Talk:Sailing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Multis and monos 2 Overall comments 3 Sailing skills 4 Sailing hulls and hull shapes 5 Sailboat Racing 6 Where's the history section? 7 The physics of sailing 8 Needs a re-org 9 Reorg or rewrite? 10 What is a knockdown? 11 Apparent Wind 12 another method of reefing 13 This needs to be rewritten 14 Request for Help 15 External Links 16 Re-write effort -- non "how-to" 17 This is really more than one article 17.1 Sailing-related articles (March 2007) 18 Fastest Point of Sail? 19 I put a How-to revision notice at the top 20 Points of Sail 21 Redundant stuff

[edit] Multis and monos

The seriousness of this article needs to be cranked up a few notches. I'be begun by removing the outright rant wrt monohulls vz multis:

Multihulls, especially catamarans, sail much faster than monohulls. Unhappily it is common wisdom that in the open ocean, monohulls are the only safe design. Monohulls remain upright because their buoyancy is higher than their center of gravity. In severe storm or wave conditions, a monohull will recover from a capsize well enough for the crew to jury-rig some sails and limp to a port. A multihull will remain capsized and adrift, probably killing its crew.

-- Egil 07:02 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

I have read dthat Multi-hulls on the open ocean actually travel slower or at the same speed as monohulls. just adding trivia. -- colinpcarr

I've started to include some basic sailing theory and intend to continue to develop it as time allows. I've also tried to resequence it a bit so that it starts off with the simple stuf and then builds up to the more advanced aspects. I know there's still a lot more to do so if you want to help please "fill your boots" :-) PS If anyone thinks this is NOT the best page for this stuff please let me know. Thanks Julianp

I'll start working. colincarr, multihulls are light, and so they can't really punch through the waves the same way monohulls can. Additionally, if they have to start going through waves, their efficiency is greatly reduced. So, in wavy conditions nearshore or offshore, you'll find traditional multihulls go slower than monohulls. However, advanced multihulls such as SWATH hulls can move fairly fast. You should also mention hydrofoilers (such as the Moth dinghy). (Forgot sig again.) - Dastal 23:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

On the subject of saftey in multihulls versus monohulls, there is some validity to that argument. More specifically, the rule is that any monohull competing in Type 3 or above racing must be able to self-right. That is to say, has to be able to right from the action of the waves alone. Most monohulls acomplish this by being more stable upright then they are capsized. I'm not sure how they apply this rule to offshore dinghy racing. - Dastal 16:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Overall comments

This page has some good stuff in it, but IMO it is NOT very encyclopedic in style. The Sailing Techniques section reads too much like a How-To manual, I think we would be much better off with a more detatched analysis of sailing theory; basic aero and hydro dynamic forces acting on a boat, the relation between sail trim and relative wind, ect.

Also, this article also focuses pretty much exclusively on recreational bermundian sloops, which is understandable, but it would be nice to try to include (at least implicitly) other types of boats and rigging in the scope of the article.

I would like to hear peoples opinions on this before I start editting. --BadSeed 11:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I just completed a fairly massive overhaul of the types of sails and layouts, though it's not quite finished. - Dastal 18:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Waay to much How-To. It is like a mini-textbook for a sailing course. Even to the How-To needs to be worked over because a lot of it is so general as to be useless. Hull Trim, for instance, is generally sorta correct, except many boats aren't trimmed like that. You don't move aft in a Laser or a Thistle when going downwind unless it is really blowing. Often, it is faster to move weight way forward on the downwind. Not that I think we should go explaining that. My point is that the how-to format is unencyclopedic and also unworkable, because you have to have how-to (dinghies), how-to (keelboats), how-to (skiffs), how-to (cruisers), etc., etc., and you never reach the end. I feel bad ranting about this, because I don't have time to do the rewrite myself right now unless I quit my job. Tempting. Hmmm. Mrees1997 17:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sailing skills

First, I think the article is great. What about putting together some practical skills; docking, MOB (man over board), uncapsizing a dinghy, some images for points of sail, etc..

I especially would like to add docking because if there is anyway we could make an impact to "the world of docking", I watch people bounce around their slips all day, I believe everyone would be happier.:-) Colin Carr 15:49, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Good ideas. Please go for it Julianp 06:51, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sailing hulls and hull shapes

I added a section on the layout and advantages of multihulls Gary Mulder 18:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sailboat Racing

Also added a short para. with some references to other WP articles on the most major races Gary Mulder 18:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Where's the history section?

