Conference unifix::sailing

    Dean, I believe a keel stepped mast is important only when you plan
    to bend it to shape the main , i.e. racing.  Also racers tend to
    put a lot more pressure into the backstay which might not effectively
    be held up by a compression column.  For serious cruising (and no,
    I don't believe you'll do it, but we'll humor you anyway) a deck
    stepped mast would be a whole lot easier to step and unstep in foriegn
    ports with less than elaborate facilities.  Additionally, should
    it break it would be easier to toss overboard, (as seen by the
    difficulty on Lightning last weekend).
    
    BTW I thought you had been "over served" when we talked about the
    Crealock at Jubilee.  You can't be serious! ;^)
    
    Dave

    One of the main reasons for choosing a deck-stepped mast for a cruiser
    is that it eliminates a major source of leakage - the deck penetration.
    The negatives are that you're more likely to lose the rig if any
    stays or shrouds fail, and it's fussier to take the mast in and
    out. It's also real important that the mast step hold the mast in
    the boat under all extreme conditions; losing your rig because it
    jumped out of the step is no fun.
    
    Ross Faneuf
    

    At least one racing sailboat has its mast stepped on the deck. 
    The J22 is so equiped and stepping the mast is a DIY affair.  The
    mast is a bendy fractional rig and its ability to shape the main
    doesn't seem adversely affected.  There are several boats of comparable
    size whose names I can't remember that are similarly rigged.
    
    One plus for deck stepped mast is the elimination of the hole in
    the cabin top that admits water.  Even a rubber boot aroud the base
    doesn't keep it all out.  A surprising amount runs down the sail
    slot.  
    
    But the larger the boat, the less advantageous deck stepping appears.
    There is a practical limit on the size mast that can be conveniently
    raised and lowered on a tabernacle.  The engineering seems easier
    with the mast stepped on the keel.  Probably stronger too.  
    
    For the die hard sail shape enthusiast, pre-bend is easier to induce
    with the keel stepped mast.  Just block the mast back or forward
    at the partners.  With the deck stepped mast shims under the forward
    or stern edge of the base must be inserted which are a lot less
    convenient.
               
    - gene ho

Our 32' cutter has a keel stepped mast -- well, not really. It is 
stepped on the deep floors over the keel. It isn't difficult, with 
modern technology, to prevent leaking around the mast at the deck. I 
doubt we've gotten more than a cup of water into the boat from around 
the mast in nine years. 

With the mast wedges in place, our mast will stand quite happily without 
any of the rigging connected. Given the mast's heavy section, I think 
(wishfully perhaps) that there is a high probability that the mast won't 
come down if any single shroud or stay breaks, especially because of the 
permanent inner forestay and intermediate backstays. As Ross pointed 
out, a deck stepped mast is less likely to stay up. 

I'm not sure that a deck stepped mast is cheaper. The compression post 
under the mast has to be at least as strong as the mast itself and has 
to rest on the keel (or floors). And a second mast step (on the deck) is 
also required. It seems simpler simply to seal the hole in the deck and 
keel step the mast. 

The question of stepping/unstepping is, I think, of minor importance 
past a certain boat size (thirty feet maybe). Our mast is around 50' 
long and heavy enough that stepping/unstepping it requires a crane or a 
very strong, carefully built lifting frame. I roughly designed a frame 
once. The ability of the mast to stand will all the rigging detached 
made the design easier. Now, if the mast step and mast base were 
designed to allow the mast to pivot down to horizontal, then 
stepping/unstepping would be fairly easy. My recollection of the 
Crealock 37 is that its mast step isn't designed this way. 

"A proper seagoing yacht must have her mast stepped through the deck and 
onto a well-engineered mast step that is structurally supported by the 
keel. In the event of a dismasting, there will almost always be a stump 
of spar left to carry sail." Rod Stephens and Mitchell Gibbons-Neff, The 
Desireavle and Undesireable Characteristics of Offshore Yachts.

    Everyone has an opinion on this one.  The leaking isn't an issue...
    a good boot and some goop does it.  My concern is to not compound
    a major failure into two or more failures.  The loss of an upper
    shroud is bad enough without adding the subsequent loss of the spar
    itself and the good possibility of structural damage to the cabin
    top, deck, or whatever, when the broken mast end comes down.  I've
    heard good arguments on both sides of this issue from equally
    experienced and acredited people.  I'd rather have the spar go neatly
    over the side than put up with any secondary magic.  

    I was aboard a boat that lost its rig in the Gulf Stream.
    The tube collapsed under violent compression so all the shrouds were
    intact and the rig was held relatively fast -- a 190 degree bend
    about 4 feet above the deck with 20 feet of tube leading aft to the 
    surface, then a 90 degree bend with 50 or so feet pointing down.  After 
    initial disaster control, we decided to bring the rig back aboard, as 
    cutting shrouds would invariably lead to the moment when the rig 
    would start bouncing in the heavy seas and possibly hole the boat.  
    
