Talk:Sailing

What's wrong with this edit

This edit fails on more than one point[1].

(1) The substitution of the term "in irons" for "the eye of the wind". Here are some definitions of the two terms.
"In irons A sailing boat is in irons when she comes head to wind and fails to Pay off on either tack. The answer is to make a Stern board, to let the wind push her backwards and then to use the rudder to throw her stern off to one side or the other."
"in irons head to wind and failing to pay off on either tack."
"Irons, in. Position of sailing boat into wind and unable to pay off on either tack."
The term "eye of the wind" is defined less often (perhaps because we all know what it means) but you will find:
"Eye of the Wind. The direction to windward from whence it blows."
"Eye of wind. Directly up wind."
Also definition h (a) under "eye" in the Oxford English Dictionary: "Nautical. the wind's eye: the direction from which the wind is blowing. Frequently in in the wind's eye. Also the eye of the wind."
From this we learn that the two terms are different in meaning, with "in irons" being the result of a tack going wrong. Hence this edit is inappropriate.

(2) The offered reference for this change is not an RS as it is a blog. The misuse of terminology discussed above demonstrates why a blog is often not a good reference – it is usually the work of one person and has no editorial checking or other review. See WP:USERGENERATED, which is part of WP:RS

Hence I have reverted the edit. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

References

I agree that it is not appropriate to say Tacking or coming about is a maneuver by which a sailing craft turns its bow into and through the wind (often referred to as "irons") so that the apparent wind changes from one side to the other, allowing progress on the opposite tack. It makes no logical sense like that. "In irons" is when a tack fails and the boat ends up "head to wind"; it is not part of the process of a normal tack, which is bringing the boat though the eye of the wind. Good call on the revert. - Ahunt (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Commonly believed nonsense

A paragraph in the History section says:
"Early square rigs generally could not sail much closer than 80° to the wind, whereas early fore-and-aft rigs could sail as close as 60–75° off the wind. Later square-rigged vessels too were able to sail to windward, and became the standard for European ships through the Age of Discovery when vessels ventured around Africa to India, to the Americas and around the world."
There are a number of errors in this.

(1) The quotation says that historic fore and aft rigs sailed closer to the wind than contemporary square rigged vessels. This is not true. Once could look at, for instance, the comparison of lateen and square rig in the paper by Julian Whitewright (2011) The Potential Performance of Ancient Mediterranean Sailing Rigs, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 40:1, 2-17, DOI: 10.1111/ j.1095-9270.2010.00276.x . Here you will find statements like: "The evidence currently available would therefore seem to indicate that there is very little difference in the overall performance of a sailing vessel with a Mediterranean square-sail rig when compared with a similar vessel with a lateen/settee rig from the late antique, medieval or modern era." The paper discusses, among other things, the effect of hull shape and surface roughness (Biofouling and hulls less smooth than modern fibreglass). You also find the comment that Roman squared rigged vessels used bowlines – something that is not required unless you are trying to go to windward. The artemon is another clue that square rigged classical era vessels needed to be balanced when sailing other than directly downwind.
It is a generally misunderstood point about square rig that it can have windward sailing ability that is the equal of any contemporaneous fore and aft rigged vessel. Consider, for instance, the Humber keel, which was noted for its windward performance.

(2) Both lateen and square rigged classical era vessels could sail at about 70° to the wind.

(3) The use of the lateen rigged caravel at the beginning of the Age of Discovery is contradicted by the quote from the article. The choice of rigs for these early voyages is much more complex than can be conveyed in a simple sentence.

(4) It is not at all clear what is meant by "Early square rigs". The source quoted (Jett) talks about classical era sailing vessels in the Mediterranean. Jett is covering an enormous breadth in the subject of his book, so I think we can forgive him for erring in a comparison that has found its way into the article.

(5) Also of interest is the paper by Colin Palmer (2009) Windward Sailing Capabilities of Ancient Vessels, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 38:2, 314-330, DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-9270.2008.00208.x

(6) See also this book review: ""Reid also makes interesting and valuable observations that may not be widely-understood and accepted, but are nevertheless accurate. He points out that, contrary to popular modern misconceptions, schooners were not considered more weatherly, let alone faster than square-riggers by those who operated them. He gives the example of Lieut. James Cook who was given a schooner for his survey of newly-acquired territories in Canada, but requested permission to re-rig her as a brig to improve weatherliness and maneuverability in restricted waters. Few historians, if any, have had this insight, and Dr Reid is to be applauded for locating and including this information (p. 210). In parenthesis, one could observe that Captain Marryat also believed brigs to be faster and more weatherly than schooners, in his novel Percival Keene. Marryat served as midshipman under Cochrane, and is a reliable source"

The quoted article text appears to need some substantial revision. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The quoted paragraph goes on to say
"... in the 18th and 19th centuries with merchant sailing ships that were able to travel at speeds that exceeded those of the newly introduced steamships"
This is highly misleading. Whilst there are records of clippers reaching the remarkable speeds such as 17 knots (31 km/h) or more, even these fast-sailing vessels typically averaged 6 knots (11 km/h) over a whole passage. The remarkable 82 day voyage of Sovereign of the Seas (clipper) from Honolulu to New York averages around 7 knots (13 km/h). By comparison, SS Agamemnon (1865) travelled at 10 knots (19 km/h) for virtually the whole voyage (so the trip average speed is very nearly 10 knots). The earlier SS Great Britain had a similar speed. It is worth remembering that clippers were a tiny minority of commercial sailing vessels – the article text implies that all sailing vessels in the 18th and 19th centuries sailed fast. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The whole paragraph seems to add little to the article, so I have deleted it.

