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

Re: Micro v Chebacco

Expand Messages
  • kwilson800@aol.com
    Well, I finally managed to get switched over to Yahoo, so I can put my .02 in. I m not an expert on either design, but I ve sailed both, as well as the Long
    Message 1 of 40 , Feb 1, 2001
      Well, I finally managed to get switched over to Yahoo, so I can put
      my .02 in. I'm not an expert on either design, but I've sailed both,
      as well as the Long Micro. I also have some local knowledge; I moved
      away from the Bay Area last summer, and for five years I sailed a
      Thunderbird out of Berkeley Marina, so I know those waters pretty
      well. Anyone who would sail a Cartopper in the Carquinez Strait has
      my respect.

      The Chebacco and Micro, while of similar size, are really very
      different boats. The Micro is a minimal cruiser for two people that
      can be trailered with some difficulty. Four people in the cockpit
      gets crowded. The long version has a lot more room. The Chebacco is
      a large daysailer with a big comfortable cockpit that can carry a
      crowd and a very small cabin, mostly just a place to put tired
      children and extra gear. I think it could live on a trailer very

      At the risk of arousing the wrath of the Microids among us, the
      Chebacco will sail rings around the Micro IMHO, at least the short
      one (longer waterline, lighter weight, more efficient lateral
      plane). On the other hand, the Micro will be reasonable safe, if not
      comfortable, in sea conditions that would seriously frighten me in a

      For sailing in the Delta, I think the Chebacco has a distinct
      advantage, with shallower draft and that great cockpit to lounge
      around in. Grounding mostly upright has its points too. The Micro
      would be much better if you wanted to go out to the Farralons or up
      to Drake's Bay, although she's awfully small for that sort of work.
      For the Central Bay in summer, with a 3' breaking chop and a 25-knot
      sea breeze, it`s about a wash – the Chebacco will go to windward
      better, but the fact that Micro is self-righting will make you worry
      less. I don't think either of them will like the steep chop much,
      and you won't stay very dry in either. OTOH, I used to get the
      mainsail soaking wet halfway up sailing from Berkeley to Angel Island
      on my T-Bird, and she was 26'long, 4000 lbs with a 5'deep fin keel,
      and went to windward like you wouldn't believe. You probably can't
      stay really dry and comfortable on the Central Bay in a boat that
      small no matter what.

      Then there's aesthetics, to which I can only say de gustibus non est
      disputandum. The Chebacco, particularly the lapstrake version, is
      remarkably handsome in a traditional sort of way. The Micro has its
      own aesthetic which is unlike anything else. I'd guess that
      difficulty of construction is about even – the Micro's hull is a bit
      simpler, but then you have the ballast keel to deal with. If it were
      me, I'd build the lapstrake Chebacco because I like her looks, and
      because I prefer fitting planks to sanding epoxy. I'm working on a
      lapstrake cartopper variant right now. Ya pays yer money and ya
      takes yer choice.

      Keith Wilson
      (In Minnesota, waiting for spring and wishing that the garage were
      warm enough for epoxy to cure)

      --- In bolger@y..., jboatguy@c... wrote:

      > Chebacco or Micro. Hmmmmm...
      > Won't Chebacco point better, i.e., leave Micro over the lee
      > Won't she go faster off the wind too? We got some viscous currents
      > here in the Delta area of N.CA, the water she a-churns and a-boils
      > under those big bridges sometimes. And yea, I know they'll both
      > like laser beams with their motors on, but I'm one of those 'since
      > I'm out sailing I wanna be sailin' people, and I know I'd drive the
      > crew batty about not wanting to start the engine, and I'd really
      > rather avoid that if I can.
      > And now, I know Micro might be more comfortable in the cabin (is
      > she?) and that's important for a happy crew. And I think she's
      > as a button, and there's something about tweaking the 'sailboats
      > to look like sailboats' crowd that has a deep and maybe even
      > (sp?) appeal to me. But Chebacco also looks like she'd hold a
      > football team in that cockpit. It'd be nice to be able to take six
      > or eight PFD equipped kids out for happy sail around the pond on
      > in a while. How many will Micro's cockpit hold, with at least
      > tacking room for the skip?
      > >
      > John O'Neill, living it up here in sometimes sunny N. CA, (at least
      > when the lights are on) and remembering my beautiful sail with Bink
      > yesterday, with reefs tucked into our cozy Cartoppers (and we
      > needed 'em) and livin it up on the slough....What a life!
    • Phillip Lea
      Of course the 2.5 feet have to go to the top of the mast -- with 2.5 feet on the bottom, the Micro would lose quite a bit of its shallow draft -- kind of like
      Message 40 of 40 , Feb 2, 2001
        Of course the 2.5 feet have to go to the top of the
        mast -- with 2.5 feet on the bottom, the Micro would
        lose quite a bit of its shallow draft -- kind of like
        the Santa Monica Pier. ;-)

        Phil Lea

        > > I haven't seen the plans for the taller
        mast(Micro) > > but imagine that the extra 2.5 feet is
        happening at
        > > the top where the mast is relatively smaller and
        > > not at the bottom where the real beef is.

        > Actually, the bottom.
        > I haven't seen the plans either, but some time ago a
        > member of this group posted a message about the
        > change and I took notes.

        Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
        a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.