I have heard from a 30 year + sailor that this combination will indeed make for a very tender boat with the heavy mast and boom required. However, this seems to be a very popular combination from the mid 90's on. ( I'm considering a 32 ft.). Any input is greatly appreciated. John Perri
- Status
go slow combo
The cruising world magazine boat of the year judges listed a furling main, shoal keel and roller furling as "go slow" factors that are more convenient for the sailors but slow a boat down. The judges did not mention any increased tenderness do to additional weight of the rig. I think the Hunter 38 won best production boat in the judging.
The cruising world magazine boat of the year judges listed a furling main, shoal keel and roller furling as "go slow" factors that are more convenient for the sailors but slow a boat down. The judges did not mention any increased tenderness do to additional weight of the rig. I think the Hunter 38 won best production boat in the judging.
at 32 ft.
I would think that at 32 ft. a boat does not need a furling mast....spend the $ on an electric winch if you have trouble raining the main...... just my $.02
I would think that at 32 ft. a boat does not need a furling mast....spend the $ on an electric winch if you have trouble raining the main...... just my $.02
Design
Having owned a Vision 32 with a heavy mast and shoal keel, I think your friend is firing from the hip. The boat is heavier, since it's designed as such, but not tender. The form stability, coupled with the bulb keel help a lot. Only you can determine if the pointing ability you will lose is worth the ability to sail in more shallow waters and if the roller furling main's convenience is worth the loss in sail area and shape. You can, of course, get a battened main and regain some of that. Rick D.
Having owned a Vision 32 with a heavy mast and shoal keel, I think your friend is firing from the hip. The boat is heavier, since it's designed as such, but not tender. The form stability, coupled with the bulb keel help a lot. Only you can determine if the pointing ability you will lose is worth the ability to sail in more shallow waters and if the roller furling main's convenience is worth the loss in sail area and shape. You can, of course, get a battened main and regain some of that. Rick D.
Don't agree
I have a 28.5' beneteau with an in-mast furler, I have dock mates with a Catalina 320 and a 38' Hunter both with in-mast. I'm not sure of the keels on the Catalina and Hunter but I have a wing keel (about 4.5' draft) and I sure don't feel like I have a tender boat. Neither of my dock-mates consider their boats tender either. The great thing is that if you or your crew feel like your heeling too much, roll up some sail (from the safety of the cockpit). There are some folks who just plain don't like furling mains and I guess if you are a serious racer, they are a slight handicap. They are made for convenience and none of us would ever go back.
I have a 28.5' beneteau with an in-mast furler, I have dock mates with a Catalina 320 and a 38' Hunter both with in-mast. I'm not sure of the keels on the Catalina and Hunter but I have a wing keel (about 4.5' draft) and I sure don't feel like I have a tender boat. Neither of my dock-mates consider their boats tender either. The great thing is that if you or your crew feel like your heeling too much, roll up some sail (from the safety of the cockpit). There are some folks who just plain don't like furling mains and I guess if you are a serious racer, they are a slight handicap. They are made for convenience and none of us would ever go back.
No Necessarily So!
John, Tenderness probably has more to do with hull shape than anything. We have a Beneteau 321 with shoal keel (4.3') and a classic main. I have sailed the same model with in-mast furling and did not find it any more "tender". Light air performance suffers a bit with the in-mast furling, but in 15+ you will not know the difference. I singlehand most of the time and there have been times when I envy those who have in-mast convenience when time to raise or reef the main. When the air is light, I will "smokem". Jon McClain
John, Tenderness probably has more to do with hull shape than anything. We have a Beneteau 321 with shoal keel (4.3') and a classic main. I have sailed the same model with in-mast furling and did not find it any more "tender". Light air performance suffers a bit with the in-mast furling, but in 15+ you will not know the difference. I singlehand most of the time and there have been times when I envy those who have in-mast convenience when time to raise or reef the main. When the air is light, I will "smokem". Jon McClain
Get the numbers
I have a C320 with just the features you mention. Is it more tender than a C320 with a traditional sail and fin keel? I don't know - the boat sails well for us in all conditions. But you should ask Charlston Spar how much more their furling mast weighs than the regular mast. Then factor in the extra 400 lbs. of keel mass for the wing keel (4400 lbs. v. 4000 lbs. fin keel). Another thing to think about - what about the weight of the radar dome and mount that many boats havehigh on the mast? Is that more than the extra weight of the furlng mast?
I have a C320 with just the features you mention. Is it more tender than a C320 with a traditional sail and fin keel? I don't know - the boat sails well for us in all conditions. But you should ask Charlston Spar how much more their furling mast weighs than the regular mast. Then factor in the extra 400 lbs. of keel mass for the wing keel (4400 lbs. v. 4000 lbs. fin keel). Another thing to think about - what about the weight of the radar dome and mount that many boats havehigh on the mast? Is that more than the extra weight of the furlng mast?
30 Years of sailing and he still does not know
I have a H-36 shoal draft RF main rated class "A" ocean. Someone did some good engineering on my boat. It's the stiffest boat I have ever sailed. I raced a MORC racer for ten years with .52 ballist ratio, also sailed on it's ear for 10 years. You do give up some pointing and some sail area but single handling is easier than on a 22 footer.
I have a H-36 shoal draft RF main rated class "A" ocean. Someone did some good engineering on my boat. It's the stiffest boat I have ever sailed. I raced a MORC racer for ten years with .52 ballist ratio, also sailed on it's ear for 10 years. You do give up some pointing and some sail area but single handling is easier than on a 22 footer.
Doesn't make sense to me
The furling main is by design smaller than a standard main, by about 30%. This should balance out the shoal keel. My Hunter 356 is very stable with the furling main and shoal keel, and wouldn't think twice about her.