There's a lot here about modern sailing, but barely a word on the history of sailing. Same goes for sail. Are there really no takers on this aspect of it...? Peter ^Isotalo 7 July 2005 03:09 (UTC)

• Ditto! I came for the same thing. Too much emphasis on competition sailing. -Timvasquez
• I'll get to work on that as I have time. Cheers. --Dastal 22:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

* There is nothing on this page about the history on sailing!! My project is due Friday, Nov.03,2006 DUH!!!!!!!!!

[edit] The physics of sailing

The explanation using wings of airplane can more precisely described with the aerodynamic equation called Bernoulli Equation. It states that when fluid (in this case air) flow faster, the pressure will drop. Due to the difference in air flow on both sides of the sail, the pressure difference causes a resultant force pushing the sail forward.

• Actually, this is not entirely correct. According to Sail Power, a major text on the aerodynamics of sailing, it is mostly a rotational effect that creates momentum while sailing upwind. Otherwise factors such as slot width would be unimportant. Moreover, most modern sails are, at most, 3 mm thick. (These are more the high end mylar sheet/kevlar tape sails, though the sails on the Lark-hull dinghies used at Tufts University are certainly no thicker than that, and they are dacron.), creating a minimal pressure differential according to the Bernulli equation. Considering that the sails on 30-40 foot keelboats can generate upwards of 10 tons of force in moderate winds, it would seem that the Bernulli Equation is not the major source of force in sailing. (Edited to add signature.)--Dastal 22:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Besides this, if this effect did apply, the sail would bow into the wind and it would be possible to sail dead straight into the wind. This is utter nonsense. In all cases, the boat moves because as the wind pushes the sail, only the component of the force on the sail that is parrallel to the keel will have effect. Although the wind pushes the sail from one side of the sail's normal vector, the wind is also deflected to the other side of the normal vector so that the majority of the resulting force on the sail is parallel to the normal vector of the sail. Therefore, the sail will always be limited to an angle between the forward direction of the boat and the source of the wind (for simplicity, I am ignoring effects of frictional drag and bowing of the sail). Furthermore, depending on the angle of incidence of the wind on the sail, the effective area of the sail varies: if the sail is left to point straight away from the wind, then the effective area of the sail is nill. Taking these two statements into account, as the boat is more closely directed into the wind, the sail is more limited to smaller angles and, therefore, smaller effective areas. Thus, the more the boat points into the wind it has less power to move forward, until it must finally stop when it is pointing straight into the wind. In fact, this stop must come sooner because frictional drag and other effects are involved too.

When sailing directly with the wind, the boat approaches the speed of the wind so that the relative speed of the wind to the sail is decreased. Sailing at an angle to the wind, the boat must move faster to effect the same decrease of relative speed because it is only the component of the boat's velocity vector that is parallel to the wind that decreases the relative speed.

[edit] Needs a re-org

Hi all, Just thought I'd stick my whisker pole in here... I think that we have the basis of a great article here — or more correctly a series of articles. I think that a fairly major re-org is needed, and I'd start by splitting off at least one "child" article:

• Sailing should be a general overview of the sport
• Technique of sailing (suggest a better name?) should contain the "physics", and all the how-to stuff
• Sailing boats and rigs (suggest a better name?), to discuss boat types (monos, multis, ketches, schooners, etc.) and rigging (bermudan, gaff, junk, sprit, etc.)

And yes, we need a History bit, which could conceivably become a separate article.

Also, we need to mention single-handed versus double-handed and crewed sailing somewhere.

What do folks think of this? Just FYI, I'm working on getting all the single-handed sailing articles up to scratch — see my user page for a list. — Johantheghost 15:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorg or rewrite?

I agree its a bit bitty, and needs some tidying up. But it doesn't seem unwieldy, the bits seem to belong together. Should we try to rearrange the sections, renaming where need be? I don't really see the need for child articles, someone needing to find out about sailing could reallywant ot know about principles, skills, history, etc,. and therefore have his/her need met by looking up one article. Is there a coherent case for splitting up what we've got? Perhaps the history of sailing would be good, as its a bit of a specialist topic.

TonyClarke 19:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is a knockdown?

Hi all, I just removed this from the article:

... if however the boat heels beyond a certain point of stability, it can be knocked-down or capsize. A boat is said to have been knocked-down when the tip of the mast touches the water. When a boat floats fully inverted it is said to be capsized.