    This mast was stepped on the keel.  Had the mast been stepped on
    deck, I think our situation would have been worse.  Forgetting
    for the moment that a 70 foot deck-stepped mast would be ludicrous,
    the rig would still have come down around our ears, but with the 
    added hazard of the butt end jouncing around on the deck, or worse, 
    slipping over the side and skewering the hull before we had a chance 
    to recover.  The "book" reads that it is usually preferable to cut away 
    a downed rig, but there are obviously instances when it's good to 
    have an option.

    In the event of the ultimate dismasting when the boat pitch-poles and 
    the rig is stripped off, the flood of water coming in through the new 
    "deck window" would be daunting -- especially if the boat fails to 
    right itself.  In that instance, a deck step could save your life.  
    Otherwise, I see the probability for safety leaning more towards the 
    keel step.

    Speaking in general terms, I have always prefered a rig that can 
    stand by itself -- for the sake of changing out shrouds, ease of 
    rigging once stepped, and tuning.  If you're preparing for the worst,
    I guess a deck step is the way to go, but if you consider
    the far greater probability of lesser disasters, coupled
    with general serviceability, it still seems to me the keel step 
    is preferred.

    
    re .-1
    
    >>  In the event of the ultimate dismasting when the boat pitch-poles
    >>  and the rig is stripped off, the flood of water coming in through
    >>  the new "deck window" would be daunting
    
    ...now I understand a racer's view of "serious cruising"!!
    
      ;)
    

    Re -.2 I want to know how much fun the ride home was!  Barf city
    I'd bet.  A boat with a mast in the Gulf Stream is no fun.  Without
    a mast is too much to contemplate.  Excuse me, I'm not feeling well.
    Gotta go...
    
    Dave

    Oops:
    
    "190 degree bend" should read 90.  Still a pretzel.
    
    re. .7
    
    Any ocean passage of more than a hundred miles is pretty
    serious crusing.  Getting rolled off Cape Horn is pure survival.
    
    re .8 
    
    We motored 70 miles to Miami.  I screwed up my knee during
    the gymnastics so I took a mild sedatative and slept for most 
    of the ride.  

re the Crealock 37:

Another thought. The Crealock 37 is available as a cutter, yawl, and 
perhaps sloop (if I remember correctly). The mast may be deck stepped to 
minimize the number of engineering and building differences required by 
the various rigs.

    I wrote to Crealock on this matter, and they
    replied that they believed their design was
    best for the size of the boat.  They did mention
    leaking as a major advantage, and they went on to
    say that keel-stepped masts require "panting" rods
    to minimize deck/hull flex, whereas the use of a compression
    column makes the hull itself inherently more rigid.
    That sounds like somewhat of a white-wash to me, as a panting
    rod can be beefy enough to take compression as well.
    
    Out of curiosity, what other boats in the 34 to 38 foot
    range do people think would be suitable for double-handed
    world cruising?  (Do we have a not on that someplace else?)
   
        ;)

    A Hinckley, what else.
    
    I'm drawing upon woefully limited personal experience here but what
    I've seen I like.  The 35's and 38's are no longer in production
    but they occasionally turn up on the used market.  The 38 in particular
    had a limited production run but it's the one I'm most familiar
    with.  
    
    The hull configuration is somewhat out of the Hinckley mainstream,
    being closer in intent and overall appearance to the current
    Competition 42 than any of their other models.  Although the keel
    is a fin, it's broad, long, and shallow compared to the C42's.  Of
    all things, there's a trim tab hanging off the back.  The 38 was
    designed with the IOR rule in mind and, at the time, trim tabs were
    in vogue in some racing circles.  Mostly, the trim tab stays locked
    in the middle but when maneuvering in a tight anchorage it's handy
    to have it synchronized with the rudder's motion.  The rest of the
    hull is tradiional Hinckley with pilot berths, dorades, deck prisms,
    large teak trimmed hatch covers,and large comfortable cockpit.
    Displacement according to the spec sheet is around 17500 lbs.  
    
    The rig on the one I've sailed on is a relatively short single spreader
    spar with a fairly wide distance between the chainplates.  Handling
    is, in my opinion, a good compromise.  Pointing is superb, much
    better than one would expect as is the speed upwind.  Off the wind,
    speed is what one would expect.  Light air performance is good but
    the 150 genoa is needed.  In heavy air sail has to be shortened.
    The 38's not a lead boat and won't carry full sail at 20 knots without
    heeling excessively.  But with an appropriate amount of sail, heavy
    air and big waves are the conditions of choice.
    
