? Did you just pull those statement out of the air?

My 410 has a DLR of 166 and SA of 17.8.

I've seen the polar, but don't have one on the boat and see reason to care.

And it's a cruising boat!!!!!! Who buys a cruising boat to be a racer?


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Don, Can I get back to you on Tuesday? I'm leaving shortly for Socal, But I'd like to continue the discussion. I plugged your numbers into the computer but haven't had time to analyze them yet. Fancy you should mention the 410. I raced one in the SF YRA "Party Circuit" series about six years ago. He did not do so well against us, but that might be partially attributed to their skill. I've only seen two Hunters race YRA out here so I have limited experience with them. What are your own race results? As I see on paper, your numbers don't look so bad. But it does appear that the boat has a pretty low aspect rig as compared to mine.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

GeorgeB said:


> What are your own race results?


I don't race except in that I don't like boats to pass me. From that I can say that with my boats normal fat crew of only my wife and I, who are only trying up to a certain point, that our Hunter 410 isn't "slow".

And since it is a cruiser when we get there we are comfortable.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

GeorgeB said:


> A couple of comments.
> 
> The amount of pounds in aluminum and SS that are "saved" in a B&R is infinitesimal compared to the cost of the rest of the boat.
> 
> Case in point, no one has been able to produce a polar for a B&R Hunter.


These statements are non-sensical. Discussing pounds of rigging to cost of boat? Racing designs go to extreme costs to lose a few pounds of rigging.

Probably 95% of cruising boats cannot produce a meaningful polar. And any VPP models are practically useless at this level. Besides, probably 95% of people with polars can't sail to them anyway...

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

gonecrusin said:


> Outbound, rake is just rake, prebend is prebend, so? A B&R rig ( as used by Hunter) is static, add wind and sail and it isn't static. To much wind and you have unwanted draft an no way to remove it, to little wind and you are left starving for draft and power and no way to soften the rig. The reason a Pogo 12.5 is faster then an Outbound 46 is simple horsepower and righting moment, the Pogo has it in spades over an Outbound 46. The only advantage I see for the Hunters use of a B&R rig is simplicity, it's certainly not adjustable. And again, the Pogo DOES NOT use a B&R rig, it's a heavily swept rig only that can probably be optioned to include checks and runners.


How many cruising boats have adjustable backstays and use them continually to control mainsail draft and shape? How many pre-1980 boats can do anything with their rig at all, or even induce mast bend if they wanted to? If there is too much wind, then use the outhaul and/or cunningham or reef. Similar types of solutions for too little wind.

Do you really think all of those multihulls are suffering from the problems you heap on the hunter rig?

Mark


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

colemj said:


> How many cruising boats have adjustable backstays and use them continually to control mainsail draft and shape? How many pre-1980 boats can do anything with their rig at all, or even induce mast bend if they wanted to? If there is too much wind, then use the outhaul and/or cunningham or reef. Similar types of solutions for too little wind.


It depends on the boat. My mast is a tree trunk. I'm not putting any useful bend in it. Backstay adjustment is all about headstay tension and jib luff shape. Main shape is halyard, outhaul, vang, and cunningham. That's all I've got except for runners which are just balancing the inner forestay when I fly a staysail.


----------



## gonecrusin (Aug 23, 2016)

colemj said:


> How many cruising boats have adjustable backstays and use them continually to control mainsail draft and shape? Only those who care about sail trim and balance. How many pre-1980 boats can do anything with their rig at all, or even induce mast bend if they wanted to? Again, only those that care about sail trim and balance, older boats are typically keel stepped and can often be set up with pre-bend and adjustable backstays can be added. If there is too much wind, then use the outhaul and/or cunningham or reef. Similar types of solutions for too little wind. Oh? How do you add draft if you don't contral mast bend or headstay tension?
> 
> Do you really think all of those multihulls are suffering from the problems you heap on the hunter rig? First of all it's not a "hunter rig" it's a B&R rig, secondly multis don't use B&R rigs, they use swept caps shrouds and often inline diamonds to support the panel as needed. But to answer your question, yes a Lagoon 42i has no way to "power up" when the breeze is lighter other then a pair of Yanmars.
> 
> Mark


The plus for Hunter using a B&R rig is it's simplicity. But it isn't an adjustable rig unless hydraulics are added to the headstay and the diamonds (which is very tricky) because it's easy to have the spar go out of column when diamond tension is changed.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

SVAuspicious said:


> It depends on the boat. My mast is a tree trunk. I'm not putting any useful bend in it. Backstay adjustment is all about headstay tension and jib luff shape. Main shape is halyard, outhaul, vang, and cunningham. That's all I've got except for runners which are just balancing the inner forestay when I fly a staysail.


According to gonecrusin, your choice of a boat rig shows you do not care about your mainsail shape, trim or boat balance. If you did, you would have a bendy mast that was finely adjustable. That is the only way to achieve those qualities.

Mark


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

colemj said:


> According to gonecrusin, your choice of a boat rig shows you do not care about your mainsail shape, trim or boat balance. If you did, you would have a bendy mast that was finely adjustable. That is the only way to achieve those qualities.
> 
> Mark


Yes that is a standard "story" spun by a non cruiser who has nothing to do on a boat except always be playing with their lines. :wink

For the most part a cruiser on a 40' boat doesn't care if they are only doing 6.5 knots instead of 6.6 knots if it means they have to be a dicking around with the lines all the time (at least it applies to me). Especially since most of the time the 6.5 knots means they are flying past the line dickers anyway.


----------



## gonecrusin (Aug 23, 2016)

colemj said:


> According to gonecrusin, your choice of a boat rig shows you do not care about your mainsail shape, trim or boat balance. If you did, you would have a bendy mast that was finely adjustable. That is the only way to achieve those qualities.
> 
> Mark


If I read Ausp he has an adjustable backstay? Seems he does care about adding or removing draft?