I believe this is incorrect, or at least misleading; in this definition, a gentle capsize in a dinghy on a duck pond would be called a knockdown. I don't believe that a knockdown is simply when the mast tip touches the water. In all the sailing literature I've read, a knockdown happens when sailing in the ocean, when the boat is hit by a steep following wave and violently thrown on to her side. The key is the violent part; a dinghy will capsize very gently if you simply sheet in and sit on the wrong side, but a knockdown is something that can cause a dismasting.

Now, this is my understanding, but before editing the article, I'd like to have other views, since I've never seen an actual definition of a knockdown, and how it relates to a broach. — Johan the Ghost _seance 10:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That does sound overly scientific and not in agreement with standard usage among recreational sailors in my area. To me, knockdown always implies a sudden change in trim past equalibrium; the boat heels significantly farther than it should (though not necessarily as far as the mast touching the water) and doesn't immediately right itself. Dinghy sailors and those in small monohulls (20-35 feet) would call a knockdown what happens when a sudden gust overwhelms the boat, usually because the sails can't be eased fast enough. "Man, when that squall hit us, we took a knockdown and the genoa track blew out." When reaching with a spinnaker, a knockdown can be caused by a gust or windshift; the boat is overcanvassed for the new speed/direction, and the spinnaker has too high a center of gravity and holds the boat down.

A knockdown can also be caused by a wave in the open ocean, a much more serious situation, but I don't think it's limited to that. Otherwise, we need a new term for small boats getting pushed over almost onto their sides (from which they recover eventually, though dinghies are more likely to actually "capsize" -- sails flat on the water, needing to be righted -- at that point of heel).

A broach happens when a boat suddenly accelerates, causing it to turn (upwind) and to heel onto its leeward side (centripetal force and hydrodynamics play roles here; the boat gets too much lift off the keel, causing it to turn, and the turning and acceleration cause it to heel more, as I understand it in simple terms). It can be caused by a following wave suddenly accelerating the hull, or by a wind gust, usually under spinnaker. After a broach, a boat is square to the wind and held down on its side; all heck breaks loose. In that sense, a broach could be considered a specific kind of knockdown, perhaps.

Others may have more precise definitions, but sailors aren't linguists. DavidH 21:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That all sounds good to me; I'm obviously more familiar with the ocean side of things, but I guess the common thread is that "knockdown" implies some degree of suddenness / violence. Your point about capsize not being synonymous with upside-down is also good; a capsize, to me, is simply when a boat is rolled beyond her point of self-righting. For a keelboat, this usually means upside-down, but for a dinghy it will usually be what you said — 90° over, sails flat on the water. — Johan the Ghost _seance 12:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Since I started it I feel I'd better take this chance to be heard. Unequivocally a boat is NOT capsized UNLESS the boat is inverted. All else can follow from there. Since a boat on its beam ends is NOT inverted, you cannot say it is capsized. If dinghy sailors in lakes in some parts of the country (world) have been saying they are 'capsized' when in fact they have not inverted their dinghies, then they have been mistaken. I suggest this is clear as per the article on Capsize - to wit: "Capsizing refers to when a boat is inverted such that the bottom of the boat is on top. The term is also used to describe a boat that has broached, pitch poled, rolled, or sunk."

Now the definition of a 'knockdown' is simple - it is when the beam ends (topsides or sides of the hull) are touching the water. This would be a 90 degree shift from the boats normal trim. The mast at this point may or may not actually touch the water depending on if the sails are bent on, how bendy the mast is, etc. Once the boat passes 90 degrees and reaches (say) 95 degrees surely the mast is now touching the water regardless and yet you still cannot say the boat is capsized.

Being knocked down has nothing to do with suddeness or strength of wind or wave, it merely describes the orientation of the vessel relative to its normal axis. Ahem. Even a boat with its mast pointing at 145 or 165 degrees is not technically capsized - it has to be 180 degrees inverted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jordanbigel (talk • contribs).

