Is a 47ft boat with slab reefing too much for a couple compared to in mast furling?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by davethedog

Thanks all and a bit more background,

1. Current boat does have in mast furling and we are fully aware of the limitations regrading sail shape etc and also the fact that the sails do not last as long due to stretch etc and so need replacing more often to avoid possible jamming etc.
2. The boats we are looking at are both Northwind 47, one with in mast furling and the other with slab reefing. Both will require new mainsails.
3. As it is always just the 2 of us sailing, and next plan is to head to the Caribbean next year (from the Canaries) and then see where we go from there.
4. I note that most new "blue water" boats, Hallberg, Oyster etc normally have in mast furling!
5. Awaiting to see if we can come to an agreement regarding the price for the in mast furling Northwind 47 a that is located in the same marina as us and although it needs a bit of tidying it is very well specced as the owners have owned her for 17 years and done a circumnavigation etc so it comes with new (2021) teak deck, parasailor, cutter rig, generator, extra water and fuel tanks etc Juts cosmetically it needs some work but we all like a challenge!!

DTD

Concerning replacing mainsails, I have a tip for you!

Don't buy Dacron sails!!!

Laminate sails never get baggy so always work right with in-mast furling. Plus they are thinner and more flexible, which makes in-mast furling work like butter!

I wouldn't actually buy Dacron sails even for a boat with full batten main. The new laminates which are baked in autoclaves and which have protective tafetta on both sides are just as long lasting (or much longer lasting, if you are particular about shape), are not all that much more expensive (maybe double the cost of quality Dacron), and are just night and day better sailing.

I have six years and over 20,000 miles on my carbon laminate sails and the shape is like new. Zero delamination, zero mildew. I expect to get another six years out of them. Best money I ever spent on any boat.

[waterman46]

In our boat we sail with a dry cockpit even in nasty conditions.. Running any lines from mast to cockpit would create paths for water entry and having to deal with a clutter of wet lines. So we prefer to keepi all lines at base of mast.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by waterman46

In our boat we sail with a dry cockpit even in nasty conditions.. Running any lines from mast to cockpit would create paths for water entry and having to deal with a clutter of wet lines. So we prefer to keepi all lines at base of mast.

There are ways to route lines from the mast without allowing water to come in. My boat has a special deflector behind the coachroof winches which keeps the water out of the cockpit.


But I don't like halyards and reefing lines in the cockpit. The added friction, in my experience, messes up the action. For slab reefing I think you need to go to the mast even with a one line reefing systems.

[jewt]

I have seen too many problems with in mast furling, could not give it to me for free!
I have had slab reefing on all my boats for the past 40+ years cruising and racing both inshore an off, including over a 12 trops tp the Bahamas.

Just sayin'

Jewt Bifrost-8
'89 Morgan-44 New Bern, NC

[Downeaster]

I'll throw my hat in the ring in favor of roller furling mains. I've had three boats with slab reefed mains and, for the last 15 years, two boats with roller furling mains.

And I've never had an issue with a furling main - not one.

It doesn't have the same sail shape flexibility with a traditional main. BUT, for many conditions it is as good or perhaps better. As good because it's inherently flatter profile (to neatly roll up inside the mast) is the target profile in heavy air. And better at times when the infinitely adjustable reefing may give the optimal amount of sail versus having to choose between the 1st and 2nd reef on a traditional main. In lighter air - no question, you will be a bit slower if you're racing.

I also love that you can reef a roller furler on any point of sail - even in heavy conditions without leaving the cockpit. Ease the outhaul, pull in the sail in small increments - until perfect for the wind and wave state. Very safe.

I think the sail and furling technology has come a long way for furling mains. I think they have a bad rap, to some extent, from legacy issues and perceptions...

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Downeaster

. . . It doesn't have the same sail shape flexibility with a traditional main. BUT, for many conditions it is as good or perhaps better. As good because it's inherently flatter profile (to neatly roll up inside the mast) is the target profile in heavy air. And better at times when the infinitely adjustable reefing may give the optimal amount of sail versus having to choose between the 1st and 2nd reef on a traditional main. In lighter air - no question, you will be a bit slower if you're racing.. . .

That's exactly what I was saying. For use cases where you are mostly in light air, you don't want in-mast furling. The disadvantages hurt, and the advantages are not useful.