----------



## gonecrusin (Aug 23, 2016)

Don0190 said:


> Yes that is a standard "story" spun by a non cruiser who has nothing to do on a boat except always be playing with their lines. :wink
> 
> For the most part a cruiser on a 40' boat doesn't care if they are only doing 6.5 knots instead of 6.6 knots if it means they have to be a dicking around with the lines all the time (at least it applies to me). Especially since most of the time the 6.5 knots means they are flying past the line dickers anyway.


Don, it seems you bought the correct boat for you. You don't want to mess with powering or depowering sails. It's right for you. Right?


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

gonecrusin said:


> Don, it seems you bought the correct boat for you. You don't want to mess with powering or depowering sails. It's right for you. Right?


I do care and I do adjust my sails. But yes I have a boat that doesn't need constant line dickering with. But for those people who have some constant line dickering boat I don't join in internet boat snob threads trying to make easy to sail boats sound like a negative.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

gonecrusin said:


> If I read Ausp he has an adjustable backstay? Seems he does care about adding or removing draft?


He said his mast does not bend (tree trunk was his description) and the backstay adjustment is solely for tightening the forestay. He controls mainsail shape and draft using the controls I mentioned - which apparently are only used by us who don't care about sail shape and boat balance.

Mark


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

gonecrusin said:


> If I read Ausp he has an adjustable backstay? Seems he does care about adding or removing draft?





colemj said:


> He said his mast does not bend (tree trunk was his description) and the backstay adjustment is solely for tightening the forestay. He controls mainsail shape and draft using the controls I mentioned - which apparently are only used by us who don't care about sail shape and boat balance.


Mark got my situation exactly correct. I do care about sail shape and draft. I just am not going to be able to affect main shape with my backstay adjuster. All I can do is move the masthead forward and back which does affect headstay tension. Headstay tension adjusts jib luff fall-off. Accordingly I crank down the backstay as the wind comes up, improving pointing angle and depowering the sail.

So darn right I care. Hundreds of miles from shore I want to be able to reduce jib luff sag (backstay) and adjust main shape (halyard, outhaul, vang, cunningham, and main sheet) and trim to windward with the traveler. I'm not racing but I sure want to be able to power up in light air and depower in heavy air.

My concern for sail trim may put me in the minority of cruisers but I am by no means alone.

An extra quarter of a knot (which some attention is sure to gain) as an average on a passage means saving 3/4 of a day to a day between Annapolis and Tortola. That reduces risk, it reduces cost, it reduces fatigue, and it helps with focus. "We're just cruising it doesn't matter" is a cop out. Now I'm not suggesting hovering over the strings. I certainly don't. I am suggesting understanding sail trim and paying attention pays dividends to cruisers.

I'm a pretty conservative guy. More often than not I get a text from Janet when I get into cell range that I'm "going too fast again." Saving $400 - 800US compared to my estimate is not unusual. So yes, sail trim matters.


----------



## robert sailor (Jun 22, 2015)

SVAuspicious said:


> Mark got my situation exactly correct. I do care about sail shape and draft. I just am not going to be able to affect main shape with my backstay adjuster. All I can do is move the masthead forward and back which does affect headstay tension. Headstay tension adjusts jib luff fall-off. Accordingly I crank down the backstay as the wind comes up, improving pointing angle and depowering the sail.
> 
> So darn right I care. Hundreds of miles from shore I want to be able to reduce jib luff sag (backstay) and adjust main shape (halyard, outhaul, vang, cunningham, and main sheet) and trim to windward with the traveler. I'm not racing but I sure want to be able to power up in light air and depower in heavy air.
> 
> ...


Actually even with a heavy mast section you will flatten the top 2/3 of the mainsail somewhat with lots of backstay tension, plus halyard tension...add the out haul for the bottom 1/3 and you can make a fair amount of difference in moving the draft forward.


----------



## gonecrusin (Aug 23, 2016)

SVAuspicious said:


> Mark got my situation exactly correct. I do care about sail shape and draft. I just am not going to be able to affect main shape with my backstay adjuster. All I can do is move the masthead forward and back which does affect headstay tension. Headstay tension adjusts jib luff fall-off. Accordingly I crank down the backstay as the wind comes up, improving pointing angle and depowering the sail.
> 
> So darn right I care. Hundreds of miles from shore I want to be able to reduce jib luff sag (backstay) and adjust main shape (halyard, outhaul, vang, cunningham, and main sheet) and trim to windward with the traveler. I'm not racing but I sure want to be able to power up in light air and depower in heavy air.
> 
> ...


Ausp, I would bet you can induce draft into the top third (maybe more) of your main with a heavy ease of the backstay and a heavy grind on your runner. Do you checks 1/3 of the way up the mast in addition to your runners?


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

robert sailor said:


> Actually even with a heavy mast section you will flatten the top 2/3 of the mainsail somewhat with lots of backstay tension, plus halyard tension...


Did you mean to say this? I guess I don't understand how back stay tension flattens the main even with halyard tension. Also, does one need forward lower shrouds to bend the mast?


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Don must hang with a different crowd of cruisers. The ones I know care a lot about 0.1 knots or more. They care about pointing. They are attentive to sail balance and helm. 
It means land fall in an unfamiliar harbor in day light. It means sailing instead of motoring. It means les AP work so extra in the batteries for music or watermarking without genset use. A well sailed boat breaks less stuff and has less wear. 
On passage sailing the boat may mean a day or two shorter transit. 
No the AVERAGE cruiser soon developes a desire to sail their boat well.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

outbound said:


> Don must hang with a different crowd of cruisers. The ones I know care a lot about 0.1 knots or more.


When you are rocking along in 15-20kts and 8-10' seas for a couple of days passage, you will not be noticing or caring about an extra 0.1kts out of your boat.

0.1kt means none of what you listed in any practical terms.

