Talk:Sailing/Archive 2

Bernoulli effect
I just undid a revision that would have indicated that all the energy from a sail comes from the Bernoulli effect. This is false. Almost all the energy from a sail comes from simply deflecting the air. The Bernoulli has also been greatly over-stated in layman's explanations of the lift generated by aircraft wings. The edit was also problematic because it left a paragraph in the article with strikeouts. If you want to delete something, just delete it and explain yourself in the edit summary and the talk page. Mrees1997 23:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you expect to be true, Mrees1997, but most of the energy of a sail comes from the lifting action associated with Bernoulli effect of air over the airfoil. You can google "sail bernoulli" to find out more. Here's a reference -- Short answer is: The reason a sailboat wing can pull a boat into the wind (for example, close hauling) is the Bernoulli effect of fluids. This is how most sails work. Sliceofmiami (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree totally that a sail is a (thin) aerofoil and that it generates lift. However, I do not agree about the Bernoulli effect at all. Have a look at Lift (force). That explanation, beloved of half-educated science teachers I think, is based on a complete fallacy that the two bits of air that are divided by the leading edge of the foil, somehow are under an obligation to meet up again after the trailing edge has passed. That is nonsense. The reason aerofoils create lift is by action/reaction because they deflect the air. That does cause a pressure difference (e.g. equal to the weight of the aircraft when integrated over the lifting area), and velocity differences, but the lift is caused by the deflection. Honest. --Nigelj (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That article was an interesting read, thank you Nigelj. I appreciated the video at. So let's revisit Bernoulli -- the principle states: "as the fluid velocity increases, the fluid pressure decreases." This causes lift. I'm not really sure I understand how the wiki is trying to deny this, but I'll revisit it again tomorrow. As far as I know, Bernoulli's principle does not hinge on "equal transit time" at all. From a sailor's point of view, Bernoulli's principle is simply stated as, "Sails suck." Sliceofmiami (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I did some more reading after posting the above too, and I still stand by what I said - that we should emphasise lift re sails, but we should stick to deflection and not Bernoulli to explain the lift. If you look further down the Lift (force) article it says that if you like, "then lift can be explained in terms of pressures using Bernoulli's principle (which can be derived from Newton's second law) [etc]" (my emph). So then I looked at Bernoulli's principle, opening the top section ('Bernoulli equation for incompressible fluids' since sails don't compress the air at sailing speeds). This reminded me of the physics: Bernoulli's principle is derived from Newton's 2nd Law F=ma (written there as m dv/dt = F) by substituting a few things like m = ρ A dx (mass = density x area x thickness of a very thin layer) and messing around with it. So: Bernoulli's principle is true because it is an application of Newton's 2nd law into fluid flow. Saying lift is caused by Bernoulli's principle is like saying "Cars accelerate because of the accelerator pedal" - it's true but it doesn't get to the heart of it. Sometimes that's the way you want to look at it (e.g. when teaching someone to drive) but the real explanation is deeper. In the case of cars it's more complex, but in the case of sails the deeper explanation (referring to Newton 2) is both simpler and more directly true: Sails (with the wind ahead of the beam, i.e. in laminar flow, not stalled) generate lift by catching some air and deflecting it towards the stern of the boat. The natural reaction is to push the boat forwards. (There's some sideways deflection, and therefore sideways reaction or force too, causing some heeling and leeway). I hope this isn't too technical. --Nigelj (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that Nigel is basically correct here. The Bernoulli effect is just another way of explaining the lift induced by the flow of wind past an airfoil.  Some aspects are more easily understood and modeled and computed by using the Bernoulli pressure differentials, other aspects are more easily undersood and modeled by using the deflection model.  It is like light: sometimes it is easier to think of it as waves, sometimes as particles, but both are true.  The most detailed discussion that I have seen on the aerodynamics of sails is in High Performance Sailing by Frank Bethwaite.  According to him, the aerodynamics of sails is more complicated than that of wings, because the air flow around a sail has much lower speed than the air flow around a wing, so various surface effects are much more important.  But this is  very advanced stuff, I think that in an introductory article on sailing it is perfectly OK to say that sails are like airfoils or wings, because that is a correct rough approximation.  I'm not quite sure what is being proposed for addition or deletion to the current text.  The current text seems fine to me.  