The furling main is by design smaller than a standard main, by about 30%. This should balance out the shoal keel. My Hunter 356 is very stable with the furling main and shoal keel, and wouldn't think twice about her.
John, the design of the boat will make it tender
Not necesarily just one factor, whether that is keel, mast or whatever. These days ~most~ sailboat designers have taken furling masts and shoal-keels into account. Actually when you look at most boat specs the shoal-draft boats have a lot more ballast in the wing/shoal keel to compensate for just this reason. Not to mention that they've been designing much flatter wider hulls for coastal cruising boats these days and that usually translates to a very stiff boat (well at least until ~90 Degrees
) Here are two very good articles someone posted on another sailing site they are links to an article that Yachting World did on stability (BEGINNING QUOTE) http://www.yachting-world.com/yw/stability/stability97.pdf http://www.yachting-world.com/yw/stability/stability99.pdf "Very very interesting stuff. Its amazing how much the stability curves change with just reducing a little weight aloft. Notice the huge difference in the stability curves for the same boat, one with a regular mast and one with a an "in mast" furling system. Puting the "In Mast" furling system changed the angle of positive stability from 127 degs to 96 degs WOW ! " (END QUOTE) I think thats what that the "30 year + sailor" was talking about. Now everyone must try to understand that LPS is not always directly related to tenderness of a boat. A catamaran might have an LPS of just over 90 Degree's but they are very stiff & it takes alot energy to get the boat on its end. ps. 2 more points 1) ISO class ratings (A, B, C, etc) have nothing to do with tenderness of a sailboat. In fact some of the most sturdy ocean going boats are considered 'tender' up until 30-40 degree's 2) Just an FYI for yachts in Category A the minimum range is 110 degrees minus displacement/2 bbut not less than 95 degrees. At least this was the ISO spec in 1999, so just because your boat is rated A doesn't mean as much as people really think. Its much much more important to really know the actual stability curves. As an fyi Here are the stability curves for a Catalina 36, just to give people an idea of what they look like. LPS 115 deg. Not bad, but necessarily the most ideal if I was rounding cape horn but clearly in the Category A rating. Ideally you want all the area to be above the horizontal line and little to no area below the line. http://albertson.sytes.net/~chris/C36_Polars/gif_clean/C36Polars_as.gif Too bad more manufacturers didn't supply baseline stability curves for boats that they encourage people to take far offshore. It could be very telling for some people that might not know better, not that you couldn't or wouldn't take the boat off shore, but people should at least be aware . Of course the manufacturers don't want you to see these curves because upon closer scruitiny they might not be what the manufacturer wants you to think about the boat. I believe it has become a practice for European manufacturers and in some european sailboat magazine. In fact I think Yachting World will not reveiw a boat unless it supplies the curves and/or the STIX numbers. Back to the original question. If you had 2 identical hulled boats, one with a roller furling mast and one without. The one with a roller furling mast would be more tender in heavier winds and slower in light winds.
Not necesarily just one factor, whether that is keel, mast or whatever. These days ~most~ sailboat designers have taken furling masts and shoal-keels into account. Actually when you look at most boat specs the shoal-draft boats have a lot more ballast in the wing/shoal keel to compensate for just this reason. Not to mention that they've been designing much flatter wider hulls for coastal cruising boats these days and that usually translates to a very stiff boat (well at least until ~90 Degrees
) Here are two very good articles someone posted on another sailing site they are links to an article that Yachting World did on stability (BEGINNING QUOTE) http://www.yachting-world.com/yw/stability/stability97.pdf http://www.yachting-world.com/yw/stability/stability99.pdf "Very very interesting stuff. Its amazing how much the stability curves change with just reducing a little weight aloft. Notice the huge difference in the stability curves for the same boat, one with a regular mast and one with a an "in mast" furling system. Puting the "In Mast" furling system changed the angle of positive stability from 127 degs to 96 degs WOW ! " (END QUOTE) I think thats what that the "30 year + sailor" was talking about. Now everyone must try to understand that LPS is not always directly related to tenderness of a boat. A catamaran might have an LPS of just over 90 Degree's but they are very stiff & it takes alot energy to get the boat on its end. ps. 2 more points 1) ISO class ratings (A, B, C, etc) have nothing to do with tenderness of a sailboat. In fact some of the most sturdy ocean going boats are considered 'tender' up until 30-40 degree's 2) Just an FYI for yachts in Category A the minimum range is 110 degrees minus displacement/2 bbut not less than 95 degrees. At least this was the ISO spec in 1999, so just because your boat is rated A doesn't mean as much as people really think. Its much much more important to really know the actual stability curves. As an fyi Here are the stability curves for a Catalina 36, just to give people an idea of what they look like. LPS 115 deg. Not bad, but necessarily the most ideal if I was rounding cape horn but clearly in the Category A rating. Ideally you want all the area to be above the horizontal line and little to no area below the line. http://albertson.sytes.net/~chris/C36_Polars/gif_clean/C36Polars_as.gif Too bad more manufacturers didn't supply baseline stability curves for boats that they encourage people to take far offshore. It could be very telling for some people that might not know better, not that you couldn't or wouldn't take the boat off shore, but people should at least be aware . Of course the manufacturers don't want you to see these curves because upon closer scruitiny they might not be what the manufacturer wants you to think about the boat. I believe it has become a practice for European manufacturers and in some european sailboat magazine. In fact I think Yachting World will not reveiw a boat unless it supplies the curves and/or the STIX numbers. Back to the original question. If you had 2 identical hulled boats, one with a roller furling mast and one without. The one with a roller furling mast would be more tender in heavier winds and slower in light winds. - Status