In her Spring Editorial, Joan deplores the demise of sail and oar cruising, but is the DCA's policy indirectly contributing to this?

On the South Coast only 3 boats regularly attend DCA rallies under sail and oar only, and 2 of these are light racer/GP types that most of the DCA establishment strongly disapprove of. So are most of the boats which sail to our rallies with only minimum use of their motors. The boat that habitually sails the longest distance to South Coast rallies is a light racer/GP without a motor. So was the only boat to turn up at a Hamble rally in rough weather. Our flourishing South Coast programme might well collapse without the racer/GPs.

Taking the DCA fleet as a whole, our boats seem about evenly divided between heavy boats, medium weight boats and light racer/GP types, yet our Technical Advisor is probably echoing the sentiments of most of the DCA establishment when writing of racer/GPs. He advises us to "sell the b***s”. Does the DCA want to lose a third of its membership and most of its sail and oar people? Of course Peter Bick was absolutely right in saying that racer/GPs are less forgiving of mistakes and more demanding of skill and fitness than heavy boats, but as our founder, the late Eric Coleman, pointed out, the racer/GP types "exhibit superior seaworthiness in the hands of experts". Shouldn't we therefore aim at improving sailing skill and understanding of all dinghies commonly used for cruising rather than only recognising heavy boats, "pocket cruisers" and mini yachts?

I would certainly not recommend my 14' Leader to a beginner, but given a reasonable level of skill, experience and awareness, I would rate it as arguably the best dinghy there is for singlehanded sail and oar cruising in the unpredictable winds and awkward tides of the Solent. Of course, if I was doing a channel crossing, I would carry an outboard to ensure a swift right-angle crossing of the shipping lanes and my choice of boat would be the same as Peter Bick's; a 14' Roamer. It is a case of "horses for courses".

In his valuable contribution on ballast, Peter dismissed the alternative option of reducing sail area, saying that it turns racer/GP boats into dull performers. It is true that in a strong breeze a heavy boat may get to windward faster than a heavily reefed single-handed Leader, but I can reduce my normal sail area by 70% and still get useful windward performance and a lively ride in a blow. In fact, the fault with many racing/GP types is that they are so over-canvassed that when single-handed, you can reduce sail area by 10, 20 or even 30% without seriously affecting performance. Nevertheless the full racing rig enables one to ghost through a Solent popple that would be hard to row through, without hammering away with an outboard motor.

He did however provide a great deal of much needed information and his figures for ballast weight seemed reasonable. Regarding Peter's "pigs", these have the considerable advantage of slimness to fit under floorboards where the clearance is limited. Is should also be possible to cut lead sheet to vary the depth as required. As inexpensive ballast-weight material not mentioned by Peter is concrete, made up with iron or steel scrap instead of gravel. Punchings from steel plate are the traditional weight-booster, but no doubt useless old nuts and bolts, broken-up iron castings or any other bits of heavy metal would do. If a heavy polythene liner was used, with some packing to provide clearance for subsequent removal, it could no doubt be cast between frames. Tubing could be cast in to provide holes for carrying cords.

Peter Francis's letter asks about the developments to which I said the DCA had closed its mind. The facts are that I submitted notes and sketches (see next two pages) on reefing methods, mast and sailhead buoyancy and buoyancy-tank testing for cruising not racing to the DCA bulletin, but they were turned down as of insufficient interest to members.** I then offered more detailed notes to members and they were later incorporated into a little article on cruising racer/GP boats published by another group, which was enthusiastically received.

Another matter the DCA seems to have closed its mind to is the Wanderer dinghy, designed by the world's most famous cruising dinghy designer. I am not saying that we should bow to Proctor's reputation, nor that we should pull any punches in our criticism, but we should endeavour to test sail every important new boat and evaluate them in the DCA bulletin. Incidentally, I feel that the new cruising version of the Wayfarer is sufficiently important to justify full assessment.

No article was turned down because of lack of interest. Lack of space and short time caused postponement. A review of the Wanderer appeared when it first came out. (Editor)