Dear Madam,

In your last issue Mr Penoyre invited readers to comment on his views on light v heavy boats. The subject is an almost endless one so I will restrict myself as much as possible to his particular points in their published order.

1. Surely the Enterprise has some advantages other than those evident on shore (ease of trailing and manhandling). It seems that the main reason for using an Enterprise or similar light boat is that expounded by Alec Barge - such a boat will get you where you want to go, quickly, even in light winds, and will give exhilarating sailing while so doing.

2. The seaworthiness problem is very complicated. In the case of the two types drifting under bare poles, the light boat might score where breaking waves are concerned since it would be more easily pushed sideways. Until this point is reached i.e. while still sailing, the heavier more stable boat will be less liable to capsize. This is because she is more stable (the D.C.A. test of sitting the crew on one gunwale is quite a good one), because this stability relieves the crew of the need to sit out or at least gives the crew more time to react to sudden gusts, because a more stable hull is easier to work in when reefing, and finally the crew do not become tired so quickly, a very valid point in open boat sailing.

3. Whether to luff or bear away? I believe this may depend on the weight of the boat, since it is essential to luff well before the wave reaches the boat. If the bow is still swinging towards the wave and the crest catches one side of the bow only, then the effect is worse than carrying on unswervingly. To meet the wave head on means the boat must carry her way long enough, against wind and sea, to be able to bear away after the crest has passed. Will a light dinghy do that? A heavy one will.

The alternative, bearing away, has the effect of swinging the bow with the wave and reducing its force, but it must not be overdone since it takes the boat off its (windward) course and eventually exposes the whole boat’s side to the wave.

Finally my own viewpoint is that the ideal boat must lie somewhere between the two extremes of say, a Firefly and a small ship’s lifeboat. The boat must be beamy with weight in the right places, yet still be fast. (Fatigue, bad weather and their consequences will catch up with the heavy boat sailor if he takes too long over his 'safe' passage.) I feel sure boats of this type exist and I hope to be able to say more on this point in a later issue.

Ron Long

Dear Madam,

I believe that the crux of the light versus heavy dinghy question is one of temperament.

If one's tastes incline to racing cycles, 650 cc O.H.V. twin motorbikes, and sports cars, then a lively, light boat is the choice. But if one prefers a "sit-up-and-beg" type of cycle, a side-valve banger and a sedate saloon, then a stable, heavy boat should be chosen. A friend of mine said that he likes fast boats, fast cars and slow women, but his wife was present!!! I think that all other points, and there are many are secondary.

Take safety - certainly a heavy boat is safer, everything else being equal, but the major factor in safety is the helmsman's decisions. Decisions such as, whether to go out in borderline conditions, whether to turn back or go on, and whether to replace that old piece of equipment. If one takes safety to a coldly logical conclusion one would sit at home in an armchair.

The suitability of a particular design can give endless argument. My criticisms of the Enterprise are:

(a) too bluff a bow (b) too small washboards (c) centreboard case too low (d) the orifice in the transom (e) lack of rigidity

But, if the helmsman avoids conditions where these points are vital to one's survival then the Enterprise can be used as a cruising boat.

I agree with Slade that it is a combination of wind and sea that are the limiting factors, but I think that his statement of the case was incomplete. After a capsize a dinghy, not only should be, but MUST be capable of sailing on, even though the helmsman is wet, cold, bedraggled and miserable. I have been very deeply impressed by the loneliness of the water when conditions are borderline. Anyway, in principle, it is wrong to rely on other peoples' help.

In answer to the second part of Slade's letter, I can see no conflict between “luff up to breaking seas” and “bearing away a little for particularly bad seas”. Do both. To illustrate, assume sea running down wind, sailing close-hauled under reasonable conditions of wind and sea. Now the wind rises and the sea gets worse (without breaking). Every time the bow digs in, some way will be lost. Depending on the sea and the boat, a point will be reached where the boat is stopped dead. Hence the saying "going up and down in the same hole". This is highly dangerous - a boat with no way on will not steer - and therefore is not under control.

So, when the sea becomes such that the boat is not sensitive to the helm, ease the sheets a shade (1, 2 or 3 inches in my boat). The boat speeds up and once again becomes responsive. Sometime during this process one will reef. Now if a bigger sea comes along, particularly a short, steep one, and strikes the boat partially on the beam a lot of water will be shipped over the side. But if one luffs just before the sea reaches one, the boat will try to rise and force its way through the sea, still shipping some water over the bow, but only a fraction of that which would have come over the side (washboards are significant here). Then one bears away to pick up speed again to be ready for the next sea. So one's course becomes a series of luffs and bearing aways. With practice one can sheet in and ease in sympathy with the helm. It can now be seen, I hope, that one must ease the sheets to gain the necessary momentum to carry the boat through the luffs without losing too much way.

To conclude this argument, when a sea becomes short and steep enough it will be a breaking sea. If one bears in mind that the helmsman has to cope with a fresh to strong, gusty wind at the same time, you will appreciate that one needs to be highly alert under these conditions. In addition the motion is very wearing and the helmsman is very wet. To my mind this underlines why the limitations are those of the helmsman and not the boat. I have sailed for about four hours at a time under these conditions and I know I have been near my limit. Of course there is always a way out, and that would be to drop the mainsail, hoist the jib, (which would have been off by then), and run or broad reach back to where you came from.

A F Barge