    For short handed world cruising the above considerations are nice
    but what really counts is whether the boat can take a bashing while
    still providing some good all around performance.  The 38 I've sailed
    on is owned by an institution which makes it available to affiliates.
    Needless to say, it gets a lot of use.  From the middle of May to
    the middle of October it's in action 4-5 days a week.  July and
    August it's more like 6-7 days per week.  All of August is spent
    cruising the Maine coast.  Experience and good judgement are not
    prerequisites for using the boat since they've allowed persons such
    as myself to sail it.  The result of this discriminatory user selection
    process is that bits of keel and hull have been left on most of
    the rocks and docks between Gloucester and Scituate.  Maintenance
    happens when something breaks, and unless it's major, it's usually
    a DIY affair.  Spring preparation is rushed and usually only the
    bare minumum needed to get in the water.  But it's still floating.
    The boat was around 10 years old when it was donated to the present
    owner and it's been operated under the present circumstances for about
    7 years.   
    
    One design feature that may be a source of concern is the engine
    location - in the bilge above the keel.  Low CG and easy access
    but a reliable bilge pump is a must.  The one time it failed was
    a real soaking not only for the engine and battery but also for
    the bank account.
    
    The 38 is worth checking out.  
    
    

re .11:

Somewhat smaller than your size range is the Valiant 32. A strong, 
well-designed boat is ample room for two living aboard. After nine 
years, much cruising in Maine and a trip to Bermuda, I'd have no 
hesitation about heading around the world on ours. 

Somewhat larger than your size range is the Valiant 40. I've sailed one 
only once and all too briefly. But after talking to Dan Byrne and 
Francis Stokes (and reading the accounts of other Valiant 40 owners) it 
is the boat I'd really like to sail around the world.

    I have a 51 year old wooden cutter with a keel stepped mast.  It
    leaks like crazy where the mast goes through the deck but this is
    purely a function of a bad choice of material for the seal.  I don't
    see any reason that this joint could not be made watertight if done
    properly ( I intend to do this for next season).  
    
    This boat doesn't appear to have ever had compression posts or panting
    rods.  My surveyor has recommended compression posts on either side
    of the mast (about midway in the deck span).  I don't really see
    the reason for this.  Intuitively, I would have guessed that this
    area of the deck would cry for tension rods not compression posts.
    My feeling is that the chain plates are transfering a lateral load
    to the deck beams here and this would tend to create an upward force
    on their already upward bowed geometry.
    
    Since I am thinking of leading all of my halyards aft and this adds
    even more upward  force here I was going to compromise the surveyor's
    suggestion and install a rod that could take compression and/or
    tension (when in doubt ... overkill).  Any one have some suggestions
    on this?
    
    By the way I think that for the same mast section a keel stepped
    mast has inherently more strength than a deck stepped one.  All
    this really means though is that a proper design in either format
    will serve you well.  Probably it is easier to do a hack job of
    design on a deck step than a keel step (for strength margins) and
    for this reason I would guess that a GOOD designer can provide
    adequate strength either way while a bad designer might have more
    success sticking with a keel step since it's more forgiving. 

    re .14
    
    A while back I used to sail on US-One-Designs.  These are 38 foot
    Alden design wooden sloops built in Quincy Mass. during the late
    40's.  The boats in the local fleet were all 30+ years old at the
    time and most were in less than bristol condition.  Cost conscious
    owners were one of the reasons but the main cause was the flimsiness
    of the boats' construction.  
    
    Everyone had two major problems:  the inability to maintain shroud
    tension and leaking at the garboard planks.  Trying to get more
    shroud tension generally aggravated the leaking problem.  Some thought
    that upgrading the shrouds to a larger diameter would help the tension
    problem.  It did to a degree but at the expense of much more leaking.
    On some of the boats the leaking was so bad at the mooring that the 
    owners tried installing battery operated bilge pumps.  That worked
    fine as long as the battery lasted but that usually wasn't more
    than a few days.  The water would be up past the floor boards the
    next weekend.
    
    These were supposed to be one-design racing boats but no one really
    cared what you did to your boat if it wasn't visible and it didn't
    cost anything.  One of the industrious owners figured out that hull
    flexing probably had something to do with the leaking.  His solution
    was to jam a 2X4 up against the overhead in the area of the chain
    plates spanning the full width of the boat.  Then another one between
    the chain plates which were just horizontal stringers spanning a
    few ribs.  Finally two X braces connected the upper and lower studs.
    The idea was to stiffen the boat across the beam to disallow any
    "squeezing" of the hull.  
    
    It worked.  His was the only boat that didn't require a full time
    pumper while sailing.  However, the bracing made it impossible for
    anyone who wasn't a contortionist to get to the front part of the
    cabin.
    
    A tension rod might have worked as well but the cuddy and deck on
    a US1 just didn't look substantial enough to take the veritical
    strain.  One further modification he later made was to tie the chain
    plates to the keel with turnbuckles.  The leakeage problem was already
    under control so this was probably overkill but the whole assembly
    looked bulletproof.  
    
    - gene