I can tell you from vast experience with average cruisers (as well as being one) that most of them do not fit the mold that those not cruising think they do or should.

Mark


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Mark may not have the experience you do but know we do and many I know try to sail the boat as well as we can on passage and trips up and down the coast. Will admit have slowed the boat down to land in daylight but also have pushed for that to occur as well. Will admit to heading off to allow sleep and reefing before nightfall when I or the others on the boat are not sharp. Still a monicum of performance in a boat is desirable. I've crewed for others and they seem to have the same attitude. Agree a tenth of a knot is meaningless but think the attitude of wanting to get the best VMG that prudence and comfort allows is not. So you look at that tenth of a knot.
Just interacted with a potential crew who reported he wanted to be crew on my boat or a faster boat so think this is not that uncommon a point of view. He had done the SDR on a slower boat and didn't want to repeat the experience. He thought there's little joy in a slow boat. 
Wife had the other view. She didn't like being on boats much faster than ours. She found it disconcerting when on a tri or multi pulling double digits. Respect that point of view as well. Hence my boat isn't a particularly fast boat. 
For us if sog goes below 5 kts the engine generally goes on. So capabilities at that end count as well.
I was trying to make point which I think still stands. if you don't care about that tenth of knot you won't keep the boat moving as best you can. Over time it adds up. Also that attention to trim and the boat keeps you alert and engaged.
Maybe I'm talking with the wrong folks but they seem to be actively cruising or those occ burgees are bogus.


----------



## robert sailor (Jun 22, 2015)

ccriders said:


> Did you mean to say this? I guess I don't understand how back stay tension flattens the main even with halyard tension. Also, does one need forward lower shrouds to bend the mast?


Yes I meant to say that. When you bend the mast back you flatten the sail and move the draft forward which has a depowering effect on the mainsail. If you don't have double lowers then you'll have a baby stay which makes things work a bit better. If you do have double lowers then it will effect how much of the main you can flatten out unless you added tension to the forward lowers which isn't practical on a cruising boat. Most cruisers wouldn't have the knowledge for this type of trimming anyways and quite frankly don't need it and I bring it up simply to suggest that it can be done but I doubt it would ever be used outside of racing as its just as easy to reef.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

*"For us if sog goes below 5 kts the engine generally goes on. So capabilities at that end count as well."
*

I always have had a hard time with that statement. Setting some lower end speed limit while cruising. The cruisers I hang out with surely are not firing up the iron jenny at five knots. Maybe there is some more work to be done on your light wind sailing skills. Flying the chute a bit more often perhaps? Probably just to need to relax a bit and enjoy the ride. You will get tired of having to pull up at crappy third world fuel depots, or egads, having to jug fuel to your boat.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Do it on passage. Don't want to be concerned about food or water. Also crew are being kind enough to take time away from their jobs, families and other aspects of their lives. They're doing me a kindness. I may not be time restricted but they usually are. 
When it's just the bride and me things change. Then perfectly happy to amble along. Agree in many respects it's harder to sail the boat well in light air. Still learning. Hopefully time will come wife will be comfortable doing passages with just us two but we're not there yet so take crew.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

gonecrusin said:


> Ausp, I would bet you can induce draft into the top third (maybe more) of your main with a heavy ease of the backstay and a heavy grind on your runner. Do you checks 1/3 of the way up the mast in addition to your runners?


Three spreader rig, lowers to the first spreader and additional lowers (middles?) to the second spreader. Removable inner forestay at the upper spreaders. Runners to the upper spreaders. Solid rodkicker. All Selden.

I assure you that cranking down on the backstay does not bend the mast.

In light air I generate draft by dropping the sail and increasing tension on the full battens.

Ease the battens when the forecast or observation (my observation is a forecast) is for more wind. Flatten the main with vang, halyard, outhaul, cunningham. Adjustable backstay is important to headsail shape on my boat. Not main shape.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

SVAuspicious said:


> In light air I generate draft by dropping the sail and increasing tension on the full battens.


I will go out on a limb and say that there isn't another cruising boat out there that will consider dropping their main, changing the batten tensions and re-hoisting it as a normal sail adjustment procedure during a passage. I doubt there are any who would do so just for a daysail.

I guess I will just voluntarily move myself into the motorsailing, non-real sailor category now.

Mark


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Dave assume you have a masthead rig. We have virtually the same thing with a tree trunk for a mast. Spent a day with the riggers at Hinckley Portsmouth and it was an education. Prior had a bit more tension in Solent stay than Genoa. My thinking was backstay pumps tighten Genoa stay but not Solent to any degree. Given use Solent exclusively when it's above 20 wanted to get rid of head stay sag in that sail. 
It was explained to me the Solent stay is a sail hanger and not responsible for rig integrity. It's smaller than the Genoa stay so stretches more under load. Like you have a removable inner forestay of coated dyneema for the storm jib and runners. So have three fore stays and three backstays in effect.
Although the stick is very stiff they induced a wee bit of prebend in the mast. They re tuned the entire rig with different tensions on caps, D1s and D2s. Now with no backstay on stick stays in column in light air but also with back stay in heavy. Head stay sag is reduced with Solent stay tension less than Genoa.
I did not realize several things. First although I don't have any sweep to spreaders their tensions impact head stay sag much more than I thought. Second in the past have mostly watched for pumping and used runners to minimize that. Now have increased appreciation of what they do to the whole rig tune. Third how dramatically the right amount of prebend effects efficiency of all the white sails in all conditions. 
Downside of my rig is the need for a good tune and the complexity of the needed user input to get the most out of it. Still learning and think it may be years to get it down if ever. Upside is it does make a difference. All boat features are compromises. There is much to say for the set and forget. But there is also something to say for the opposite. Just glad I don't have a fractional with multiple runners, baby stays, jack stays, mast raising hydraulics, Cunninghams on the sails, and all the additional complexities of that more efficient but the more complex thinking that goes into tuning and using those rigs. I'd be tweaking instead of relaxing or sleeping knowing I didn't have it right.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

colemj said:


> I will go out on a limb and say that there isn't another cruising boat out there that will consider dropping their main, changing the batten tensions and re-hoisting it as a normal sail adjustment procedure during a passage. I doubt there are any who would do so just for a daysail.
> 
> I guess I will just voluntarily move myself into the motorsailing, non-real sailor category now.


