on 1:47 of the video on http://www.threepeaks.org.au/ shows for a sec large catamaran rowing standing up. Luc
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Mike Crawford <mcrawf@...> wrote:
>
>
> I got a Norseboat 17 for just those reasons. Two good oars, a nice
> rig with a good SA/D, salty lines, and a mast I can raise and lower on
> the water (or at least drop the mainsail into the cockpit simply by
> releasing two halyards).
>
> Who needs an outboard!
>
> Then:
>
> 1) I had to row into 25 knots of wind when I found I couldn't make any
> headway or tack because the former owner had raked the centerboard back,
> moving the CLR so far aft that the boat wouldn't come about (I found
> this out a few weeks later). The only thing that saved me was a meager
> trolling motor built into the early models. That plus frenzied rowing.
>
> 2) Five miles out the wind died earlier than usual, and earlier than
> predicted, and I had to row against the ebb tide for over two hours.
>
> 3) When going out to meet my wife on an island, I had to head out
> against six knots of wind and 1 1/2 knots of tide coming in to the
> inlet. With the rig up, the 17'-er could only make about 50' to 100'
> per tack across the 1/4-mile inlet. There wasn't enough flow over the
> centerboard to make a good foil to resist leeway, particularly because
> most of the wind was up high and the sail wasn't. But with the sail
> down, there was so much windage that, going against the current and the
> wind, I made 1' to 2' per stroke. It took me all afternoon to get out
> there.
>
>
> There's something to be said for being able to pull a cord and just
> get home if the wind or the tide would make skulling either difficult or
> impossible. Or alternately, for arriving back at the mooring without
> being covered with sweat and mosquitoes. Not that one wouldn't want a
> redundant human-powered alternative.
>
> Granted, I've got a current in my harbor, and a long way out to open
> water, so I'm biased. But I've still grown to appreciate not having to
> power a craft on my own.
>
> - Mike
>
>
> Peter Mirow wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Fedor,
> >
> > Interesting point. However, I see it from another angle: ... or maybe
> > not quite, since I take you're advocating for the skulls.
> > But sseing it from the skull users, I don't think the point is the
> > "unreliability" of the engine.
> > It is rather that; the sculls won't fail, don't make noise, don't
> > stink, won't cost, and will keep you fit - as a bonus.
> > To be honest, I'm surprise at the small amount of sailors who prefer
> > engines...
> > Peteraily Digest
> > <mailto:harryproa-digest@yahoogroups.com.au?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest>
> > . Unsubscribe
> > <mailto:harryproa-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.au?subject=Unsubscribe>
> > . Terms of Us <http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
> >
> >
>