Again, given that this is an introductory article on sailing in general, I don't think that it is necessary to mention the Bernoulli effect.--Gautier lebon (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The section Sail is pretty skimpy. I think that it would be better to beef that out with more on how airfoils work, the analogies between sails and wings, and explanations of the Bernoulli effect. Most people will hear about Bernoulli in the context of sails, and I think that it should be explained in the article on sails, which is of course referenced from the article on sailing. I'm not sufficiently into the aerodynamics of sails to add material, but I would be happy to review anything that anybody wishes to add.--Gautier lebon (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I got kind of lost in the car analogy. Gautier, thanks for the information, and you are likely correct -- more references are better. What happened was someone removed all the "airfoil" references from the article. I reverted the changes. Then I found the Bernoulli section and posted a note (instead of starting a new section). Anyway, to keep us on track I'll repost the discussion: "(1) Sails are airfoils, and (2) airfoils derive lift based on Bernoulli's principle." Maybe additional references in the main article will help readers as well. I added a few, please do the same. Sliceofmiami (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we almost agree on Sails are airfoils, but Nigelj cut it with "ahead of beam". To rephrase -- most sails under any point of sail (close hauling, reaching, and downwind especially spinnakers) are in an airfoil configuration, supported by the referenced articles.  A dead running boat in wing on wing I think is not in an airfoil configuration, but I could not find reference articles to support this claim.  I've never sailed under heavy winds in wing on wing, so I cannot attest to the wings being shaped as airfoils in a dead running configuration.
 * Airfoils produce work based on Bernoulli's principle is I believe the only area that we are really discussing. Here's an article that I think describes what both of you are identifying .  I need to read it again.  Please provide additional non-wiki articles for everyone's review.
 * This ref looks very good; well found, Sliceofmiami. I like that it references a book by Gale Craig called Stop Abusing Bernoulli! How Airplanes Really Fly. I think that is all I was trying to say.
 * A few details: My car analogy, "The accelerator pedal makes it go faster", was meant to illustrate that you can explain the same thing in numerous ways, all true but some more useful than others. While moving the gas pedal is one explanation, saying that opening valves in the carburettor "to make the engine go faster" is another, but "putting more fuel and air into the cylinders to make bigger explosions" is yet another and is nearer the physical truth. As I said, the Bernoulli effect can be used to explain a sail, but why is there a wind-speed and so also a pressure differential? The answer is that the air is being deflected. The fiu.edu page makes the point that for an aircraft tons of air per second has to be deflected downwards. That is the 'physical explanation' and Bernoulli just adds an unnecessary extra level of complexity when the physical reality is actually so simple.
 * Regarding stalled sails, what I was saying was that all this talk of lift, and indeed therefore Bernoulli, relies on laminar flow on both sides of the sail. The purpose of a fat, rounded leading edge on a real aerofoil is to increase the range of angles of attack that it can operate in without stalling. Sails, with a very thin L.E. (like the Wright brothers' wings too) mean that sails begin to stall if oversheeted by just a few degrees. As the wind moves aft of the beam, the boom hits the shrouds and cannot be let out any more, so a few degrees later the mainsail begins to stall. Once all the lee-side tell-tails are flapping on any sail, we do not have lift any more: sails are just trapping air and causing turbulence and drag, not lift. It is true that a well-set spinnaker can have laminar flow roughly from top to bottom. The same is more true of square-rig sails off the wind with sheets eased: top-to-bottom laminar and actual lift, up, out of the water. I will try to find some refs for all this too. --Nigelj (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Commented-out text removed
I just found the following text commented-out in the article. I have removed it from there and include it here in case anybody wants to make use of it. There was a comment by a previous editor who had said: "being BOLD and removing how-to content." --Nigelj (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the deletion.--Gautier lebon (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sailing safety
First and foremost: Sailing requires respect for the risks of being on the water. All sailors therefore should be sensibly prepared. Most jurisdictions have certain minimum regulations that must be met as to equipment. When engaged in publicly organized activities they may be required to take additional precautions, as detailed by the authority which regulates the training or racing.
 * 1) Stay on the boat
 * 2) Wear a personal floatation device
 * 3) Learn to swim
 * 4) Learn how to recover someone who has fallen overboard
 * 5) Respect other seamen and the rules of sailing