That sounds like a non-sailor's definition to me. I can't imagine a sailor insisting on using a protractor before deciding that a boat is capsized. Anyhow, US Sailing should know:

A small boat is said to capsize when it rolls over upside down or on its side with its mast and sails in the water. Turtling is a type of capsizing but only refers to the turning of the boat completely upside down with its sails and mast pointing vertically toward the sea bottom. Capsizes usually occur when a sudden guest of wind catches the skipper and crew off guard.[1]

And Safer Sailing:

As most sailors learn at some point in their sailing career, a knockdown occurs when an exceptionally large gust of wind, perhaps in combination with a wave, knocks your boat over onto its side with the sails parallel to the water.[2]

From ESPN's Americas Cup pages:

Broach: When a keelboat sailing on a run capsizes from a strong puff of wind or gets knocked down by a wave. Also called a Knockdown or a Wipeout.[3]

From Sailors Choice:

BROACH: To go over violently toward the wind and lose steering , a "knock down"[4]

From what I can see, "capsize" means what I thought: you've tipped over beyond the boat's righting angle, so you stay down. "Knockdown" seems to have different meanings to dinghy versus ocean sailors, but the common thread seems to be getting pushed over to mast-on-the-water or more. In a dinghy, that may be from just a puff, but for a heavy-displacement ocean boat (like mine) it would have to be something much more scary. "Turtled" is perfectly clear: upside-down. — Johan the Ghost _seance 15:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Capsize just means that the boat is over and staying over. A turtled boat is still capsized. With a dinghy you just lever it over and you are back in sailing trim. A keel boat will NEVER capsize unless there are dire circumstances (Such as dropping the keel). keel boats are what is called "Self righting". That means that at any angle they heel too, including right down to 90 degrees, they will right themselves once preasure is taken off the sails. When this happens it is called a knockdown. The keel boat heals over to the point that the sails stop functioning and the boat then rights itself. What causes a kockdown is ussually a "Broach". This is when, on a reach, the boat heals to leaward and the tip of the boom hits the water. This will often cause the main to tighten up to the wind, with crew being unable to sheet out due to water preasure on the boom. The boat heads up into the wind as it heals over and it's profile in the water changes (same theroy as roll tacking) and is ussually "knocked down" before it can recover. Please note that broaching is EXTREAMLY dangerious and a condition to be avoided at ALL costs. This is also how you commonly break masts at sea.

The 1979 Fastnet Report defined B1 knockdowns as when the mast is horizontal. B2 knockdowns are anything beyond that including a 360 roll. It is possible for a keel boat to capsize and to stay inverted. Virtually all commercially produce keel boats are capable of this, that is to say a very, very small number are actualli self-righting. Mosy knockdowns occur as a result of being struck by the breaking crest of a wave not by broaching. I can atest to this as I have been party to a goodly number of broaches and have never been 'knocked-down'. Broaching is not fun but is a very real part of competitive sailing due to the unstable nature of modern sailing hullforms. Capsize on the other hand IS very dangerous and, as noted occurs when a boat stays inverted, obviously it does not need to be at 180 degrees of heel to be 'capsized'. It just means that, left to its own devices the hull will not come back upright again.

Jmvolc 01:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apparent Wind

Added a bit about apparent wind when going downwind as it's a significant factor there. (not sure about my wording of it - maybe someone literate could improve?) Singlefin 16:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] another method of reefing

when i used to sail Optimists i remember we used to reef them by ommiting the sprit, folding the sail over and attatching the folded peice with a special elastic cord. Is this a common enough method of reefing to go in the reefing section of this article? Plugwash 19:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The method of attaching the sail while reefing may vary widely dependant on the rigs. It is important to make sure that the reefed portion is well attached to the boom but that the reefing lines are in no way in danger of getting caught in the pulleys or at a risk of tearing the mainsail when running on a beam reach or reach.

[edit] This needs to be rewritten

This needs to be rewritten. I have added some lines to "The Physics of Sailing" to correct terms. Who else here is a sailing instructor? I belive we should be taking material from the CYA White Sail handbook and US Sailing's program and rewriting them to fit this article. Any thoughts on contacting these organization and requesting permission to reprint the information here? That would be by far the easiest method of a rewrite. If that is not a good idea, I think that we have to determine a level that we are going to write too. If we are only going to to write to a White Sail III level then mentions of the Spin and the physics of sailing may be too much. But if we are going to write up at the bronze level this is all in, only leaving out the technicalities of racing (Silver Sail).

I also note a great lack in informative diagrams. In the physics of sailing section there should be at LEAST a diagram of the Bernonli and Venturi effects as well as how to determine the Centre of Lateral Resistance and the centre of effort and how they cancil each other out to create forward momentium. This would be a far clearer explination then trying to say "the force exerted on the sail is represented by a vector comming off at 90 degrees from the boom. As the sail is sheeted in and the boat heads up into the wind, the effort exerted on the boat from the sail becomes more lateral and creates leaway. The centreboard, or keel acts exerting force at 90 degrees from the centre of lateral resistance canciling out lateral movment and converting the force acting on the sails into forward momentium."

