Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Back In The Day...

Expand Messages
  • TomH
    John T, Didn t mean to imply I though you were arguing at all. Quite the contrary. Discussing is fine. The range of knowledge/experience on these forums is
    Message 1 of 88 , Mar 19, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      John T,

      Didn't mean to imply I though you were arguing at all. Quite the contrary.

      Discussing is fine. The range of knowledge/experience on these forums is part of the value (and the risk) associated with posting anything. It's sometimes difficult to discern from a post whether or not the writer is a skilled builder/designer/sailor speaking from hard-earned experience - or otherwise ;)

      I wished to take exception to your comments - which were stated in a way that seemed to come across in writing as sounding 'factual' - when they are of course your opinions and generalizations, based on your experience and you preferences of course. As such I wanted to qualify my remarks so as not to be taken as arguing a point of fact with you but rather differing with your opinions.

      My concern was that the 'casual reader' or 'new sailor' might be dissuaded from venturing in new directions (especially for aspiring single-handers) if they put too much stock in your opinions (such as below) about the cost, complexity, or difficulty you alluded to. While it may well be true for you, it's not the case for all. That's the point I had wished to make - obviously I failed at that.

      My apologies to you if I misread you, or offended in any way,
      TomH

      --- In Michalak@yahoogroups.com, "John Trussell" <jtrussell2@...> wrote:
      >
      > Tom,
      >
      >
      >
      > We're not arguing; we're discussing!
      >
      >
      >
      > An unstayed, rotating wing mast and sail is a fairly expensive and
      > complicated thing to build, raise, lower, and store. Once you get the sail
      > up, it doesn't require much rigging or crew.
      >
      >
      >
      > In a separate e-mail, you mention the possibility of two, more or less equal
      > sized lug sails. I like split rigs because they a)have lower, more easily
      > managed sails than a single big sail, b) you can often trim sails to control
      > weather helm and/or self trim, and c) I like the way they look. However,
      > when going upwind, the aft sail will be in the disturbed airflow of the
      > forward sail, somewhat reducing upwind performance. For what it is worth,
      > the early Sea Pearls were available with either a cat ketch lug rig or a cat
      > ketch Marconi rig. I never heard that either rig performed better than the
      > other, but Marine Concepts developed a system of reefing the Marconi sail by
      > rotating the mast and rolling up the sail. Subsequently, they dropped the
      > lug sail options.
      >
      >
      >
      > Everything on a boat is a series of compromises. To gain a little here, you
      > have to give up a little there. Getting a balance that suits your priorities
      > is one reason to build your own boat. Have fun.
      >
      >
      >
      > JohnT
      >
      >
      >
      > _____
      >
      > From: Michalak@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Michalak@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      > Of TomH
      > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:20 PM
      > To: Michalak@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [Michalak] Re: Back In The Day...
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Sorry, don't mean to be argumentative, but all those assumptions were too
      > much for me.
      > Let it suffice to say that a freestanding rotating wing mast with a fathead
      > sail could hardly be called complicated, does not need a crew nor need
      > expensive gear.
      > And anyone can build one.
      >
      > --- In Michalak@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Michalak%40yahoogroups.com> , "John
      > Trussell" <jtrussell2@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Tom,
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > If you are a racer or sail like a racer (i.e. you constantly trim your
      > > sails, adjust your course to minute wind shifts, and tack on the headers)
      > > then a Marconi sloop with a bar taught forestay is the rig of choice.
      > > However, every choice produces results and consequences. Sloops require a
      > > lot of expensive and complicated rigging. The jib sheeting angles are
      > often
      > > not optimum for off the wind performance, requiring a whisker pole or
      > > spinnaker. Single handing a sloop is possible, but once the boat gets
      > bigger
      > > than about 15 ft, you really need a crew and at some point, you probably
      > > need winches to handle the jib/genoa sheets.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Traditional rigs may not be as close winded as a Marconi sloop, but most
      > of
      > > their owners don't care to sail with the intensity required to maximize
      > > upwind performance. Many (though not all) traditional rigs require
      > > comparatively little standing or running rigging. This reduces cost and