I don't think it's much of a limb Mark. *grin*

Daysailing I adjust the batten tension as the sail goes up for the forecast.

On passage I am conservative. I don't want to adjust even once a day. In practice I spend a lot more time grinding the sail up putting reefs in and taking them out than adjusting batten tension.

Given a choice in really light air of dropping the main completely and motoring in really light air to stop the slatting or adjusting the battens I'll do the latter.

I will say that the relatively new Anderson in-drum electric winches are looking really good as I get older and creakier.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

colemj said:


> I guess I will just voluntarily move myself into the motorsailing, non-real sailor category now.
> 
> Mark


Don't feel lonely.

I'm now apparently a terrible sailor because my wife and I don't get concerned about trimming the sails to do 6.5 knots instead of only 6.4 knots. Yet the person that said that tosses in the trowel and starts motoring at 5 knots. :eek


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Some of this rationale is unreal. 

If getting into port a bit earlier is a safety thing, then why are you on such a slow boat? If you are on a fast boat, why aren't you on a faster design? 

Of course, everyone has folding props and a perfectly clean and burnished smooth bottom at all times, right?

You have a high-end AP like a B&G H5000 or NKE system that keeps you tightly dialed in to the VMG? And not a windvane - god, those things are like drunken sailors with VMG. Your little Raymarine doesn't cut it either.

No fishing - slowing down to land one or taking your eye off optimizing VMG will give up all the ground you gained with that 0.1kt worrying.

The reality of short-handed cruising is that pretty much the majority of us set the sails to some good average set for the conditions and get on with more important things like sleeping, cooking, fishing, etc. Nobody has their sails luffing, but nobody spends 24/7 tweaking every conceivable piece to keep the boat fully dialed in, and everyone arrives a bit longer than they could have.

Full racing crews even have a difficult time doing this, and that is even after fulfilling all of the above criteria.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Don0190 said:


> Yet the person that said that tosses in the trowel and starts motoring at 5 knots. :eek


In his defense, trowels aren't very useful on a boat.

Mark


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

BTW will agree with Mark. To vary batten tension requires getting a hex driver into the forward smal piece of the batt car. It's a ***** and most easily done with the sail off the track. For me that's a set and forget. Was making the mistake of having too much tension on the battens when they were under no load now use enough for a wee bit off bend and then back off to no bend. Was breaking the plastic batt cars. Now don't.
Think you are a step or two above me if you actually change that underway. Curious what set up you have and hard it is to do that?. Have Schaefer. Would have preferred battens goin in the back of the sail not the front and metal batt cars. 
Think others are missing the basic tenure of this discussion. 
Why I'm I not on a Catana, or a CF go fast mono? money and wife's wishes.
Why the list was this boat and others similar? Ease of use for two people, comfort in slop, and livability. We're mom and pop 95% of the time. 
Do I sail to its potential? Hell no. Have neither the skill nor the endurance to do so. But try my best and enjoy working toward sailing at its polars. If you find no enjoyment in that it doesn't make you a bad person. But neither does it if I do.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

colemj said:


> Some of this rationale is unreal.


It isn't a binary choice. There is a lot of room for moderation.

I certainly clean the boat bottom before a passage. I use the autopilot on the boat I'm sailing, mine or someone else's. A little time with the manual to look at the adjustments help. Same with vanes.

There is a reason fishing is called "fishing" and not "catching" but if crew wants to fish I'm great with that. You catch it and I'll boat it, clean it, and cook it. Keeping the boat moving as fast as possible in the process is nice and makes up for heaving to for a bit to get the fish on the boat.

Whatever your watchkeeping standard (end of every page, every other song, whatever) is a good time to look at wind speed, direction, and sail set. I'm certainly not talking about hovering over trim, just paying some attention.

There is a lot of room between 24/7 tweaking and ignoring the sails until the flogging gets loud enough to get your attention. Again, not binary.

I do usually get in early - it is surely where my track record of 3 am landfalls comes from. *sigh*

It isn't hard and it isn't onerous. That is my reality.



outbound said:


> BTW will agree with Mark. To vary batten tension requires getting a hex driver into the forward smal piece of the batt car.


Depends on that boat and the rig. On my own boat it is an accessible flat head. I'd rather have something I could put a nut driver on. It isn't hard.

I haven't broken a batten or car on my own boat.

Obviously running the sail up and down all the time would be counterproductive. If I'm anticipating several days of light air sailing through a high it is worth an hour to tighten up a notch. Even if the wind kicks up a bit the pre-tension won't make that much difference.

Some shape really helps in light air. Less tension helps flatten the sail in heavy air. We're talking days here, not hours. "Should we tack?" "No, we'll wait until tomorrow."

Point of sail also matters. Broad reach to a run in light air I'll blow the whole thing off, douse the main, and fly the chute.

I certainly have no intent of judging others that don't care about the extra quarter knot. I only ask that y'all understand that some of us get a little more out of our boats without having to work very much harder at all.


----------



## robert sailor (Jun 22, 2015)

Arcb said:


> The current thread "sailing to weather" occurred on an over canvassed Hunter. There is no denying the benefits of a B&R rig but, if I had been sailing DDW in strong winds off open water into a narrow straight on my conventional rig, it would most likely have been under my big 130 Genoa alone, and the boat would not have rounded up. My only point here is you do have to sail a B&R differently than a more conventional down wind, or it can cause problems.
> 
> Yesterday I was sailing down wind in over 20 knots down the St Lawrence River (dead down wind was the only option and often is in this region due to direction of river and prevailing winds).
> 
> ...