I want to do a full rewrite but could use the help of any other instructors that might be out there.

Peace!

Agreed, this very much needs to be rewritten. Would love to see some history, be great if we could find someone who could fill that in to work with. Some parts are nice, but it is erratic, and the introduction needs work. Some specific items from intro, perhaps they could be altered? Perhaps it could also be a bit shorter.

• "strafing to the sides?", how about slips to the sides or leeway?
• "...it is pushed in the direction that it bows."
• .."if the sail is pointed just as the boat, then the boat will only be pushed sideways" - This is not true. Depending on the camber

I unfortunatly can't help until the fall, so havn't wanted to suggest a rewrite or cleanup, but agree it is need. --Augustz 03:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I came across this when looking for ideas about another analogous article. It seems that there are several articles here. It should not be a textbook on sailing, so the first job would be to move out the section on knots. After that:

• There should be an article about the use of wind to propel a ship/boat, and types of vessel perhaps with a brief history, ie mainly about the vessels themselves. The physics of sailing might fit in here, but that might also have to be spun off.
• There should be an article about the sport of sailing and its various branches from wind-surfing to ocean racing, again with a brief history
• Perhaps another article on the commercial use of sailing from prehistory to the nineteenth century
• There should also be an article on how to do it, where it applies to all vessels from schooners to dinghies. The two references to rules of the road could be brought in here.
• Terminology can be a separate article though it should also be spread throughout the other articles with explanations.

There is much good material here already, so it probably would not take too long. JMcC 17:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Help

I write a blog called livesaildie, and recently we've began teaming up with other sailing bloggers from right across the world. We seeking to create an entire wiki devoted purelly to sailing. The knowledge that is here is great, but sailing is a huge sport and I hope we can expand it into areas beyond what is suitable on wikipedia. We can't simply copy content off Wikipedia due to incompatibility between Creative Commons and LGPL licencing, but if any of you would like to help out, it'd be much appreciated.

The project is entirelly just for fun, with no ads on the site and everyone just helping out for fun. Its called wetwiki and can be found here :) I apologise in advance if this breaks any wikipedia rules.

NEW REQUEST their is a problem on a link titled.....Sailing traditions and etiquette..... it states a ship should pull up its [fenders] on leaving the harbor, however the link goes to FENDER GUITARS, so what is a ships fender ??? i don't know... thanx...j

[edit] External Links

Some of the links seem to point at websites that are not maintained anymore (Mark Rosenstein's sailing directory contains a high percentage of dead links); I would suggest to link to Sailingahead.com which contains an up-to-date directory and lots of articles of the "How to" and "General Information" kind. Any pros or cons? Thanks, -Wolfadeus 22:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I take the silence as neutrality and go ahead to add the link. If you want to remove it, please give a reason here first. Thanks! -Wolfadeus 08:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be great if someone knowledgeable about sailing would take the time to weed the external links. It looks like some of them are helpful and informative, but some of them are advertising/commercial links that should go. FreplySpang 18:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm no sailing expert, but I know commercial intent when I see it, and I have pulled a number of such. I did not do an exhaustive job, though, so... -- Mwanner | Talk 20:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! FreplySpang 21:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Just cleaned up the link section again. Not sure about some of the remaining links. --Sailor66 22:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up, but I think there is an issue here. The links that remain are a) commercial (google ads all over the place b) No one actually uses those sites as they are deadly boring. Some that have a healthy community were removed, which is IMHO not right. For example, sailinganarchy.com. Blimey, if you ever want to know about sailing, you go there. Instead, the first link you go to is blatantly commercial with google on it. So does half the others. And all the ones that don't have adverts on them and people actually go to are gone! This needs a rethink IMHO, as it's really giving a wrong impression of this wholle Wikipedia business. --SkipperWiki 10:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that what you think is a great link is a chatty blog or forum. That's great, but they aren't encyclopedic resources, and they are verbotten under Wikipedia's External links policy. It is also a no-no to add a link to your own site.