For heavy air, it's the other way around -- in-mast furling rules. So -- high latitudes, serious offshore sailing, in-mast furling is the thing.

Even racing -- infinite reefing and efficient sailing in heavy air, in-mast furling is not bad. Look at the Fastnet results and how many in-mast furling boats placed highly. We race, and in long distance races with some heavy air, walk all over 40-odd foot racing boats, although we are a pure cruising boat with tonnes of spare parts, gear, supplies on board, davits, half a tonne of ground tackle.

Where I sail, Force 8 is acceptable sailing conditions. We will not cancel a passage because F8 is in the forecast, so long as the wind is at or behind the beam. If we wouldn't go out in a F8, we would be bottled up in ports for months at a time. In these conditions, instant adjustment of sail area is pure gold.

[jmh2002]

Just to clarify a couple of points...

Originally Posted by Downeaster

In lighter air - no question, you will be a bit slower if you're racing.

The boat doesn't know if it's racing or not - so you'll be slower cruising too, given that on the same size rig the slab reefing main will generally be bigger - and there may be the option to make it bigger still with more roach.

Just because the boat is cruising doesn't mean one should automatically accept slow passage times. This is a misnomer amongst the cruising community.

Most cruising boats are fatter and heavier when loaded for long distance cruising and sailed at less than optimimum too. And they are often underpowered in the first place. They need more sail area, not less, and especially in light air.

In mast furling rigs should be larger than the slab reefing equivalent to make up for the missing sail area. I'm not sure many people think about this...

Originally Posted by Downeaster

I also love that you can reef a roller furler on any point of sail - even in heavy conditions without leaving the cockpit. Ease the outhaul, pull in the sail in small increments - until perfect for the wind and wave state. Very safe.

You can reef a slab reefing mainsail on any point of sail too if it is setup correctly, as well as without leaving the cockpit.

These features are not exclusive to in mast furling.

The 'bad rap from legacy issues and perceptions' can (and does, even from your post) apply to slab reefing too.

And sail, reefing, and hardware technology has come a long way for slab reefing mains as well.

Both can work acceptably but offer different options.

[jmh2002]

@Dockhead I PM'd you regarding a different subject

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

. . . The boat doesn't know if it's racing or not - so you'll be slower cruising too, given that on the same size rig the slab reefing main will generally be bigger - and there may be the option to make it bigger still with more roach.

Just because the boat is cruising doesn't mean one should automatically accept slow passage times. This is a misnomer amongst the cruising community. . . .

Different things to unpack here. First of all, more roach is not just more sail area. That part of the sail gives disproportionately more power. So losing roach really hurts. That's the biggest disadvantage of in-mast furling mains. It's why in light air I really miss the roachy full batten main of my last boat.

But, on the other hand, who accepts slow passage times? I don't. In reasonable conditions we don't do less than 180 miles a day, 200 miles not rarely, and 218 miles we did once. All with in-mast furling. Slow passage times?

Originally Posted by jmh2002

. . . Both can work acceptably but offer different options.. .

Indeed! If I could have several boats -- a ridiculous thought, similar to the idea of having several wives, but we're fantasizing here -- one of them would be ultra light displacement, with a super deep bulb keel, with a fathead carbon laminate full batten mainsail, on butter smooth teflon lubricated batt cars, with an electric halyard winch, and lazy jacks. With a suit of headsails including a carbon laminate blade jib, a light yankee jib, and a code zero. Mmmm.


But since I can only have one boat, to be used in all different conditions, and since I do a lot of offshore sailing in hard conditions, I choose that this one should have in-mast furling.

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

But, on the other hand, who accepts slow passage times? I don't. In reasonable conditions we don't do less than 180 miles a day, 200 miles not rarely, and 218 miles we did once. All with in-mast furling. Slow passage times?

Who? All the people that often reply in their posts 'we're not racing' or words to that effect, when trying to justify their decision making process

I think you and a few others here are a minority, although more and more people are starting to put sailing performance (especially in light air) higher on their list of priorities when chosing their next boat.

That's particularly noticeable in the multihull threads where there is a bunch of people looking for performance cruisers - Outremer types or equivalent, to be able to sail almost all the time without much motoring, fit a lot of solar, do away with the genset, etc. None of them even consider an in mast furling main, the question isn't even asked - instead the question might be should I get the rotating mast option...

