Re: Micro v Chebacco
- 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
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.
(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!
- 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. ;-)
> > I haven't seen the plans for the tallermast(Micro) > > but imagine that the extra 2.5 feet is
> > 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/