We're an encyclopedia, not a web community or directory of links. Encyclopedias have a way of being boring, especially if you're looking for something chatty. On the other hand, tens of thousands of readers find Wikipedia quite useful. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read what I said carefully. All I am objecting to is a cut down selection of sites, most of which have google links on them making money. If that's what you saying your policy is, I disagree, it's not. This is exactly what it is at the moment, a random selection of links with most useful ones removed. I have no affiliation with the sites I mentioned, apart from contributing on them, and you might think something like sailinganarchy is a chatty blog, but in reality, if you need info, it's the biggest collection of sailors from around the world there is, willing to help. Anyway, I don't particularly care about any one site in the list, it's just that it strikes me as an odd selection. And, if you have a look at the current links, half of them is a chatty blog. Did you actually have a look or you just dive straight in to have a go at me? --SkipperWiki 16:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough-- I hadn't looked at them recently. I have now, and yanked two and reordered the rest. But forum links are just not going back on unless WP:EL is re-written, which is not real likely, though you're welcome to try. And you're welcome to add links to the article, so long as they're not blogs, forums, owned by you, engaged in retail sales, etc., etc.

Please understand that Wikipedia is really not about external links, they're really fluff. What we want is for our articles to be the best possible resource on the web. Perhaps you'd be willing to work on them? That's what we need. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What you say makes perfect sense, it is fluff, and I completely agree with the blocks in the WP:EL. But, talking of my contributions, for some of the stuff, I think wikipedia is just a wrong place. It will be treated as pollution of information. I sail pretty much all year round and what I frequently need is up to date info about a particular route. This you would not get on wikipedia purely because there are about 200 versions of up to date info, one per sailor. It's an art, no matter how hard we try to minimise the unknown, you take 20 boats, they all sail a different way. You'd never get people to agree, and that would pollute wikipedia no end. Or do you reckon otherwise, it would be interesting to see your personal take. I'd gladly put this info in, but where? It would be dangerous to just put it in for say Brighton, because it's my own subjective way to sail. Waypoints, shortcuts, local info etc. People see it on wikipedia and take it as gospel, and god forbid, sink. What do you think?, you are contributing to a lot of pages and seem to know your way around wikipedia very well, so I'd value your opinion, because I'd gladly put the info here too, but I just don't see the "reference encyclopedia" bit working for the subjective opinions. Does that make sense? cheers --SkipperWiki 17:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you're right there, the specifics of how to sail a particular boat or the details of sailing in a particular area don't belong in an encyclopedia article. And if there was a website that had such content that also had "substantive longevity" (per WP:EL, meaning it was basically unchanging) it would be a pretty good example of the kind of site that is appropriate as an external link. I'll even go so far as to imagine that a sailing wiki like yours could get there some day, 'though there are those who would argue that a wiki is inherently unsuitable as a link.

As for this implying that there's nothing for you to do here, though, take a look at Category:Sailing; there's a hundred sailing articles-- some of them are bound to need work, and there's probably fifty more that need to be written.

Anyway, sorry to have gotten off to a somewhat combative start-- Welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing! -- Mwanner | Talk 18:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you can't beat a good argument :-) Thanks for the input, much appreciated! --SkipperWiki 08:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-write effort -- non "how-to"

I have de-how-to-ified the "hull trim" section. This is just a start. This is the kind of treatment that should be applied to each section. (Some of the sections will go away because they are pure how-to.)

The sailing primer should be written in Wikibooks. The encyclopedia entry here in Wikipedia should explain just enough about each aspect of sailing so as to clear the fog from the mind of the uninitiated, not give a bunch of detail and instructions. One of the problems with the how-to stuff is that it is applicable to one type of boat, but not all. We have a mix here of dinghy, keelboat, racing and cruising stuff, not all of it marked as such. If you are really going to help someone learn to sail, you have to explain all the rules, the exceptions, and the caveats, and end up with a book length article that is not at all what we need here.

Okay, sailing experts, let's pitch in and make this article right! While you are at it let's use some actual paper sources. I don't know, Chapman, Royce's, Greg Fisher, whatever. I am tired of looking at Wikipedia articles that cite nothing but web pages. Mrees1997 23:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is really more than one article

If it's divided up, it will free up the sub-pages from having to stay too general to be useful

I suggestion the following hierarchy:

Sailing - general description of what it is (this is an encyclopedia, people, there needs to be something for the 8 year-old from Tibet who's never seen a body of that he can't see across), history, and general description of the sub articles.

• History - more in depth
• Sailing boats, ships and vessels - briefly describe the different types and their use - monohull v cat; ship v boat v dingy; square v marconi; specific types: Chinese Junk to Spanish Galleon to modern single handed dingy - sub-links where people feel inclined.
• Physics of sailing - give a basic description, and then all you gear-heads can go nuts - and have the debate about "airfoil is understandable" v "rotational is correct", etc
• Techniques of sailing - I think this should be separate from Physics - more of a how to, with a WHOLE LOT of cross linking between the two. Boat handling only - no racing.
• Cruising and day-sailing
• Navigation
• Racing - and again, general description and then go nuts - rules, courses, strategy tactics etc.