The B&R rig is exclusive to Hunter, I think what you meant to describe was a boat with large swept back spreaders?


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Arcb said:


> I sail a notoriously slow heavy displacement full keel 35' boat and I easily over took a 41' B&R rigged
> Beneteau 41.


No you didn't as it wasn't a B&R rig. And regardless all you did was pass someone who didn't know how to or care to sail well, which means absolutely nothing far a boat brand. There is no way a newer 41' fin keel Bene would be passed by an old heavy 35' full keel boat otherwise.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

It only happens when the other boat allows it to happen, just like when I pass a 50' with my 41' boat.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Arcb said:


> I disagree. It also happens when the skipper of the larger boat lacks confidence in his boat or himself, when he sucks at sailing and when he is a chicken.


Like I said, when he allows it to happens! It doesn't make your boat faster.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Arcb said:


> It is ridiculous to think that a Hunter outperforms every other boat design in all conditions.


No one has suggested this. If you spend time reading anti-Hunter threads you will find that most people will instead say that everything outperforms a Hunter. In goes along with how everyone on forums knows more about every Hunter model than the boat model owners do.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

Arcb said:


> Sweet, I was just reviewing my footage of the last few weeks sailing and I do have the footage of the sloppy Benteau!
> 
> I did make one mistake
> 1) she was not a 41, she was 35.5
> ...


Beneteau's don't have BnR rigs the only builder who uses it is Hunter.


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

colemj said:


> When you are rocking along in 15-20kts and 8-10' seas for a couple of days passage, you will not be noticing or caring about an extra 0.1kts out of your boat.


I have done those speeds once in a sailboat. Stumble remember Turkey Wings? In a squall we hit 16 knots. Since we were racing and it was not my boat my only thought was FASTER.

If it were my own boat and I was in the middle of a long crossing offshore and all my worldly possessions were down below I would probably reef before my boat reached 20 knots surfing down a wave. Maybe I need to check out multihulls.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Best we've done is 11.6kts. for any sustained period more than a second or two falling off a wave. It was with 35 behind us, Solent on a pole and double reefed main on preventer. Did 206m that day ( wind dropped that night) and have had about 1/2 a dozen 200+ days in the last two years. Think what counts is not peak speed but day's work. Happy to keep boat above 7 1/2 for the whole day. This below hull speed but reality is its unusual to be at hull speed all day long. What seems to count more is ease to get the boat up to a reasonable speed day in and out safely with a decent ride.
Here again think it's a compromise. The truly fast boats tend to skip on the surface. Some don't like the quick sudden movements that produces. The slow, heavy boats plow on through but may produce a slow periodic motion others dislike. Some boats feel fine and secure until the seas really build. Others may be a bit tender at first but are a freight train in the big stuff. Unfortunately it's very unusual you will know the details of the behavior of a prospective boat until you buy it and have sailed it for some years. 
Don repetitively makes the point people who don't own Hunters don't know Hunters and are in no position to criticize. There is some merit to his statement. But there are some experienced sailors here and some students of boat design. I listen to them as well. Physics is physics. Best practices are best practices. You don't need to be a long time Hunter owner to critique features and details of that brand or any given boat.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Arcb said:


> Then, I am told that a lightly built fin keel performance oriented coastal cruiser sails better DDW in strong winds than a purpose built full keeled trade wind cruiser?


I would say that a lighter (vice lightly built - different matter) fin keel performance-oriented cruiser (coastal or not) _can_ sail faster and perhaps more comfortably (since I'm not sure what better means) downwind than a full-keel cruiser outfitted for trade-wind sailing.

Let's look at the elements.

All other things being equal a full keel boat has greater directional stability than a fin keel boat. That means the full keel boat is less likely to be knocked off course by a wind gust or a quartering sea. It also means that when knocked off course it takes more work to get back on.

Note that the wetted surface of a full-keel boat is substantially greater than a fin keel boat. That means more power from either sail or engine is required to reach a given speed. There are other factors but the form parameters common to full keel boats contribute to slower boats.

The rudders common to those two general types of boats are also relevant. The barn door that trails the keel requires more effort for any given imposition of yaw. That means more work for a helmsman and more power consumption from an autopilot for course corrections when compared to a semi-balanced skeg or spade rudder.

While not strictly a factor of keel type there is correlation between hull form and keel type. You are likely to see fuller sections forward on a full keel boat than a fin keel boat. Fuller sections mean increased wetted surface, increased form resistance, and more storage.

If you are going to talk about trade wind sailing downwind then you have to talk about waves. That makes all the factors above very dynamic. Full sections forward are likely to result in a boat, like the Tayana 37, that tends to bury in waves; the displacement means acceleration is less than startling. In most conditions the boat buries every few ways and slows or stops and doesn't have time to get up to anything like its flat water speed before burying in another wave and slowing again. The ride is comfortable but slow. By comparison a more modern fin keel boat like the Beneteau First 38 will maintain speed much better. When it does slow it accelerates more quickly. Ride comfort is affected by course and sail trim.

"Better" performance on both boat types is dependent on sail selection and trim. Double headsails or a spinnaker are easier to trim to reduce roll than wing and wing for example.

Everything is a compromise. Unless you are going to build your own boat you are limited by what is available. Remember that all sailing life is not passage making and that inshore and short hop performance is important also. Storage is important. If you go faster you need fewer stores. Budget is a factor - older boats are generally less expensive.



Don0190 said:


> Arcb said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing I have seen about Hunters supports the theory that they are just better than all other boats.
> ...


Well, someone has but he is gone. *grin*



Arcb said:


> I like them (Hunters) primarily because they are well designed for short handed sailing in confined waters, which I do a lot of, as do many others.