Safety measures may include:
 * Appropriate floatation aids, including life preservers
 * Provision of a safety boat for rescue purposes
 * Appropriate first-aid and firefighting equipment
 * Carry a knife suitable for cutting rigging or netting in an emergency
 * Install jacklines and have the crew wear harnesses connected to them, to secure the crew to the vessel.
 * Ensure visibility, use the required running lights and mount at least one radar reflector.

Man overboard
Aside from what may be required by law or a sailing organization, real safety on the water comes from an informed awareness of risks involved and the exercise of reasonable steps to avoid dangers. A Man overboard situation is likely to be life threatening for any of several related reasons since the most likely cause is rough waters and weather conditions. These degrade the ability to maneuver easily, result in vastly different rates of drift caused by both wind and current to the boat and the unwilling swimmer, and in rough weather the reduced visibility makes fast and sure immediate action to be paramount as it is easy to lose sight of the swimming person. In some waters, including inland Lakes, hypothermia can be a major threat to life, so quick recovery of unwilling swimmers can be life-saving. This requires practice and situational awareness. The guiding principle is to stop the boat (or slow it, if stopping is impossible) and immediately marking the location by tossing a PFD (personal floatation device) or Man Overboard Pole into the water. To achieve this, the helmsman releases the tiller and dumps (releases) the mainsheet. A better approach is to heaving to. To do this, the helmsman pushes the tiller to leeward (away from the wind) and loosens the mainsheet, ignoring the jib sheets. (Spinnaker guy also dumped if applicable). The sailing boat will tend to come up to weather and the jib will back. When this backing happens, the tiller must be reversed to point towards the boom. - At this stage, the mainsail is loose and flapping and the jib is backed (or spinnaker floging). The yacht is now nearly stopped close to the location of the man overboard. Correctly executed, this maneuver can be completed in a few seconds. (A wheel steered boat would move the wheel to bring the yacht towards the wind and when the jib backs he reverses the wheel rotation promptly, while also dumping the mainsheet).

This should be an instinctive reaction of all helmsmen. It works on all points of sailing. At that stage the helmsman can accomplish the launching of a LifeSling, unless another crew member has previously done so. With a bit of luck, the yacht will be within the range of the cordage on the recovery apparatus.

Removed stuff about lift
I just removed a whole piece of text in this edit. It appears that the text was added by User:173.170.206.182 in this edit a week ago. Various people have tried to tidy it up since then, but really I think the cause was hopeless. It made a complex attempt at explaining the points of sail, nautical terms, and Lift (force). It made a bad job on lift, but that is not needed here as the term is linked and fully described in its own article. We have been through the Bernoulli effect for example recently above, and the topic is really too complex, with some people's views so entrenched, that its full explanation is best kept in one place, I believe. The added text was also completely uncited, and there are numerous texts on each of the topics that it attempted. --Nigelj (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sailng Hulls and Shapes
I see that a paragraph has been added specifically about the Laser. I doubt that this is appropriate. Why mention that particular boat and not other very popular boats such as the Star, Soling, Hobie Cat, etc. etc. I propose that this para be deleted, otherwise we will have to expand to include a large number of popular designs. Comments?--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Heeling (sailing)
The separate article on Heeling should probably be merged with the section in this article.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Licensing
I'm not sure that the section on licensing is accurate. I only know the rules in 2 countries, US and Switzerland. In the US, licenses are not required unless you are operating as a professional skipper. In Switzerland, licenses are only required if the boat is above a certain size. Shouldn't this section use more tentative, less definitive, language?--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Is using ballast during a race allowed?
Okay, I'm not sure about this... some boats are equipped with ballast systems, can those ballast systems be used during a race?

One writer removed the note that racers use ballast. Here are the two works that I think are part of this.


 * "http://www.sailing.org/downloads/committees/ERS_2009-2012_Complete.pdf" -- talks a lot of ballast and ballast systems
 * "http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/RRS20092012with2010changes-[8222].pdf" RRS -- "51 MOVABLE BALLAST - All movable ballast, including sails that are not set, shall be properly stowed. Water, dead weight or ballast shall not be moved for the purpose of changing trim or stability. Floorboards, bulkheads, doors, stairs and water tanks shall be left in place and all cabin fixtures kept on board. However, bilge water may be bailed out."

And here are references to races that used movable ballast --
 * "http://aroundcatalina.dpyc.org/NOR11.pdf" -- Movable ballast allowed
 * "http://www.islandsrace.com/pdf/islandsrace_nor.pdf" -- "2.2. RRS 51, Movable Ballast will be modified to allow the movement of sails that are not set. 2.3. RRS 51, Movable Ballast, and RRS 52 Manual Power will be modified to allow the positioning of movable ballast by power on boats as designed and as rated by the RA. All movable ballast systems shall be capable of manual operation if powered systems are inoperable."
 * "http://www.balboayachtclub.com/files/11%20Long%20Point%20Race%20NOR%20_final.pdf" -- "1.4.5 RRS 51, Movable Ballast will be modified to allow the movement of sails not in use while racing. 1.4.6  RRS 51, Movable Ballast, and RRS 52 Manual Power will be modified to allow the positioning of movable ballast by power on boats as designed and as rated by RA. All movable ballast systems shall be capable of manual operation if powered systems are inoperable. "

