Peter Clutterbuck's carefully thought-out article uses a method of approach which seems to ignore the obvious. Dual purpose boats (racing or cruising) such as the Wayfarer seem to be sold rigged and fitted out for racing. If I wished to race and cruise in a Wayfarer I would have two rigs, the cruising one being heavier and having a much larger safety factor. For instance, the cruising centreplate would be steel or alloy and the rudder blade alloy. Fittings permanently attached to the boat such as shroud plates, rudder fastenings, etc., would be designed for cruising and I would have to tolerate the extra ounces when racing. If the extra weight was felt to be disastrous then it could be partially offset by a vitamin pill instead of breakfast and surreptitiously filling the buoyancy bags with hydrogen. I would also consult with other Wayfarer owners and present a list of cruising fittings to the manufacturers so that those who wished only to cruise would be saved needless expense.

The writer does not consider that oars would form a satisfactory reserve means of propulsion. He says that negligible progress would be made against a force 4 headwind. This may be true but shelter may not lie to windward - it may be abeam. He further states "Atlantic rowers never row into a headwind - even a force 2!" Well, I don't know what rowers he is referring to but English Rose was rowed against force 5 headwinds. Ridgeway and Blythe made a course approximately North with a headwind F.5 SE. Even this poor performance might be sufficient for a boat to find shelter. Bearing in mind that the 20 ft. English Rose weighed a ton and had considerably more windage than a Wayfarer with mast lowered, also that the rowers were not exactly fresh, I would think that a Wayfarer would do better even allowing for steeper seas near the coast.

Eric Coleman