I don't think Hunter designs boats any better than anyone else for shorthanded sailing in confined waters. In point of fact, I would suggest that they make design choices similar to those of their competitors driven by their market who ask for things that aren't in their (the customer's) own interest. In that respect Hunters are no better and no worse than the other high volume production builders.

In my experience Hunter does make some decisions based on production costs that I find uncomfortable, but for their market they are a reasonable choice. Beneteau and Catalina make similar choices - Hunter simply takes them to a higher (lower?) level. That increases maintenance and repair costs for owners. Since so many boats spend their lives at the dock the choices are reasonable.



Arcb said:


> I like a boat that is good for exploring/adventure type sailing and I don't find Hunters ideal for beaching/grounding, fuel range, or independent operation.


So Southerly? Most catamarans?


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

outbound said:


> You don't need to be a long time Hunter owner to critique features and details of that brand or any given boat.


The thing is that like unlike non-Huntrer owners who find 1 thing and feel they can apply it to ALL Hunters, Don0190 admits that just because his Hunter is a good boat it doesn't mean that all Hunters are.

Just the words "Hunters" indicates a BS statement because it very rarely can be applied to ALL Hunters


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Agreed. As I've said many times it's just stupid to bash a brand. Any brand not just Hunters.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

jephotog said:


> I have done those speeds once in a sailboat.


"IN", not "AT"! I was referring to 15-20kt wind speeds, not boat speeds - in other words, typical Caribbean conditions.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

SVAuspicious said:


> If you go faster you need fewer stores.


WHAT?????

That isn't even close to how a cruising boat operates, and only seems to make sense for very small boats (I'm thinking Sven Yrvind) or very long passages (I'm thinking Reid Stowe).

For the rest of us in between, there will be no difference if one boat gets to the grocery store a few hours before another, and none of us carry exactly just enough stores for the minimum time needed on a passage.

Mark


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Arcb I'm glad you have a fine boat. I'm curious have you been on a more recent fin keel/spade rudder design offshore or in a fresh breeze or greater? There are a host of designs aimed at offshore work with those features that do just fine. I've owned cape Dories, a Tayana 37 and a pacific seacraft so have experienced excellent full keeled and skeg hung rudder boats. There is no question in my mind that a fin/spade is preferable if draft is not an concern. I think you're at risk falling into the same trap of generalization. There are noteworthy advances since the age of Ingrid derived hulls. All the features you mention are present in many good fin keel/spade rudder designs. Yes there are great full keel boats but there also great fin/spades.
Look at Bob's cf cutters. Even within the general category of "full" those boats are dramatically different in hull form and appendages and I believe outperform what the maestro drew decades past.

Personal examples. Woke to find crew under dodger. Wheel break off. 5-7' swell with wind waves on top. He shut AP off for course correction and forgot to put it back on. Just got a Hydrovane. Early days but it nearly doesn't move. Just the 10-20* as the wind oscillates back and forth.This behavior is not unusual on fin/spades. Many track just fine but remain quick to respond to helm input.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

colemj said:


> For the rest of us in between, there will be no difference if one boat gets to the grocery store a few hours before another, and none of us carry exactly just enough stores for the minimum time needed on a passage.


Four days v. eight days Ft Lauderdale to Annapolis is not a few hours. Twelve days v. eighteen days Annapolis to Tortola is not a few hours. Stores for spares are generally consistent but food can make a lot of difference, particularly if you provide a conservative margin.

Coastwise you can always make a stop (yet more time, but gets you to a grocery). Offshore options are limited. Then there is water ....


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

The sailor is always more of a factor than the boat.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Sorry archb didn't mean to offend. 😦 Guess over sensitized due to way thread was going.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

SVAuspicious said:


> Four days v. eight days Ft Lauderdale to Annapolis is not a few hours. Twelve days v. eighteen days Annapolis to Tortola is not a few hours.


These are silly numbers and represent completely different types/sizes of boats, not a 0.25kt difference between rigs or sail adjusting.

A cruising boat will provision for several months if being away from supplies, and the small amount of time difference between boats in getting to a planned resupply stop is meaningless. Even a day or two difference is meaningless in practice in this regard. Absolutely nobody is out cruising depending on their boat getting an extra fraction of a knot being the difference between life and death regarding stores. Nobody is passagemaking this way either, and not carrying a couple extra days of food means nothing in performance.

Water is the same, and that's without a watermaker.

Mark


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

Arcb said:


> I wasn't talking about trade wind sailing. I chose two very specific examples in order to avoid making generalised statements. One example was in the straights of Mackinac, the other was in the St Lawrence river. Both involved boats equipped with large mains, relatively small jibs, no back stays and swept back spreaders. Both examples had people experiencing challenges with the boats rounding up in strong winds. That's it, that's my whole 2 cents in a summary.
> 
> The reference to trade winds was a reference to the design of my boat. My profile picture clearly illustrates what I am talking about when I refer to my preferred method for sailing my boat down wind in a river, it is a very easy way of doing things.
> 
> When sailing down wind on passages, the boat isn't sailed like this. On passages I pole out my genoa (dangerous to do in a river in my opinion) and set a second jib on my forestay (I have two tracks), I generally don't use a main for sailing DDW.


Ya I don't buy it. This was less about the boats than the crew.

It is trivially easy to trim a spade rudder/fin keel in such a way as to keep it from rounding up, well so long as the boat isn't an old IOR DeathWagon. Those things were designed to broach if you looked at them funny.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Arcb said:


> Sweet, I was just reviewing my footage of the last few weeks sailing and I do have the footage of the sloppy Beneteau!
> 
> I did make one mistake
> 1) she was not a 41, she was 35.5
> ...


So.. to my knowledge Bene only made a 'First 35.5' in the late 80s.. extremely unlikely that a 'First' series Bene would have a furling main, and they certainly had backstays. Hunter also produced a 35.5 at the same time; it did not have the B&R rig but rather had modestly swept spreaders and conventional backstay.

