Why do people keep on claiming that sailors are conservative about rigs?

I am surprised more people are not advocating square riggers... between two masts on a catamaran.

 

As one of the people who consider that people are conservative about rig choice, I would ask that you do a similar survey for cruising boats. Percentages that are bermudan rigged, gaff rigged, unstayed, and whatever else you can find.

Then ask those cruisers what features their ideal rig would have and what they dislike about their current rig. In particular ask them the following :

Do you enjoy gybing in strong winds and big waves, especially at 3 am in the rain?
Do you reduce sail at night?
Have you ever been hit by an unexpected squall? Describe the experience.
Do you enjoy foredeck work, especially when the furler jams, the spi sock won't come down or the jib is flogging?
Have you ever missed seeing a boat because of a low footed headsail or high helm position?
Do you have to drop the main and hoist a spinnaker to sail dead downwind, or do you sail broad reaches with a spinnaker or screecher because the genoa won't set, the main rubs on the shrouds, you can't get leech tension and there is a high risk of an accidental gybe because the boom is at 60 degrees to the centre when it should be at 90?
Have you ever been hit by a traveller car or lashed by a flogging jib sheet ?
How many sails, spare sheets and extra deck gear do you carry, and what did they cost?
Do you enjoy replacing the standing rigging every 5 years or so, dropping the mast every year or so to examine the rigging, checking it before every long distance trip and worrying about a small piece breaking and the whole lot falling down?
Do you really value the extra degree or 2 of upwind ability that racing boats get from their bermudan rigs? How often do you sail upwind to take advantage of this, and how optimised is the rest of your boat to do so?

Then ask their wives the same questions.

Finally, ask them why they chose a stayed rig, with swept back diamonds, which the vast majority of cats have and whether they have ever tried a different style of rig on a cruising boat. The basic reply will be either 1) because everybody else does or 2) because it is what the manufacturers supply 3) it is what the race boats use and no, they have never tried something different. This is the conservatism i refer to, not the rig choice in a racing dinghy.

Then, I guess you could ask them why they don't have an unstayed rig which overcomes all the above problems, frequently at a lower cost. The answers to this will display even more conservatism.

For what it is worth, if you advance a couple of pages in the windmill boat reference, you will come across a windmill rig I built on a 30' cat 30 years ago. Current project is a telescoping 18m/60' high windsurfer type rig for my proa, built using a technique that any amateur builder could use.

 

AGREED Rob

...and particularly with the comment of 'its what the race boats use'. What the race boats use is often limited by rating rules. The owners/designers do NOT want to go out on a limb and do something that might even get them disqualified from racing, or suffer such a big penalty as to not be competitive. .....So in many cases they practice 'conformity' .

One example of non-conformity that I have nor personally verified, but recently sent to me by the fellow who developed the SMG 50 catamaran with an A-frame mast and loose-footed mainsail. They entered a race in that Med, and fared very well upwind with 100 other vessels,....attached one PDF news release, have several others....

...speaking of non-conformity
1) A-frame mast
2) boomless mainsail
3) no boards nor keels
etc

 

This is exactly the sort of thing I meant. Rob Denny makes a list of factors that could very well influence sailors to pick a less efficient rig than is used on racing craft. Different folk will agree or disagree with the specific items, but the principle is sound: on a recreational boat pure performance may not and perhaps even should not be the first consideration.

He then has to bring conservatism into it, which is debatable, but never mind. Fashion might be a better word. Then an other poster chips in with, well, the sort of things we are familiar with from him.

 

So if we actually "personally verify" that race, what do we see;

1) there were only four cats
2) the other 3 of them were apparently charter boats
3) the boat that ran second is 11ft shorter, has two fixed propellers and no centreboards.

In total, the 50 footer was about 90m faster over 9 hours of racing. That's less than the difference one would expect between a fast 40 foot cruiser/racer cat and the boat of the type that ran second. A 50 footer that goes like a 40 footer isn't big news.

And what of the monos the SMG website mentions beating? Well, the top Salona was a heavy displacement (by modern standards) 37 footer with furling headsail and dacron cruising-style mainsail. In race 1, this production cruiser/racer was 20 minutes faster than the SMG50 over a 90 minute course. In race 2, the Salona 37 was over 40 minutes ahead in a race that took less than 4 hours. In race 3, the 50 didn't start. In races 4 and 5, it finally got 20+ minutes ahead of the 37 foot cruiser/racer charter mono.

In total time (a measure the SMG vendors use in promotion) the 50 foot cat was therefore considerably slower than a 37 footer cruiser/racer designed to rate well under the much-maligned rating rules.

So that seems like a pretty good advertisement for the conventional rig, and a demonstration that those who prefer it may well do so for very good reasons.

 

CT249, you have the patience of a saint.