--Maczenwes 16:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please be mindful in any reorganization of the issue that all articles in Wikipedia should be accessible to the masses. Wikipedia is an encylopedia and not a technical manual. Or at least the overview of all articles should be written in plain and not technical English. Where technical terms are unavoidable, they should be briefly explained and linked. --- Safemariner 15:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion, except I don't understand what is meant by navigation: is this specific to sailboat sailing, or general marine sailing?

Navigation refers to the science of determining one's position and the most appropriate course to reach one's destination given the weather (wind, storms, tides, and currents) and the bottom topography (shoals, reefs, land masses). Methods include TLAR (that looks about right, also called "head thataway"), celestial, dead reckoning, and guided/piloted (a local area expert guides your vessel, usually into/out of a harbor). The term applies to all forms of transportation via air, land, sea, and space. - Mugs 15:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

How about these as article names?

Sailing

Sailing history

Sailing vessel types

Sailing physics

Sailing techniques

Sailing lifestyle (not so sure this is the right title)

Sail racing

— EncMstr 02:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sailing-related articles (March 2007)

Be alert to the fact that we have many of these articles in Wikipedia already, some under different names. We also have various sailing-related articles that don't quite match anything on this list. There are considerable redundancies. Search for "sail" and see what you get. For example, there already exists

Age of Sail

Sailing vessel (disambigulation, although I think it should be a redirect)

Sailing ship

Sailboat

Sailboat design and manufacturing (oddball jumble)

Dinghy sailing

Canoe sailing

Dinghy racing

Yachting

Blue water sailing (stub)

Cruising (maritime)

Day sailer

Single-handed sailing

Yacht racing

Glossary of nautical terms

Points of sail

True Sailing Wind (probably should be merged with something)

Sail-plan

Sail (with a section on Sail aerodynamics)

Sail training

Parts of a sail

Navigation (which as you pointed out is not really unique to sailing)

So, my point is that we should break up the Sailing article into several smaller articles as you two suggest, making use of the existing articles as we can. EncMstr's list of categories looks about right. Delete, merge, and redirect, until the whole sailing thing on Wikipedia makes sense. Sounds like fun. Not quite as much fun as actually sailing, but fun. Mrees1997 23:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Spot on both of you. I see the page entitled "Sailing" as a directory and an organization of all of the resouces underneath and don't re-write anything if you don't have to. That would include moving some of this content to other existing pages were appropriate.

Two quick thoughts: I do mean general marine navigation (from the non-commercial perspective). Applies equally well to power boating (with the exeption of VMG not being as important to power boating). Its still a critical part of sailing and I think links should be included.

On "Sailing Lifestyle": in the US, I would lump daysailing, cruising, bare-boating and live-abords all into "Cruising". "Sailing - Cruising and Life" might not be terrible either. I would stick to general knowledge, however.

Anyone objecting, please speak up!!!

What now? Start collecting and contacting the discussion boards for the underlying pages?

Maczenwes 17:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope, Mrees1997 won't mind me changing his list, and think that some of that cleanup will be easier done than some other ;). I will turn back to discussion after making up my mind, especially on actual redundances quoted below.

PS: disagree with Mrees1997 on "Sailing vessel" for as long as those pointer-articles exist (which may be for quite a long time, I think) any IP. 08:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fastest Point of Sail?

um... In Points of Sail on the wiki, way wrong... a beam reach is NOT and NEVER the fastest tack... The fastest point of sail must be either the close haul or the broad reach... lots of disagreement about this, but my money's on the close haul being a bit faster than the broad reach

Its wrong to say one particular direction is fastest, reach, broad reach, close hauled etc., as there are both vessel and enviromental factors to take into account - the most obvious being sea state, Close hauled might be fastest for a particular yacht (definitly not a Cat!)in smooth conditions, but under rough conditions watch the yacht slow down as it slams against the oncomng waves.

Be nice to have good definitions technical terms such as VMG and how they are calculated (formula)

Cheers

---

Hello there, 65.11.222.234, you are right that it is "way wrong," but I disagree as to the root of the wrongness. What kind of boat do you sail? Is it a slippery hull with a high aspect ratio modern rig or a heavy old gaffer with a sail like a barn door? Spinnaker up or down? Displacement or planing mode?