Sliceofmiami (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Under the rules used for most racing, moveable ballast is not allowed (except of course for the crew, which can move around at will). However, some races are run under special rules which allow moveable ballast, including even moving the ballast by using engines, see for example canting keel.  But I'm not sure that we need to go into that much detail in this article.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

'Sailing regulations' section
I'm worried that this section seems to imply, a couple of times, that sailing boats are not subjects to the international colregs. This is legally and patently untrue. All vessels are subject to these under international law. Individual club and race 'sailing regulations' apply in addition to the colregs, not in place of them. To imply otherwise seems grossly irresponsible of us.
 * "There are three basic rules for avoiding a collision at sea" There are not, there are all the rules in colregs. This is a partial, home-made, uncited summary. In particular it skirts all the issues to do with sail vs power boats that are fishing, towing, restricted etc.
 * "If these rules are not followed in a yacht race, a protest may be called by one of the skippers." - or the offending skipper could be prosecuted under law by anybody else, not involved in the race, but just using the sea or lake at the same time
 * "... sailboats ... may be sharing the same body of water as powered vessels, who are bound by the COLREGS." Sailboats are bound by COLREGS too.
 * "After sunset all boats racing are bound by the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) rather than the Racing Rules of Sailing." All boats are bound by COLREGS whenever they are on the open sea.

I think some editor(s) has got mixed up between the rules that may apply on a private course (for example an Olympic event) and what applies to the majority of yacht and dinghy racing that goes on on public waters. There is also the confusion that other members of a yacht-racing club may be under club rules to stay away from racers, but other users of the open water are under no such requirement: if they want to cruise, tow or fish through the middle of a sailboat race, they are perfectly entitled to do so, under nothing but colregs, except that these apply to all. This comes up time and again with offshore racing and such events as 'round the island' races where yacht racers come up against other seafarers and unreasonably expect all kind of strange behaviour from them. I think this section should be greatly clarified. --Nigelj (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll profess ignorance, to expedite the discussion. I have limited practical experience with boats, and most of what I have contributed to Wiki comes from books. I have a fairly good idea how to avoid a collision in real world experience, but I had no idea my reading sources were abstracted from something called "COLREGS". That is, I know the rules, but not their source. Nigelj, your comment "partial, home-made, uncited summary" is to the point. Could you do two things? 1) Explain to readers why COLREGS has more authority than other secondary sources. 2) Change the article so that it references the primary source (COLREGS?) Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I came across this discussion again today, having totally forgotten about it in the meantime. I have done a re-write of the section. It is now firmly based in the international COLREGS and cross-referenced with them, but, I hope it also explains the place these have in amongst other regulations that apply for inland waterways and when racing. I kept two bullet points about IALA buoyage and SOLAS, but I see that the article on SOLAS is lacking in detail regarding Chapter V requirements, which are mandatory on leisure boaters at sea now (worldwide, I think?) Maybe that's where the next work should go. Any comments and suggestions regarding this rewrite, as always, welcome of course. --Nigelj (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: "In some sailing events, such as the Olympic Games, which are held on closed courses where no other boating is allowed, specific racing rules such as the Racing Rules of Sailing (RRS) may apply. Often, in club racing, specific club racing rules, perhaps based on RRS, may be superimposed onto the more general regulations such as COLREGS or CEVNI."

This is incorrect. The RRS apply to nearly all organized racing events world wide, not just at events on closed courses. Some local club events may choose to use other rules, but this is not common. Classes and clubs frequently modify some of the rules, as permitted by RRS, and sometimes in other ways as well. When racing under RRS, the RRS replace COLREGS when meeting another boat racing under RRS, even a boat racing in a different event. However, "When a boat sailing under these rules meets a vessel that is not, she shall comply with" COLREGS (preface to RRS Part 2.)

Re Nigelj's comment on 13 April 2010: "the offending skipper could be prosecuted under law by anybody else,..." You can not be prosecuted under law for a violation of RRS. However, "responsibility for damages arising from any breach of the rules shall be based on fault as determined by application of the rules..." (US Sailing prescription to Rule 68.) You may not be protested by "anyone else", only someone who "was involved in or saw the incident" RRS (60.1).