On the other hand there are also still plenty of posts about catamarans that don't sail worth a damn - because the interior makes the wife happy, so the performance multihull crowd is in the minority too, and the majority are willing to accept slow (or slower) passage times.

Further to your point, maybe multiple wives, and multiple boats, each appropriate for each other, is what is required...?

[Downeaster]

[QUOTE=jmh2002;3533653]Who? All the people that often reply in their posts 'we're not racing' or words to that effect, when trying to justify their decision making process

This is taking my and others' comments out of context I think. When I said racing - I meant racing where you have a crew constantly, in real time, trimming all 3 dimensions of the main. I didn't say fast passage-making. My view is that taking into account high, medium, and light wind (and wave) conditions over time, point of sail, and the realities of crew fatigue and person-power (remember the context of this thread) that furling mains can be very high performance.


[QUOTE=jmh2002;3533653] That's particularly noticeable in the multihull threads where there is a bunch of people looking for performance cruisers - Outremer types or equivalent, to be able to sail almost all the time without much motoring, fit a lot of solar, do away with the genset, etc. None of them even consider an in mast furling main, the question isn't even asked - instead the question might be should I get the rotating mast option...

The geometry and boundary conditions of a multihull are completely different as is noted in those threads. I'm not sure you can argue that furling mains on monohulls are a bad thing because they don't make sense on catamarans. Or if you do, I think a lot more data and logic is in order

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Different things to unpack here. First of all, more roach is not just more sail area. That part of the sail gives disproportionately more power. So losing roach really hurts. That's the biggest disadvantage of in-mast furling mains. It's why in light air I really miss the roachy full batten main of my last boat.

But, on the other hand, who accepts slow passage times? I don't. In reasonable conditions we don't do less than 180 miles a day, 200 miles not rarely, and 218 miles we did once. All with in-mast furling. Slow passage times?



Indeed! If I could have several boats -- a ridiculous thought, similar to the idea of having several wives, but we're fantasizing here -- one of them would be ultra light displacement, with a super deep bulb keel, with a fathead carbon laminate full batten mainsail, on butter smooth teflon lubricated batt cars, with an electric halyard winch, and lazy jacks. With a suit of headsails including a carbon laminate blade jib, a light yankee jib, and a code zero. Mmmm.


But since I can only have one boat, to be used in all different conditions, and since I do a lot of offshore sailing in hard conditions, I choose that this one should have in-mast furling.

Good points here. I would say that our present boat's Forespar (roller furling in the mainmast) boom is longer than a hank on sail boom, for the same boat, to make up for roach area loss. Not quite the same thing and you don't get it all back that way, but the sail area for the main ends up the same.

On slab reefing, our 400 sq foot slab reefed main (Ericson 38 w/ Kenyon Sparcraft) had permanently rigged reef points for 1st and 2nd reef, and it was all led aft to the cockpit under the dodger, being the two leech lines and the halyard). It did have quite a bit of unintentional friction, and the only thing I didn't rig remotely was the tack hook to grab and secure the sail's luff cringle just above the gooseneck. A solid bite there allowed one to bring the halyard up tight and help flatten the sail in high winds. So I went forward quickly to tend with that part, and with narrow side decks and no mast pulpits, it was always an action best done quickly.

If that hank on mainsail is 700 sq foot, that is going to be a bigger chore, and being 68 now instead of 31 years old, I'm not as quick to react to changing balance points, pertubations, and equilibrium.

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by Downeaster

This is taking my and others' comments out of context I think...

Maybe, but I'm not sure why racing should even come into the discussion? This is 'Cruisers Forum' afterall. Slow is slow and fast is fast regardless of cruising or racing.

All things being equal (rig size, crew, trim, wind, sea, etc) an in mast furling mainsail will develop less power (ie: be slower) than a slab reefing mainsail, that's just a fact since the sail is smaller in area (when fully set) as well as having less roach (which applies when reefed too). Overall it is just a less efficient 'triangle' shape.

However as mentioned there are other aspects to the system that some people may prefer and that can be ok as part of the compromise either way.