Was this Bene sighting of a recent model? If Bene has joined the 'no backstay' crowd it's a fairly recent development, like with Jeanneau. Curious now what boat/model/year that was.

But to be passing any boat with a furled main, sloppy jib and towing a dinghy (if you're not) is not surprising and says more about the crew than the boat.

Can you post a still from your footage?


----------



## overbored (Oct 8, 2010)

Faster is right, almost. Bene never made a 35.5 it was a First 35S5 and it was made in 1988. Sailed on one in the day and if properly trimmed was a fast boat in the day. they did make a short mast version but I think it also had a backstay. only in recent years has Bene made a few models without backstays and nothing over 32 feet.
The main advantage to not having a backstay is the larger square top mainsail. the Hunters mostly do not use the square top but use big roach full batten mains like a CAT main. the newest Hunters use the B&R rig with no back stay and in mast furling.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Twin back stays are still back stays, and not at all uncommon. Quite a few of the recent offerings seem to be going that route, esp the twin wheel boats where a conventional backstay would conflict with the access thru the open transom.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Amen. Appendages don't seem to matter much downwind. Just produce drag. Centerboarders and lift keels just pull them up. On a broad reach can't beat a square rigger. Sail plan hundreds of years old. A solders wind.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

colemj said:


> These are silly numbers and represent completely different types/sizes of boats, not a 0.25kt difference between rigs or sail adjusting.


Correct. I was commenting on the full keel v. fin keel digression.

With respect to trimming a bit for a minor amount of speed, if average speed can be increased 0.25 kt (6 to 6.25 kt average) from Annapolis to Tortola you can trim 14 hours off the transit. Whether that is meaningful or not is a personal matter. Certainly no one is going to live or die (almost all the time) on that basis.

I still maintain that including sail trim in the watchstander's horizon scan routine and spending a few minutes tweaking every hour or so is a good practice on general principles. YMMV. If I sail with you I won't let my trimming disturb you. If you sail with me I'll ask you to respect my expectations. Fair?



colemj said:


> A cruising boat will provision for several months if being away from supplies, and the small amount of time difference between boats in getting to a planned resupply stop is meaningless. Even a day or two difference is meaningless in practice in this regard.


Again I was focused on the full keel v. fin keel digression.

Laying in stores is not quite as simple as you imply. It is dependent on outfit of the boat and the tastes and personalities of the owners. On deliveries I have seen what should have or could have been space for provisions squeezed out by spare parts that will never be used (corrosion) and in one case by the largest collection of ladies shoes I have ever seen on a boat. *grin* I think we can set the latter aside as an anomaly, amusing as it may be.

On the more general topic of this thread comparing various boats from various (mostly production) builders, storage space is quite relevant not as a boat speed issue but as one of design. The big open spaces that make boats so popular at boat shows come from 1. hull designs with more beam and 2. reduced storage. Add neat-o items like covered or elevator TV screens and yet more potential storage space is given up. Climbing over stores and gear on the sole is a safety issue.

Which brings me back to your comment about how cruisers provision. Since the process is so individual I suggest (unless you can think of another way, which I welcome) that examples are appropriate.

On my boat (22k# center cockpit monohull) all the space in the v-berth is taken by a sail locker, tools, my clothes, all our towels and linens, and some odds and ends like a vacuum cleaner and a clothes iron (don't laugh at me!). The sole is available for restrained stores and there is one empty locker. In the salon charts and other large format documents are behind the armchairs. The lockers are pretty full. There is space behind the settee and inside the table. The galley has a bunch of lockers and two small pantries. There is a refrigerator and a separate freezer. The aft cabin storage is full; there is a freezer under the berth.

When we go cruising we provision in layers. Our principle deep storage is behind the salon settee. That gets canned goods and long shelf life products (dried mushrooms, matzo, pasta, rice). Any extra space gets filled with paper goods. There are always a lot of paper goods because I go through a lot of facial tissues, Janet goes through a lot of toilet paper, and we have preferences for particular sorts of paper towel. Besides, there is nothing better than paper goods for stopping rattles. *grin* We also stock up on things we are fussy about (Wheat Thins, Good and Plenty).

Long life produce (cabbage, potatoes, onions, carrots, etc.) goes in a crate or bag on the v-berth sole along with soda and beer. Dry goods (flour, sugar, a little cereal) are in Lock-n-Lock containers in a galley pantry. Condiments, a few canned goods, UHT milk, and other small things are in the other pantry. Spices and everything pulled forward from deep stores are in the lockers above the galley counter.

All that stuff gets topped up when we can at reasonable prices, especially when we have access to a warehouse store. If we run out of a staple (like flour) we buy it when we can or do without. We are careful never to run out of rice or pasta or couscous.

We buy meat and some frozen vegetables in bulk every couple of months, planning around cruising plans and shopping opportunities. Food in the galley freezer is packed in layers so we don't have to dig. The freezer in the aft berth (cold deep storage if you will) is packed more or less by item so when we pull things forward we can find what we want. In practice we pretty much eat down the galley freezer and then empty the aft freezer completely all at once into the galley freezer and turn the aft freezer off.

Perishables are in the refrigerator and in baskets on the galley counter. We follow the European model of "refrigerate what you must" as opposed to the American model of "refrigerate everything that fits and worry about the rest."

All that is by way of foundation for our approach to provisioning. We do provision for "months at a time" for dry and frozen goods. Cruising plans permitting we don't fill frozen stuff in between big shops - I want to eat the galley freezer down so I can scrub it before moving the contents of the aft freezer forward and scrubbing that. We eat through both freezers in about two months most of the time.

We can eat out of those stores for quite a while.

We don't buy perishables for months at a time because they don't last that long. Fruit and vegetables we buy as we can. If we don't recognize something we ask. Janet likes to refrigerate more than I do. I like the food in baskets on the counter so I can see what we have and use it before it goes bad.