The article on the RRS also needs some work.

EricKent (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Knots
I recently edited the section on knots to bring the section in line with Wiki standards. My edit was reverted, and rather than get into an edit war I thought I'd give my reasons here.

The current section on knots is not in line with the Wikipedia manual of style. For instance


 * knots are among the most important things a sailor needs to know.


 * the bowline in particular is essential


 * A more complete grasp...


 * The essence of knots used in the day-to-day work of sailing...


 * Even experienced sailors may forget their knots if they are not performed on a regular basis. Forgetting how to tie an important knot can damage a boat or cause injury.

These are examples of peacock terms, weasel words, and editorializing. The last sentence reads like a |how-to guide or advice column.

We need to replace this section with something that is more neutral in tone and stick to the facts. If we're going to present opinions then we need to clearly indicate that they are someone else's opinions and provide attribution. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Swordfish, thank you for this. I see your point about style.  I reverted your first edit because I thought that you were only concerned about the fact that there was no citation, so I found one.  I'm not an expert on avoiding the style pitfalls that you mention above.  I do think that the basic information is correct, supported by a citation, and very useful.  Would somebody care to propose text that avoids the stylistic pitfalls while providing the basic information?--Gautier lebon (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at the section in this edit. I have referenced it to the page already linked, and to two RYA syllabus books, as these are what I have to hand. Whether it's necessary to attribute the statements, as "The RYA says..." rather than just saying it in Wikipedia's own voice, I don't know. It's not as if anything there is controversial. --Nigelj (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, your change is an improvement. My understanding is the if it's a statement of fact, then we (wikipedia editors) can just say it without attribution (although it should still be cited).  If it's an opinion or qualitative assessment, then it should be phrased as "XXX says YYY". I think the present version strikes the right balance.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I concurr. Nigel, will you update the article?--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Outdent. I see that the section has now been updated very nicely. I'd like to thank all editors for this good teamwork.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Points of sail
To the best of my knowledge points of sail are defined relative to the true wind, not the apparent wind. Yoavt (talk) 10:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not correct. The points of sail are defined with respect to the wind that the boat and the sails "see", that is the apparent wind.  Only modern boats equipped with a precise system for measuring boat speed and a computer coupled to that device and to a device that measures wind speed and direction can determine the direction of the true wind.  Boats without electronic equipment cannot determine the direction of the true wind.  If you still believe that points of sail are defined with respect to the true wind, then please provide a citation that supports your assertion.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you Yoavt. Anyone who actually does sail will look at the water or a flag to determine where the true wind is coming from and not a birgee at the top of the mast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.84 (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear 80.254, indeed, to find the true wind, you will either look at the ripples on the water, or a flag on a buoy, or a sophisticated instrument that calculates true wind. But that is not what I understood Yoavt to say.  The expression "points of sail" as used in the article refers to the trim of the sails.  That trim has to be set with respect to the apparent wind, not with respect to the true wind.  So, as any sailor knows, you will set your sails with respect to telltails on the sails, the shrouds, or at the top of the mast.


 * Every diagram I've ever seen depicting the points of sail show beam reach as 90 degrees to the true wind.  Likewise, the other points of sail are drawn as to the true wind, not the apparent wind.   For instance, this one: http://www.sailingusa.info/sail_trim.htm  and the diagram used in the article. I'll look for a cite that states this clearly in words, but everything I've ever read talks about points of sail in relation to the true wind - that is, the point of sail is the heading relative to the true wind.


 * To take an example, suppose you're running downwind in 10 knots of breeze and your boat speed is 5 knots. Further suppose you sail into a hole where the wind is only 3 knots.  Are you still running?  Are you in irons? Close hauled?  What?  I'd say you're still running, but you probably need to adjust your sail trim until the boat settles down into the new lower wind.


 * Now, that said, sails need to be trimmed to the apparent wind, not the true wind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr swordfish (talk • contribs) 20:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Swordfish, I hate to say this, but I think that you misunderstood the article that you cite (http://www.sailingusa.info/sail_trim.htm). The text makes it clear that what the sails see is the apparent wind, so the point of sail is with respect to the apparent wind, and the "wind direction" in the lower diagram is the direction of the apparent wind.  As every sailor knows, when you sail into  "hole in the wind" such as you describe, you either wind up in irons or close-hauled, until the wind comes back.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Gautier, I read that article as saying how to trim sails; that they should be trimmed to the apparent wind. No argument there. I don't see anywhere that they define the points of sail based on the sail trim - one might infer it (e.g. they say close hauled is 30-40 degrees, so they must be talking about apparent wind) but I'm not ready to base the wiki language on that inference.