Dockhead said he 'walks all over 40-odd foot racing boats' and I don't disbelieve him, but his boat is also 25% bigger... (and with a good set of sails too)

The fairer comparison would be the same boat, loaded in the same way, one with an in mast furling mainsail, and the other with a slab reefing mainsail.

In mast furling masts are generally built heavier to compensate for the big hole in the back of them. No doubt this has been improved upon too, but if that was fast all the performance boats would be like that. But extra weight aloft and a big hole in the trailing edge is definitely not faster...

It also reduces the boat's ability to carry a given amount of sail because of the reduced righting moment.

Hence the Selden carbon furling mast on a new Halberg-Rassey 50 that Dockhead posted earlier. Why? To try and reduce that extra weight aloft and 'make up' for the deficiencies of the in mast furling mainsail. I wonder if it's a bigger rig than the aluminium equivalent? (something that I alluded to earlier).

Let's put the carbon rig on the slab reefing boat too though, if we want a fair comparison...

So all things being equal an in mast furling mainsail develops less power (is slower) than a slab reefing mainsail.

However it might be more convenient for some crew though, and that's why many people buy them, because of the 'easiness' - both real and perceived.

But again, easiness compared to what? An old blown out slab reefing dacron mainsail with sticky slugs, terrible friction, and everything done at the mast? Should we add a wire halyard and 1/2in reef lines too?

Well, that's awful and I would take the in mast furling mainsail over that any day! And I think that is what a lot of the comparisons are like. An 'old' slab reef vs a 'new' in mast.

Or are we talking about a slab reefing mainsail with high tech cruising cloth, fully battened, track and cars, small diameter lines (on the leach AND the luff), low friction blocks, and everything controlled from the cockpit or helm? That type of slab reefing system is ridiculously easy.

(even so easy that I could reef the big heavy cruising mainsail on a Swan 51, single handed, out on ocean passages, without any concerns at all - and did it regularly, no need to wake the off watch crew)

And from the in mast point of view, a barely working system on charter boat? Well that's not a fair comparison either.

There is a world of difference between all the various possible examples.

Let's stick to comparing apples with apples and the actual differences between equivalent level systems.

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by Downeaster

The geometry and boundary conditions of a multihull are completely different as is noted in those threads. I'm not sure you can argue that furling mains on monohulls are a bad thing because they don't make sense on catamarans. Or if you do, I think a lot more data and logic is in order

There are plenty of in mast furling mainsails on catamarans too, but generally on the fat, heavy, and slow variants.

So I didn't try to make any such argument. I simply stated that people looking at 'performance cruisers - Outremer types or equivalent' are not considering an in mast furling main.

And why is that? Because in mast furling mainsails (and masts) are not considered a performance option, they are considered a convenience option, and that applies to both multihulls and monohulls.

I brought up multihulls to illustrate that these days there are a group of cruisers looking to go lighter and simpler in order to get more performance - not so much faster, but mostly the ability to keep sailing in light air (down to 5kn true) instead of motoring. They also fit a lot of solar, and try to reduce burning diesel as much as possible. They just don't need to.

We don't yet see as much of a shift in that direction yet in the monohull cruising world. Just look at the types of monohulls that are common in this forum - they are often of the heavy and slow type. Hell, debate still rages over long keel vs fin keel for the best cruising boat!

But of course it's possible to go to a light displacement monohull and get some similar advantages to the multihull too. We are just not seeing very much of that. Maybe because the monohull people that want that just jump to a performance cat instead?

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

All things being equal (rig size, crew, trim, wind, sea, etc) an in mast furling mainsail will develop less power (ie: be slower) than a slab reefing mainsail, that's just a fact since the sail is smaller in area (when fully set) as well as having less roach (which applies when reefed too). Overall it is just a less efficient 'triangle' shape.

Our furler boom was made longer than in the hank on main config to get the sail area to the same # specified by the architect (Dixon). This is when it was 1st sold. Also, a cutter rigged boat is more for convenience than for speed, so the whole concept for the rig depends on what you are planning to do, how much crew you have, and how you want to deploy the sail area depending on conditions. In our case, I'll run out the stay sail and full main in 20 knots on the nose and have a great time, since the staysail is inboard the shrouds and it will point fairly high that way. I lost a knot to weather doing it though, but don't care.