 

Obviously it is possible that conservatism is an issue. However, if it's not apparently present in small craft why is it supposedly pervasive in big ones?

If conservatism is a bias to be considered then surely we must also consider that bias may lead people to favour alternative rigs. Some may hope to benefit financially, some may just like feeling different and "better". How can we separate these sources of pyschological bias, when all or most of us suffer from one of them or some other bias?

Any list of questions generated by a person who favours one rig is extremely likely to be affected by their subconscious bias, as is their weighting of the factors and answers. I don't like the standard multi rig you speak of either - but is that because it's inferior or is it because my family prefer other rigs on their multis? Similarly, I feel that upwind performance is MUCH more important than gybing at 3am - but if others feel differently then who has the right to claim that one preference is "conservatism" and the other is correct?

Preferences regarding issues like the supposed reduced maintenance of freestanding rigs don't seem to boil down to "conservatism" - there is simply a lack of objective evidence that captures all of the factors. For instance, many people who seem pretty qualified don't reckon you need to replace rigging every 5 years. Maybe the people you speak to turn off when they hear such claims? Similarly, I've never seen what appear to be reliable figures that prove that freestanding rigs have a lower loss rate - so is failure to believe that claim conservatism or realism?

I may as well declare my own bias. Most sailors are well educated, many people who are not generally conservative sail conservative boats, we sail for fun, each rig has strong and weak points, and everyone has their personal preferences. needs and desires. Add that up, and it seems that saying that a particular rig is chosen because of one psychological trait is not very logical.

 

Obviously it is possible that conservatism is an issue. However, if it's not present in small craft why is it supposedly pervasive in big ones?

If conservatism is a bias to be considered then surely we must also consider that bias may lead people to favour alternative rigs. Some may hope to benefit financially, some may just like feeling different and "better", others because they have a bias towards new stuff. How can we separate these sources of pyschological bias, when all or most of us suffer from one of them, or from some other bias?

Any list of questions generated by a person who favours one rig is extremely likely to be affected by their subconscious bias, as is their weighting of the factors and answers. I don't like the standard multi rig you speak of either - but is that because it's inferior or is it because my family prefer other rigs on their multis? Similarly, I feel that upwind performance is much more important than gybing at 3am - but if others feel differently then who has the right to claim that one preference is "conservatism" and the other is correct?

Preferences regarding issues like the supposed reduced maintenance of freestanding rigs don't seem to boil down to "conservatism" - there is simply a lack of objective evidence that captures all of the factors. For instance, many people who seem pretty qualified don't reckon you need to replace rigging every 5 years. Maybe the people you speak to turn off when they hear such claims? Similarly, I've never seen what appear to be reliable figures that prove that freestanding rigs have a lower loss rate - so is failure to believe that claim conservatism or realism?

I may as well declare my own bias. It's partly caused by sailing a huge variety of craft and (hopefully) also based on the evidence that shows that most sailors are well educated, that many people who are not generally conservative sail conservative boats, that we sail for fun, that each rig has strong and weak points, and that everyone has their personal preferences, needs and desires. Add that up, chuck in other factors, and my bias is that different rigs suit different people and therefore their choice is not necessarily driven by conservatism.

Finally, now that modern archives are allowing us to research the history of sailing using contemporary primary sources, we can see that many claims about historical bias in our sport are rubbish, as in the case of Truant and Una. That may be evidence that we may have a tendency to see conservative bias where there is none.

BTW when you say "ask some cruisers" and then say "then ask their wives the same questions" it seems that you are making some assumptions about the gender of cruising sailors and their beliefs. Why are "cruising sailors" a separate class from "wives"? Is that conservatism?

 

An old friend has a shop where he fixes up and sells old muscle cars. We grew up on these cars. Anyway, he sells them to people who remember the good things about these cars and not the bad things, indeed they were not the best cars. But people spend big bucks for them and eventually return them after they remember the bad things. We not only forget the bad but look for reasons to justify our actions. I wish Junk sails perfomed better, I love how they look for example. But the proof is in the puddin, if certain technologies performed better they would used more.

 

I think a lot of sailing lore is loaded with half truths, which slowly change over the generations.

It is probably not true that rating rules unfairly favor the BR (Bermuda Rig).

But it is also mostly true that a lot of sailboat racing has adopted courses which favor its better windward ability. Races which are dead upwind and downwind are a case in point (there is often no limit on spinnaker size, for example, which favors the taller mast a BR sloop usually comes with).

Also, for a time, jib area was counted as fore triangle area only, no matter how big the actual jib was. One I had on my boat had a foot which was more than half again the length of the fore triangle.

And yes I do believe there is a bit of conservatism. And I believe it is completely understandable, and maybe justifiable as well.

This is for two reasons:

1.) it is better dealing with the devil you know than trying something else, which may not work. The vast majority of sailors are very familiar with the BR. This makes them far more likely to see its virtues and ignore its short comings. This is because dealing with its short comings has become second nature to them.