A quick search on Google finds this example of a [http://www.hallberg-rassy.com/hr39/speed_diagram_HR39.gif polar diagram for a Hallberg-Rassy cruiser. Notice that in 20 knots, the fastest point of sail without the spinnaker is a beam reach. But, I say, so what?

Give me a beer and I could talk about this all night. We could talk about polars, foils, apparent wind, VMG, race tactics, multihulls, ooching, rocking, and what it's like to sail a Flying Scot in 30 knots at Hood River. And this points out exactly what is way wrong with Sailing.

You are right that the points of sail section is "way WRONG". It is way wrong to make conclusary statements about intermediate or advanced concepts in sailing. We need to purge the article of all the How-to and physics of anything and make it a very basic introduction to sailing for the complete non-sailor. Take a look at the comments above. I hope you get a Wikipedia account and start hacking away at this article. Mrees1997 17:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Couple of points: First, for the Hallberg-Rassy cruiser it's the broad reach with the spinnaker, not the beam reach. Second, the fastest point of a sail depends on many factors particular to the vessel itself, as well as the sea state and velocity of the wind. Third, encyclopedias aren't written exclusively to the complete non-experts, but rather, include a range of detail appropriate for both the uninitiated as well as those who're familiar with the topic. The ONLY reason that paper encyclopedias severely limited content was because they needed to cover a broad variety of topics but were heavily limited by the significant cost of printing against what the market was willing to pay for the volumes. The volume of content for electronic encyclopedias is vastly different, as they're edited by volunteers, and storage and distribution costs plummet. I'm not sure what Wiki's budget is, but I dare say I could conduct the entire operation from my home for an initial investment of around $2,000 and a web server fee of less than $1000 a month. Ads would probably pay for well over 100% of this.

My point is that there's absolutely no reason to decry technical detail. Furthermore, this is a wonderful opportunity to consolidate the vast wealth of knowledge possessed by millions of individuals into a detailed reference that can be accessed by anyone. The only caveat is to format the articles so that they peel back the layers of the onion in order, providing summary content at the top of the article, then diving into deeper detail on the various issues throughout the article. Naturally, duplicate material with other articles should be avoided. Personally, I'd like to see all articles on anything having to do with sailing lumped into one large entry, with appropriately formatted subsections referenced (linked) beneath. This would cover everything from types of vessels to sails, navigation, point of sail, etc., in one article. Yes, it would be long! However, it would also be complete, and would prevent the user from needlessly searching (and often not finding) additional information elsewhere. - Mugs 16:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the peeling-the-onion idea is right. I don't like long articles, however. I prefer short ones with lots of links. If the linked sub-articles are organized in a rational way, it should not be a problem to find the information you are looking for. If you have to do a word or phrase search, you can do a Google search of Wikipedia with not much more trouble than doing a "Find on this Page" search. Mrees1997 04:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I put a How-to revision notice at the top

To alert other wikipedians to our efforts. People keep catching things that are wrong or incomplete, assuming that we really want a complete sailing how-to. Myself and the commentators above are trying to head the article in a different direction. Please read the last few discussion sections and give us your thoughts! I want to prune this article, but not in a way that will befuddle those who wonder why stuff is disappearing. Mrees1997 17:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Points of Sail

Much of the information was inaccurate in the points of sail section, and the grammer was bad, so I have re-arranged/re-written it. I am an avid sailor and sail several times a week, and much of this page seems to be inaccurate (though large parts of it are very good). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.85.234 (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Welcome, 84.9.85.234. Consider getting an actual account. Then, use the four tildas to sign your name with a time stamp. Take a minute to read the comments at Talk:Sailing#Re-write effort -- non how-to et seq. See if you can help us strip out the how-to material, link to more detailed articles, and make Sailing a more encyclopedic article. I agree that much of the page is innaccurate, but I think the cure is the trim out the too-detailed sections that lend them selves to wanton innaccuracy. Mrees1997 07:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant stuff

Sailing has two independent sections on rules of the road, Sailing#Rules_of_the_road and Sailing#Sailing_regulations. It also has two independent discussions of "points of sail," being the long explanations of Sailing#Running, Sailing#Reaching, and Sailing#Sailing_upwind, plus a shorter discussion at Sailing#Points_of_Sail, both of which can be replaced with a short paragraph and a link to Points_of_sail. We need to (again) trim out the stuff at Sailing#Man_overboard that is redundant with Man overboard. Sailing#Sailing_terminology is redundant with Glossary of nautical terms. Let's hope people read this discussion page before complaining about stuff being deleted. Mrees1997 19:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)