FreedomYachts.org

I believe that the first 17 or so 40/40 were made with a very tall rig, but the later ones went with something more modest. I would guess the former made the ICW difficult in spots but could anyone provide me with their thoughts on the advantages/disadvantages of the two rigs? A good friends is looking at the boat and has heard that the tall is "too powerful", meaning, perhaps, it needs to be reefed sooner(?).

Any thoughts, biases, beliefs or experience would be greatly appreciated.

Ed- we have hull # 11 which was one of the "tall" rigs which I believe was the same rig as on the 45. It was "cut down" from the top by what I was told to be about 5 feet so that it is now a few inches over 60' (ICW friendly). We had new sails made by Haarstick when we bought the boat two years ago and I can say that I have not felt under powered. The original owner on Lake Erie had the mast cut down and had taken the boat to the Carribean which is where are hoping to ultimately end up. Lack of wind is no problem there. Two weeks ago we were on our way back from Newport RI in 28 kts gusting to over 30 and with one reef in we were very comfortable. Hope that this gives your friend some helpful info. Paul

I have the tall rig. It is very powerful. I have never needed to use the second reef. I am getting new sails, and will have a third reef put in (just in case). There is one bridge that I can't go under in my usual cruising grounds. I have the deep keel. I suspect that the combination of the tall rig with the wing keel might have not worked very well. Prior to purchasing the boat, I called Dave Pedrick, the designer. He liked the tall rig/deep keel the most.
Having said that, I would not mind the shorter mast.
Remember though that it is a heavy boat and you might feel under powered with the smaller rig.
In talking with Paul Dennis, he says that with three reefs, you can get through anything.