We buy fill-in perishables a couple of times a week or when we stumble over something. Availability and trying to keep the amount of weight to haul drive periodicity for us. YMMV.

On passage or when cruising way off the grid (harder and harder to do these days) we have a more detailed plan for perishables. I truly dislike throwing uneaten food overboard. We eat the stuff that turns bad fastest first. We also have dishes that can stretch the life of delicate foods (like fruit salsas). I make a darn good pasta sauce from end-of-life tomatoes. Using a vinaigrette dressing on cole slaw or cucumbers preserves salads longer than a mayonnaise. Regardless, after a few days there is room in the fridge for leftovers and make ahead dishes because we've been eating.

Short version, we shop for months at a time for staples and long shelf life items just like we do ashore. We shop regularly for perishables. Unless you hole up in that one completely isolated place left on the planet you can shop. Other than crossing the Pacific there are few passages longer than three weeks. Ashore we beef up on perishables before a snow storm (shoot us, we're sheep). Afloat we beef up on perishables before a long passage or extended gunkholing. There are places on the Chesapeake where access to shopping without ground transportation is more challenging than in the Caribbean. Eating out is easy; sometimes eating in is harder!

We also trade. I've swapped homemade pickles for local bread, homemade bread for fish, and all kinds of homemade stuff with other cruisers for something we need. I've swapped homemade mayonnaise for steaks and both parties felt they came out ahead. *grin*

All a very long way (darn I can talk a lot) of saying that I think that for most cruisers the life of perishables is a factor on passage in the full-keel v. fin keel decision (which is likely to be overwhelmed by budget flexibility for many) but 1/4 kt, as you say is not. I still think that keeping the boat moving a little faster requires so little effort and attention it is worth doing on its own merit.

It occurs to me that paying attention to sail trim and boat speed also increases awareness of the boat and improves timeliness of response to things like chafe and picking up flotsam.

Now about pointing angles .... *grin*


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

I think our best trade ever was 150 gallons of water for a fresh caught tuna... Thank god for water makers.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

SVAuspicious said:


> If I sail with you I won't let my trimming disturb you. If you sail with me I'll ask you to respect my expectations. Fair?


I'm a tweaker. Almost continually. However, I recognize it as an obsession and not as a necessity or requirement.

Michele isn't a tweaker. As long as the boat is moving well, she's happy to just trim for major windshifts, etc. We both are in control of the boat 50% of the time each while on passage.

Her running logs are not any different than mine, which leads me to believe that in normal passages - particularly in the trades with significant seas - tweaking is not providing any practical advantages. Any short gains are given up in the next quarter wave slap or bow bury or period of counter current, etc. Very light air can be different, though.

Or I'm terrible at tweaking.

Given any two boats of nominally equivalent size, I doubt a full-keel one is twice as slow as a fin-keeled on average over designs. Yes, one could pick very specific boats to achieve this (Formosa 51 vs. Santa Cruz 50), but not in general.

Sheesh, I'm a multihull arguing that heavy full-keel and rigid rig designs are not as bad as presented!

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Stumble said:


> I think our best trade ever was 150 gallons of water for a fresh caught tuna... Thank god for water makers.


I lost count of the number of times we have received stuff for water (and we never ask for anything in return). I think it has paid for the watermaker&#8230;

Mark


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Just put in a watermaker this year so a newbie. Already can see how it changes your life. So far it goes on when the engine goes on or on windy and sunny days when the batteries are at float. Had it drilled into me if you are good about it your fuel budget won't go haywire and to think fuel=water on passage. Like ideal of sharing water. It's like sharing life. Good on you Mark.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Have limited experience but did our first trip to carribean with three. "Racer boy" a J boat racer, Ahole a arrogant delivery captain whose answer to trim was "more vang" regardless of situation and myself. On a boring rainy day looked at VMGs for each watch. Racer boy got significantly more good miles than Mr Captain Sir, I came in the middle.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

We've come a long way from the original tenet of this thread, and so far I'm not seeing Hunter haters.


----------



## timangiel (Sep 8, 2006)

I love my Hunter. If you don't like Hunters, then don't buy one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## albrazzi (Oct 15, 2014)

SVAuspicious said:


> We've come a long way from the original tenet of this thread, and so far I'm not seeing Hunter haters.


And so the healing begins.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

travlin-easy said:


> I had serious thoughts about buying a Hunter 28.5 until I saw the Morgan 33 Out Island sitting next to it.
> 
> Gary


You had really narrowed things down beforehand I see. :wink


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

colemj said:


> "IN", not "AT"! I was referring to 15-20kt wind speeds, not boat speeds - in other words, typical Caribbean conditions.
> 
> Mark


Got it need to read closer next time.

Although a bit disappointed at the thought of not surfing my cruising boat down a wave on the way to the next tropical location.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Most fun was Xmas winds and kite season. 15-20 is a memory.


----------



## gonecrusin (Aug 23, 2016)

SVAuspicious said:


> Three spreader rig, lowers to the first spreader and additional lowers (middles?) to the second spreader. Removable inner forestay at the upper spreaders. Runners to the upper spreaders. Solid rodkicker. All Selden.
> 
> I assure you that cranking down on the backstay does not bend the mast.
> 
> ...


Do you pre load the spar and what does the truck look like? A triple spreader rig should be a fairly flexible section.

We have a triple spreader rig with inline spreaders, fore and aft D1's, continuous D2's, D3's and caps. Also an inner forestay at the base of the top spreader and checks and runner with the checks half way up and the runners at the termination point of the inner forestay. We preload the spar at the partners and use the forward D1's for a little bit more. Our truck is fairly large and with hydraulics we can flatten the top third of the main. The rig is a tree trunk but with preload and hydraulics we can flatten the top of the main.


----------