 * Now that I've had a day to think about it and re-review a number of materials, here's my take:
 * How to sail manuals usually introduce the points of sail before the concept of apparent wind, so they do not make this distinction
 * When I teach a beginner sailing lesson, I demonstrate the points of sail without talking about apparent wind, thus I'm demonstrating it with the apparent wind, not the true wind.
 * For normal non-high-performance boats, there's not much of a difference.
 * Sailing is not mathematics; we shouldn't expect to find a precise definition of the term "points of sail"
 * Books on high-performance boats (e.g. Bethwaite) freely use the term "point of sail" to refer to the heading relative to the true wind. These boats go several times the wind speed, so their sails are trimmed close-hauled even when on a broad reach course.  Presumably, the readers of these books are not confused by using the term in this manner.


 * So my take is that we (wiki editors) should remain silent on the matter.  It's unnecessary hair splitting that obscures the main point, all the references I've looked at elide over the difference, and the the term is used in both senses depending on context.Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: I should have read the entire article. Here's what it says under "Trimming the Sails on a Close Reach"


 * "When sailing on a reach, the experienced      sailor, trims the sails based upon the apparent-wind.   This is       important because sails cannot be efficiently positioned based upon the       point-of-sail or the direction of the true-wind."


 * The clear implication here is that the point of sail is determined by the true wind, not the apparent wind. That said, I don't find this dispositive.  Point of sail could be defined either way, and both versions appear in common usage.  Absent a clear authoritative precise definition, we should accept that the term is a bit fuzzy and not try to give it precision lacking in the literature.Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Outdent. Dear Swordfish, I fully agree with you analysis and conclusions. We should leave both the Sailing and Points of Sails articles are they are now, without a clear explanation as to whether the point of sail refers to apparent or true wind. The term was no doubt coined in the days when boats did not go fast enough for there to be any significant difference between true and apparent wind, and today the term is probably used in different ways in different contexts, as you ably point out above.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

In order to be an acclaimed sailor, you must more so understand how the wind works than how the water works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bronwyn owens (talk • contribs) 19:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Beating is not really defined
The section "Beating or working" doesn't actually define what beating and working are. It describes a number of actions but doesn't define 'beating', then starts using 'beating' as if it was defined. I think 'beating' refers to the zig-zag maneuvering, and that is hinted at elsewhere in the article, but as someone who knows nothing about sailing I was left uncertain. I think all that is needed is a change from "By this method of zig-zagging into the wind it is possible to reach any upwind destination." to something like this: "This method of zig-zagging into the wind is called beating (or working) and makes it possible to reach any upwind destination." 173.172.95.186 (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Beating is used in two ways, one the zig zag process you describe, and the other as a simple synonym for close-hauled. Rjljr2 (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

MOS: Discussion regarding the use of "she" to refer to ships
There is a new Manual of Style talk page discussion that questions the practice of referring to commercial and naval vessels as "she" and "her" taking place here. One or more editors have proposed a change to the Manual of Style which would require the use of the gender-neutral pronoun "it" when referring to vessels. Please take the time to express your opinion on this matter. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Maritime history
The section on maritime history seems to be a bit too European centric, Polynesian seamanship and equipment seemed to have been superior yet the Polynesians haven't been mentioned, nor is Ui-te-Rangiora. The Polynesian catamaran (7th century) was even superior than the best 18th century European vessels. See Talk:Maritime_history91.182.55.169 (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you provide references, and text based on them?--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Polynesian seamanship was indeed excellent. Their craft design has given rise to western catamarans but they are faster not better and catamarans are still not suited to all boat usage and have unrecoverable dangers. Many many polynesians were drowned during their migrations and their technology was not a pancea for all the problems of stormy oceans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.202.145 (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Reducing Sail and Vertical Battens
In the section on Reducing sail, it says: 'newly developed vertical battens'. I question this statement. Firstly, it is not dated, so there's no way to know what it means by 'new'. Secondly, it doesn't provide any reference to justify the assertion. Thirdly, I don't believe the statement! I don't have a reference for the date - that's what I was looking for - but my memory tells me that I've known about vertical battens in mast-reefing mainsails for a long time. I believe they were invented by North, but I'm not sure of that. In any case, I believe the article is inaccurate and of poor quality in this specific regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.184.42 (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I need some help on Universal Rule editing
I started to edit the Universal Rule page. Can we collaborate?Americascupfreak (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)