2.) although sailboats themselves come in many varieties and are, for the most part, practically semi custom (due to small production runs), the sails and rigging components usually are not. Masts, Booms, Shroud components , Stay components, and other rigging components are generally mass produced. And they are done so with the BR in mind.

This is true to such an extent that if I were designing a boat for a client, I would default to this rig, unless my client emphatically specified otherwise, simply due to the economics. The design process would go faster, and so to would the building one. Besides, the BR is versatile enough. I would be able to come up with a very acceptable version, no matter what the application.

There is a huge (by sail boating standards) industry built around the BR, who have a vast ocean of experience with it. This includes designers, builders, riggers, and even sail makers (many who have little or no experience with other types of sails).

Like the USA presidential nominating process, the choosing of sail type is not entirely fair. But it is probably fair enough.

 

The thread title is about conservativism, and was a direct dig at previous posts of mine, which is why I mentioned it.
Common sense is a better description than "fashion".

Brian,
I agree, A frame rigs are not conservative. But they are a variation of a stayed rig, with most of the problems inherent in them, plus some that aren't.

jee zuz! Take it to psychobabble.net.
You claimed that the range of differently rigged dinghies showed rig choices were not conservative. No mention of safety, performance, cost, local conditions, fleets or any other reasons. Which is pretty absurd. By the same logic, 99% of cruising boats having stayed bermudan rigs shows these people are conservative.

Instead of shooting the messenger and criticising my 'subconscious bias' in raising questions which are pertinent to everybody who cruises, why not answer all of them instead of just 2? Please have a crack at the others, with reference to using your boat as a cruiser, not a weekender or a racer.

No idea as I don't know what your family's rigs are. Please describe them. More importantly, how do they overcome the drawbacks of the stayed bermudan rig implied in my list of questions.

Sounds like you don't do much overnighting in areas where it is likely to happen. Those who do, dislike it intensely, for obvious reasons. Most of them reduce sail and sail slowly all night rather than risk it. And still have the dramas of gybing, reefing and furling when it occurs. With an unstayed rig, you simply release the mainsheet, the rig weathercocks and the boat drifts downwind. Pull on just enough of the new sheet to be comfortable and sail on.

Performance is getting from A to B quickly, under the circumstances. According to the cruisers I speak to and read about, being able to sail a couple of degrees higher to windward when you are hand steering and concentrating (and the sails are new, weight isto windward and all the aerodynamic drag is stowed away) is a poor trade off against not being able to sail lower than 100 apparent without having to faff about with extras or poling out the headsail, or having to shorten sail in squally weather because it is dangerous and hard work to do so when the squall hits.
To quote Richard Woods: "the (unstayed aero) rig works to 95% efficiency all the time. A conventional rig may work to 100% if you're an expert, but only 70% if you're not." I don't doubt that you are an expert. I do doubt that you sail like one 24 hours a day when you are cruising.

Now you are being silly. Do you really think a rig with wires, spreaders, their attachments, traveller and headsails has less maintenance than a mast with none of these??

30+ Wyliecats with unstayed rigs have been built over 25+ years. They race in windy San Francisco, one did very well in the last solo Transpac to Hawaii. The only broken mast was due to a poorly installed, undesigned for, spinnaker fitting.
The first cruising unstayed harryproa rig is now over 12 years old and has never been unstepped or ascended. None of the others have broken or been checked on a regular basis because there is nothing to check.
I built a Freedom mast 34 years ago, so they (and Nonsuches) have been around at least this long. I have no idea of their mast record, but i would be surprised if any of them have broken due to lack of maintenance or misuse while sailing.
I find it hard to believe your claim that you did not know most of this or that you don't consider it "objective evidence".

An unstayed rig can fail if it is poorly built or designed. As can a stayed one. The difference is that a stayed one will fail through misuse or lack of maintenance. An unstayed one won't.

Ask them (or any cruiser, racer, surveyor, insurance company or yourself) if they would advise people to go offshore in a well used boat with rigging older than 5 years. Ask them to put it in print and you will get enough prevarication to show it is not recommended.

Maybe. But my claims are based on a lot more science and experience than that presented second hand from "people who seem to be experts". Plus we have more than enough work, so not all of them are turned off by it.

It would help the conversation more if you just answered the questions.

No idea. I do know that using it to score debating points is straw clutching.

Spend some time talking to cruisers or read any cruising forum to see that the majority of cruising wives are less gung ho and involved in the sailing and maintenance of their boats than their husbands. For example, how many cruising wives are hoisted aloft to check the status of the rigging? And more tellingly, how many husbands would accept their verdict that the forestay needed replacing because of a hairline crack in the swage without going up themselves to check it? How many wives would do the same if the roles were reversed?