The whole history section could do with a substantial revision. In passing, it is worth noting that there is no mention of sailing rafts, which are an important part of the story. Nor is there anything on the presumed use of sail in the colonisation of Australia some 50,000 to 60,000 years ago.

I have also deleted the picture of the Austronesian boat with a crab claw sail in the history section. That picture is from the 1860s – it is not appropriate to have a picture of such a recent vessel right at the start of the history article. I would like to find something a lot earlier, but am not happy with pictures found so far. If anyone has a good representation of an old sailing vessel, that would be welcome. By "good", I suggest an original artistic representation, or an authentic replica/reconstruction; by "old", ideally BCE, or at least in the first few hundred years CE. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Knock down? & Reefing

I just modified the "heeling" section and appreciate any input or edits (or reversions are ok too). I would like to add a section about knock down and reefing.... Regards Flibbertigibbets (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Isn't reefing handled by the section titled "Reducing sail"? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I did not notice the wikipedia reference -- a whole section on reefing. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Lateral resistance

The section "Lateral resistance" states (of foils, which I take to include any sort of keel that has a hydrodynamic effect) ...and they are never intentionally stalled.

I am not sure that this is correct, as if you heave to you often have the keel in a stalled position. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I concur that a keel may be stalled, when heaved to, so I added, "while under way". Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Whilst risking the criticism of being an extreme nit-picker, the legal and general definition of "underway", as given in the collision regs is (Rule 3, General definitions)
"(i). The word “underway” means that a vessel is not at anchor, or made fast to the shore, or aground."[2]
So a hove-to vessel is still underway. I have changed the terminology in the article, though not sure if this could be explained or expressed better.

Incidentally, Underway really needs some attention. It is a typical muddled and poorly written maritime Wikipedia article with insufficient references. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Only one mention of leeway

I am surprise that this article only uses the word "leeway" only once. Efficient minimisation of leeway is an important element of sailing, so surely it deserves more than just one brief mention.

The article Leeway has an undue focus on the search and rescue context – so that needs some attention too.

I am not sure that I have sufficient sources to have a go at fixing this – hence the reason for flagging this up here. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Interesting observation, User:ThoughtIdRetired. I would have thought that minimization of leeway was primarily a nautical design issue, e.g. what kind of foils to use, not so much a navigation under sail issue. Certainly, a sailor must account for leeway in determining a course, but there's little more to do about leeway under sail than to make sure the available underwater foils are present.

In summary form, what would you suggest should be mentioned here? Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I guess that, beyond making allowance for leeway when judging the correct course, you need to be sure that you have sufficient boat speed for the hydrodynamic shape of the hull to act to counteract this force. This is certainly apparent with some traditional boats on tacking (heavy, whole hull acts as the "foil"). You have to let boat speed develop before getting hard on the wind. This might only be momentary, but it makes a difference tacking up a narrow fairway. Of course, that is just my opinion – hence the need for an RS.

I vaguely remember reading somewhere that, on vessels with a number of sail options, you have to be mindful of certain combinations creating more leeway, even though they look as though they are pulling well. Someone who had the right sources might be able to either confirm or debunk this recollection.

Additionally, the article goes into a lot of technical stuff about Hull physics, Lift and drag on sails, etc. In that context, leeway appears to be obvious missing element in that discussion.

It is certainly the case that the article Leeway needs attention from a sailing perspective. Otherwise, it is a subject that this encyclopaedia does not address. That may be the main point of the original post. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking at one source that I have (Cunliffe, Tom. Hand, Reef and Steer 2nd edition: Traditional Sailing Skills for Classic Boats) I see that leeway is mentioned quite a bit. There are comments like: "If you oversheet the jib in order to stuff the boat up another half point onto the wind, she will slow down and make far more leeway than she was when sailing at her optimum angle." – accompanied by diagrams and further explanations of comparative scenarios. I see that Cunliffe also discusses leeway in the context of heaving to.

Perhaps there would be more in this article if the concept of velocity made good was used for more than just downwind sailing. But looking at Velocity made good, that article seems to have little conceptual similarity to the term's use by academic staff at the University of Southampton (noted for its various maritime related courses) when explaining the relative performance of sailing craft. (As an additional criticism of Velocity made good, it is perfectly possible to explain the subject without going into formulae that are not accessible to all. This is another example of an editor wishing to show off their expertise without actually explaining anything.)

I apologise for having a bit of a rant, but there seems to be a general area here where wikipedia could do a better job. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for those thoughts, ThoughtIdRetired. I can see the case for discussing the matter as a bigger consideration for traditional vessels with only hull form and inefficient sails. It still seems to be a niche consideration for modern sailing vessels. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)