      > set
      > > up/take down time for the sailor who keeps his boat on a trailer. Finally,
      > > traditional rigs were developed for small crews and are often (though not
      > > always) more easily managed by a single hander.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > All boars are compromises. If you require maximum upwind performance, then
      > > you have to accept some trade offs in cost and complexity. If you don't
      > want
      > > to accept those costs, then you will have to accept a lower level of
      > upwind
      > > performance. All the wisdom in the world, condensed, is, "There ain't no
      > > free lunch!)
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > JohnT
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > _____
      > >
      > > From: Michalak@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Michalak%40yahoogroups.com>
      > [mailto:Michalak@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Michalak%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
      > Behalf
      > > Of TomH
      > > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:28 PM
      > > To: Michalak@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Michalak%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > Subject: [Michalak] Re: Back In The Day...
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > It's the rigs of course.
      > >
      > > Looks are one thing - and I love the Chebacco, it would do every thing I
      > > need in terms of size and accommodation - but I'd never be able to own one
      > > as there's just no data anywhere that I can find that shows a rig on them
      > > that will go upwind.
      > >
      > > Beware of subjective opinion masquerading as fact... "goes upwind very
      > well"
      > > means nothing in the real world of sailing capability.
      > >
      > > Please notice that no one with old-style rigs (claiming good windward
      > > performance) will quote the angle they can achieve between tacks (for best
      > > VMG going to weather) - not even the guru of high performance balanced
      > lugs,
      > > MIK Storer. And MIK's boat typically have rudders and boards far superior
      > to
      > > most similarly rigged boats - and he has not yet reported this kind of
      > > upwind performance AFAIK.
      > >
      > > For me a balanced lug is a great rig for the short-handed sailor - simple
      > > and straight forward - keeping th eboat balanced when reefed, etc. If MIK
      > > had his balanced lug boats capable of doing less than 90 degrees between
      > > tacks - I'd have had a Chebacco or maybe a similar Michalak design rigged
      > > with a balanced lug - in a New York minute.
      > >
      > > Just saying.
      > >
      > > --- In Michalak@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Michalak%40yahoogroups.com>
      > <mailto:Michalak%40yahoogroups.com> , Tom
      > > Barclay <gurnemanz@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > A general Chebacco question, reflecting my ignorance; can the design
      > sail
      > > > upwind well? Is it suitable for a bit of blue water sailing (say Long
      > > Beach
      > > > to Catalina, CA)? I was surprised to be told that it can be a challenge
      > to
      > > > get a Picara to sail upwind, and that it might not be a good choice for
      > > > more than lake or estuary sailing. Picara reminds me of Chebacco in many
      > > > ways.
      > > >
      > > > If true that Picara has these issues, are any of JM's designs better for
      > > > coastal cruises than others?
      > > >
      > > > And here's the disclaimer - I mean no disrespect of any design type, any
      > > > individual builder or project, or of JM. I simply haven't been around
      > long
      > > > enough to get all the archives read, yet.
      > > >
      > > > Thanks for your consideration!
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • John Trussell
      A small cooler with ice and drinks, an empty porta potti, and a canister with flares. _____ From: Michalak@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Michalak@yahoogroups.com] On
      Message 88 of 88 , Mar 21, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        A small cooler with ice and drinks, an empty porta potti, and a canister
        with flares.



        _____

        From: Michalak@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Michalak@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
        Of graeme
        Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 3:32 AM
        To: Michalak@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [Michalak] Toon19 ? (Re: Back In The Day...)







        John, just to clarrify, is there anything else much in the boat with you in
        that photo?

        Graeme

        --- In Michalak@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Michalak%40yahoogroups.com> , "John
        Trussell" <jtrussell2@...> wrote:

        > The pictures of Toon 19 were taken with a 10 lb anchor and ten ft of chain
        in a compartment under the fore deck. Trimming ballast is always an option.
        > John





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.