Ask a cruising wife for answers to the questions I posed if you do not understand what i am getting at.

 

Have you done this on another boat then a proa ? I have a small unstayed unirig (lateen) boat, and if I let the sail weathercock downwind and sheet in a bit, the boat is uncontrolable because of the CE of the sail being way too far in front. The nose of the boat is forced sideways. Only when I sheet in till the sail is "squared" (is that English ?) the boat is controlable again.
I can imagine this would also be true on a bigger boat with aerorig, maybe to a lesser extent because of the balancing force of the jib......

Just curious.

Cheers, Hans

 

Actually Rob, you weren't in the class of persons the thread was discussing. I started it because I was reading through junk rig posts, where the claim was made.

Re you "psychobabble" point. There is an enormous amount of scientific evidence that cognitive bias exists in humans. If you can't consider that there could be reasons for bias apart from conservatism, we may as well stop discussing things here and now. If you cannot consider the fact that YOU have bias (just as I do, just as we all have bias) then we may as well stop discussing things here and now.

About "you claimed that the range of differently rigged dinghies showed rig choices were not conservative. No mention of safety, performance, cost, local conditions, fleets or any other reasons. Which is pretty absurd. By the same logic, 99% of cruising boats having stayed bermudan rigs shows these people are conservative."

If people choose dinghy rigs for logical reasons of safety, performance, cost, local considerations or similar reasons then they are clearly NOT doing so because of conservatism. If people choose the rig that objectively works in dinghies then it is reasonable to say that they may choose a rig that objectively works in cruisers. The diversity in small craft rigs shows that sailors are not conservative, therefore it indicates that people do not choose big boat rigs because of conservatism. Fairly simple stuff.

I wasn't insulting you or your rigs so it would be nice if you would return the favour. It's not "silly" to reflect that people have not PROVEN their claims. Yes, people have said that freestanding rigs have less maintenance but people make many claims - showing proof is something completely different. My info on rigging replacement schedules is from riggers, cruisers and insurers. So let's look at the Wyliecat example you gave. You said "The only broken mast was due to a poorly installed, undesigned for, spinnaker fitting." However, a quick search reveals the following;

1- the 30 footer Uno lost her mast in (IIRC) a Delta race; and

2 - it looks like a 39 also lost a stick; "later in life I went from a Cal 20 to an Aphrodite 101, and then to my current boat of 10 years, a Wyliecat 39. In July I loaned boat to a friend - he raced it and broke about 70 feet worth of carbon fiber mast - ouch."

So what happened to just one of them breaking? We are now looking at 1 in 15 rigs breaking, from (I assume) 17 footers to 44s or whatever, most of which probably spend most of their time inshore. So the initial claim of one rig lost very soon appears to be incorrect. So is 2 lost masts in 30 boats actually any better than the record of "conventional" rigs? Can you give us evidence that more than 1/15th of a group of boats comparable to the Wyliecat have dropped sticks?

By the way, when I was googling Wyliecat rigs I came across a post of mine where I was praising the wishbone rig on a Wyliecat thread on Sailing Anarchy. Why would anyone plagued by conservatism defend an unorthodox rig? I actually really like the Wyliecat rig. I like lots of unconventional boats, which is why years ago I took the time to give the Harryproa some publicity. I personally sail some unconventional boats - the two fastest singlehanders I have are so unconventional that we can't get a fleet together. However, the point is that it's not always "conservatism" that is leading people to choose other rigs.

The point about the term "cruising wives" wasn't a cheap debating trick to win points; it was an example of the fact that we all take positions that may reasonably be called "conservative"..

I've spent weeks cruising and sailing with "cruising wives" (aka women who cruise and happen to be married to men who cruise). The most experienced 'cruising wife' I know - someone with 20 year of living aboard, 200,000 miles, wins in the Coastal Classic, Channel Race, Commodores Cup, Hobart and Fastnet, and awards from some of the top cruising associations under her belt - is not a stupid person, nor a conventional one. She has faced all of the issues you mention. I don't agree with her choice of boat or rig, but from knowing her there seems to be zero chance that she has based her choice on conservatism. She is an excellent example of a person who does not deserve the insults flung at anyone who would assume that she is governed by conservatism.

Yes, I have faced all the issues you mention, most recently in a 30' shorthanded offshore racing tri (not the steed of conservatives). No, I don't find the problems to be that significant.

I'm signing off now because I have to race my wing masted multi tomorrow.

 

Not counting the one you broke at Coffs Harbour?? on the smaller harryproa .

 

http://www.runningtideyachts.com/sail/
I'm not so sure this subject thread is directed at your views primarily Rob.

I've had a long running dispute with CT249's views on whether or not racing rules discourage certain new developments in sailing tech, and or encourage certain directions of new tech.

My views started right here with this portion of my website: