Mast Stress on a Cat-Ketch

Archives
1

Posted by Jay Glen (svfantasy@…>)

Being relatively new to freestanding Cat-Ketches, is it correct to
assume that you would reduce the stress to the foremast by sailing
with the mizzen and main together? It seems to me that sailing with
only the main up would place all the load on this one mast. The
previous owner lost the main mast while motorsailing in strong head
seas in 20 kts of wind. It seems the stresses could have been reduced
by having both sails pulling the vessel along. Any thoughts.

Thanks,

Jay

2

Posted by lance_ryley (lance_ryley@…>)

Jay,
I don’t believe this is correct, although some other CK owners may
have a differing opinion. My guess is that the difference in pressure
on the mast of, say, traveling 7 kts with both sails up or 4 kts with
one sail up is negligible at the pressures of mast loading. It’s not
like a Freedom 40 gets up on a plane in 20kts. And also remember that
there are very few points of sail where the mizzen is going to even
partially blanket the main.

When sailing the F-40, it is good to heed the advice “Reef Early, Reef
Often.” On Bright Star, the reefing routine is usually 1st reef in
Mizzen (reduces weather helm), 1st reef in Main (reduces mainmast
stresses), 2nd Reef in Mizzen (usually again to maintain steering),
2nd Reef Main, Drop Mizzen. the new main only has two reef points, but
they’re very deep. It seems more likely that if the PO was
motorsailing in 20 kts with pounding seas, he may have been
overcanvased for the conditions.

Lance
Bright Star
— In freedomyachts2003@yahoogroups.com, “Jay Glen” <svfantasy@…>
wrote:

Being relatively new to freestanding Cat-Ketches, is it correct to
assume that you would reduce the stress to the foremast by sailing
with the mizzen and main together? It seems to me that sailing with
only the main up would place all the load on this one mast. The
previous owner lost the main mast while motorsailing in strong head
seas in 20 kts of wind. It seems the stresses could have been
reduced
by having both sails pulling the vessel along. Any thoughts.

Thanks,

Jay

3

Posted by michel.capel (michel.capel@…>)

Jay,

I agree with Lance’s observations; there is no effect of using two
or just one sail on the forces of each individual mast.

I also use the same reefing drill as Lance does. Deciding when to
reef is easy: a long keeled Freedom such as the F40 and F33 should
never heel more than 20*. 20* is approximately when the outer edge
of windward side of the coachroof top becomes horizontal. So then
you reef.

I am very curious to know the cause of the mast breakage of your
boat’s PO. Even hacking up and down in a seaway, when the mast is
shaken foreward and backward with force, the mast should not break.
There must be other, structural reasons why this breakage occured,
such as an abundance of screw- or rivet holes in the lower 10’ of
the mast, weakening the mast.

Michel


— In freedomyachts2003@yahoogroups.com, “lance_ryley”
<lance_ryley@…> wrote:

Jay,
I don’t believe this is correct, although some other CK owners may
have a differing opinion. My guess is that the difference in
pressure
on the mast of, say, traveling 7 kts with both sails up or 4 kts
with
one sail up is negligible at the pressures of mast loading. It’s
not
like a Freedom 40 gets up on a plane in 20kts. And also remember
that
there are very few points of sail where the mizzen is going to
even
partially blanket the main.

When sailing the F-40, it is good to heed the advice “Reef Early,
Reef
Often.” On Bright Star, the reefing routine is usually 1st reef in
Mizzen (reduces weather helm), 1st reef in Main (reduces mainmast
stresses), 2nd Reef in Mizzen (usually again to maintain
steering),
2nd Reef Main, Drop Mizzen. the new main only has two reef points,
but
they’re very deep. It seems more likely that if the PO was
motorsailing in 20 kts with pounding seas, he may have been
overcanvased for the conditions.

Lance
Bright Star
— In freedomyachts2003@yahoogroups.com, “Jay Glen” <svfantasy@>
wrote:

Being relatively new to freestanding Cat-Ketches, is it correct
to
assume that you would reduce the stress to the foremast by
sailing
with the mizzen and main together? It seems to me that sailing
with
only the main up would place all the load on this one mast. The
previous owner lost the main mast while motorsailing in strong
head
seas in 20 kts of wind. It seems the stresses could have been
reduced
by having both sails pulling the vessel along. Any thoughts.

Thanks,

Jay

4

Posted by Jay Glen (svfantasy@…>)

Michel,

Thanks for your opinion on the mast stress question. It just seemed to me that if you are trying to move a vessel (weighing a specific amount) through the water, it would take a certain amount of force to move that weight. If the entire force required to move the vessel is placed on one mast (main sail alone) then, of course, all the force is applied to the main mast. If, however, you have both main & mizzen up, the force required to move the vessel is now distributed between the two masts, causing less loading on the main mast. In a document from Freedom Yachts titled, “Sail Handlling Hints” authored by Garry Hoyt, he states the following;

" Each one of the Freedom spars is designed to singlely be able to lever the boat over - to cover the contingency that you might be sailing on one spar. However, it would far better from the point of view of sail balance - and of distributing the heeling loads - to carry the heeling loads on both spars - rather than loading up one".

This, in my mind, confirms that sailing under main alone does increase the load on this mast. Although as Garry states the mast are designed to accept this loading.

I do not know that date of this document but it came with the owners manual when I bought the boat.

The PO lost the main mast on “Fantasy” while motorsailing in 20 kts and head seas about 100 miles South of San Diego. They only had the main up at the time. After making port it was determined that due to frequent anchoring while in Mexico, the chain had abraded the side of the main mast near the mast step. This cause sea water to wick up between the lay-ups of fiberglass in the mast, weakening it to the point of failure at deck level. The new mast was installed with a rubber matting wrapped and tied around the mast in the chain locker. Sorry for the lengthy response everyone.

Jay Glen

F-40 “Fantasy” SF Bay

----- Original Message -----
From: michel.capel
To: freedomyachts2003@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 5:42 AM
Subject: [freedomyachts2003] Re: Mast Stress on a Cat-Ketch


Jay,I agree with Lance’s observations; there is no effect of using two or just one sail on the forces of each individual mast. I also use the same reefing drill as Lance does. Deciding when to reef is easy: a long keeled Freedom such as the F40 and F33 should never heel more than 20*. 20* is approximately when the outer edge of windward side of the coachroof top becomes horizontal. So then you reef. I am very curious to know the cause of the mast breakage of your boat’s PO. Even hacking up and down in a seaway, when the mast is shaken foreward and backward with force, the mast should not break. There must be other, structural reasons why this breakage occured, such as an abundance of screw- or rivet holes in the lower 10’ of the mast, weakening the mast.Michel— In freedomyachts2003@yahoogroups.com, “lance_ryley” <lance_ryley@…> wrote:>> Jay,> I don’t believe this is correct, although some other CK owners may > have a differing opinion. My guess is that the difference in pressure > on the mast of, say, traveling 7 kts with both sails up or 4 kts with > one sail up is negligible at the pressures of mast loading. It’s not > like a Freedom 40 gets up on a plane in 20kts. And also remember that > there are very few points of sail where the mizzen is going to even > partially blanket the main.> > When sailing the F-40, it is good to heed the advice “Reef Early, Reef > Often.” On Bright Star, the reefing routine is usually 1st reef in > Mizzen (reduces weather helm), 1st reef in Main (reduces mainmast > stresses), 2nd Reef in Mizzen (usually again to maintain steering), > 2nd Reef Main, Drop Mizzen. the new main only has two reef points, but > they’re very deep. It seems more likely that if the PO was > motorsailing in 20 kts with pounding seas, he may have been > overcanvased for the conditions.> > Lance> Bright Star> — In freedomyachts2003@yahoogroups.com, “Jay Glen” <svfantasy@> > wrote:> >> > Being relatively new to freestanding Cat-Ketches, is it correct to > > assume that you would reduce the stress to the foremast by sailing > > with the mizzen and main together? It seems to me that sailing with > > only the main up would place all the load on this one mast. The > > previous owner lost the main mast while motorsailing in strong head > > seas in 20 kts of wind. It seems the stresses could have been > reduced > > by having both sails pulling the vessel along. Any thoughts.> > > > Thanks,> > > > Jay> >>

5

Posted by yottydotty (mikedavidwilliams@…>)

I think you are all right to certain extents, as there are several
factors at play…

When say towing the boat at a fixed speed/force, or heeling the boat
over and deciding to pull on one or two masts - then the fixed
external force is shared between either the one or two masts.

But when sailing the force on the mast is coming from the mast/sails
itself. The force is coming from the mast(s)&sail(s) and is not a
fixed force shared out to the mast(s).

But it is not that simple. With a second sail added on a second mast,
there are effects on the first, due to the changes in the apparent
wind expereinced by the first mast, and the heel angle of the boat etc.

The heel angle is a balance between the righting moment of the boat’s
stabilty and the wind force on the sails transmitted through the mast.
In say 20 knots wind, with one sail up the heel angle will be less
than with two. In these 20 knots mast/sails more upright are going to
take more load than a mast/sail at 20 degrees in the same wind.

Also it depends on the apparent wind speed. In a fixed true wind,
Going downwind the boat with one sail will be slower than two. So it
will experience a higher apparent wind speed, than with two sailing
when they will be moving faster away from the wind. Going upwind the
reverse would be true…

Then there are also the interaction effects, shadowing etc.

Best Regards
Mike

6

Posted by michel.capel (michel.capel@…>)

Jay,

Although I’m not a math guru, I think you have to put the movement
of the vessel on the other end (the outcome) of the equation; it’s
the function of the propulsive force put on the spar by the sail
(s). The displacement and speed are quite smal as input for the
amount of load on the mast.

Force on the mast is mainly a function of the wind pushing in the
sail (the remainder is a funtion of the movement of the boat shaking
the mast; this is influenced by speed and displacement). The
sailarea you carry is directly responsible for the force on the spar
it is carried on, it has no effect on the force on the other spar.
The main effect of speed is the creation of apparent wind differing
from the true wind.


— In freedomyachts2003@yahoogroups.com, “Jay Glen” <svfantasy@…>
wrote:

Michel,

Thanks for your opinion on the mast stress question. It just
seemed to me that if you are trying to move a vessel (weighing a
specific amount) through the water, it would take a certain amount
of force to move that weight. If the entire force required to move
the vessel is placed on one mast (main sail alone) then, of course,
all the force is applied to the main mast. If, however, you have
both main & mizzen up, the force required to move the vessel is now
distributed between the two masts, causing less loading on the main
mast. In a document from Freedom Yachts titled, “Sail Handlling
Hints” authored by Garry Hoyt, he states the following;

" Each one of the Freedom spars is designed to singlely be able to
lever the boat over - to cover the contingency that you might be
sailing on one spar. However, it would far better from the point of
view of sail balance - and of distributing the heeling loads - to
carry the heeling loads on both spars - rather than loading up one".

This, in my mind, confirms that sailing under main alone does
increase the load on this mast. Although as Garry states the mast
are designed to accept this loading.

I do not know that date of this document but it came with the
owners manual when I bought the boat.

The PO lost the main mast on “Fantasy” while motorsailing in 20
kts and head seas about 100 miles South of San Diego. They only had
the main up at the time. After making port it was determined that
due to frequent anchoring while in Mexico, the chain had abraded the
side of the main mast near the mast step. This cause sea water to
wick up between the lay-ups of fiberglass in the mast, weakening it
to the point of failure at deck level. The new mast was installed
with a rubber matting wrapped and tied around the mast in the chain
locker. Sorry for the lengthy response everyone.

Jay Glen

F-40 “Fantasy” SF Bay

----- Original Message -----
From: michel.capel
To: freedomyachts2003@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 5:42 AM
Subject: [freedomyachts2003] Re: Mast Stress on a Cat-Ketch

Jay,

I agree with Lance’s observations; there is no effect of using
two
or just one sail on the forces of each individual mast.

I also use the same reefing drill as Lance does. Deciding when
to
reef is easy: a long keeled Freedom such as the F40 and F33
should
never heel more than 20*. 20* is approximately when the outer
edge
of windward side of the coachroof top becomes horizontal. So
then
you reef.

I am very curious to know the cause of the mast breakage of your
boat’s PO. Even hacking up and down in a seaway, when the mast
is
shaken foreward and backward with force, the mast should not
break.
There must be other, structural reasons why this breakage
occured,
such as an abundance of screw- or rivet holes in the lower 10’
of
the mast, weakening the mast.

Michel

— In freedomyachts2003@yahoogroups.com, “lance_ryley”
<lance_ryley@> wrote:

Jay,
I don’t believe this is correct, although some other CK owners
may
have a differing opinion. My guess is that the difference in
pressure
on the mast of, say, traveling 7 kts with both sails up or 4
kts
with
one sail up is negligible at the pressures of mast loading.
It’s
not
like a Freedom 40 gets up on a plane in 20kts. And also
remember
that
there are very few points of sail where the mizzen is going to
even
partially blanket the main.

When sailing the F-40, it is good to heed the advice “Reef
Early,
Reef
Often.” On Bright Star, the reefing routine is usually 1st
reef in
Mizzen (reduces weather helm), 1st reef in Main (reduces
mainmast
stresses), 2nd Reef in Mizzen (usually again to maintain
steering),
2nd Reef Main, Drop Mizzen. the new main only has two reef
points,
but
they’re very deep. It seems more likely that if the PO was
motorsailing in 20 kts with pounding seas, he may have been
overcanvased for the conditions.

Lance
Bright Star
— In freedomyachts2003@yahoogroups.com, “Jay Glen”
<svfantasy@>
wrote:

Being relatively new to freestanding Cat-Ketches, is it
correct
to
assume that you would reduce the stress to the foremast by
sailing
with the mizzen and main together? It seems to me that
sailing
with
only the main up would place all the load on this one mast.
The
previous owner lost the main mast while motorsailing in
strong
head
seas in 20 kts of wind. It seems the stresses could have
been
reduced
by having both sails pulling the vessel along. Any thoughts.

Thanks,

Jay

7

Posted by Tom Vesey (tvesey@…>)
I would have thought the biggest stresses on the masts would come not from the wind, but from the shock of slamming into a wave or off of a wave, causing the masts to whip sharply.TomF44 JackrabbitOn Jun 12, 2006, at 10:47 AM, michel.capel wrote:Jay,Although I’m not a math guru, I think you have to put the movement of the vessel on the other end (the outcome) of the equation; it’s the function of the propulsive force put on the spar by the sail(s). The displacement and speed are quite smal as input for the amount of load on the mast.Force on the mast is mainly a function of the wind pushing in the sail (the remainder is a funtion of the movement of the boat shaking the mast; this is influenced by speed and displacement). The sailarea you carry is directly responsible for the force on the spar it is carried on, it has no effect on the force on the other spar. The main effect of speed is the creation of apparent wind differing from the true wind. — In freedomyachts2003@yahoogroups.com, “Jay Glen” <svfantasy@…> wrote:>> Michel,> > Thanks for your opinion on the mast stress question. It just seemed to me that if you are trying to move a vessel (weighing a specific amount) through the water, it would take a certain amount of force to move that weight. If the entire force required to move the vessel is placed on one mast (main sail alone) then, of course, all the force is applied to the main mast. If, however, you have both main & mizzen up, the force required to move the vessel is now distributed between the two masts, causing less loading on the main mast. In a document from Freedom Yachts titled, “Sail Handlling Hints” authored by Garry Hoyt, he states the following;> > " Each one of the Freedom spars is designed to singlely be able to lever the boat over - to cover the contingency that you might be sailing on one spar. However, it would far better from the point of view of sail balance - and of distributing the heeling loads - to carry the heeling loads on both spars - rather than loading up one".> > This, in my mind, confirms that sailing under main alone does increase the load on this mast. Although as Garry states the mast are designed to accept this loading.> > I do not know that date of this document but it came with the owners manual when I bought the boat.> > The PO lost the main mast on “Fantasy” while motorsailing in 20 kts and head seas about 100 miles South of San Diego. They only had the main up at the time. After making port it was determined that due to frequent anchoring while in Mexico, the chain had abraded the side of the main mast near the mast step. This cause sea water to wick up between the lay-ups of fiberglass in the mast, weakening it to the point of failure at deck level. The new mast was installed with a rubber matting wrapped and tied around the mast in the chain locker. Sorry for the lengthy response everyone.> > Jay Glen> > F-40 “Fantasy” SF Bay> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: michel.capel > To: freedomyachts2003@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 5:42 AM> Subject: [freedomyachts2003] Re: Mast Stress on a Cat-Ketch> > > Jay,> > I agree with Lance’s observations; there is no effect of using two > or just one sail on the forces of each individual mast. > > I also use the same reefing drill as Lance does. Deciding when to > reef is easy: a long keeled Freedom such as the F40 and F33 should > never heel more than 20*. 20* is approximately when the outer edge > of windward side of the coachroof top becomes horizontal. So then > you reef. > > I am very curious to know the cause of the mast breakage of your > boat’s PO. Even hacking up and down in a seaway, when the mast is > shaken foreward and backward with force, the mast should not break. > There must be other, structural reasons why this breakage occured, > such as an abundance of screw- or rivet holes in the lower 10’ of > the mast, weakening the mast.> > Michel> > — In freedomyachts2003@yahoogroups.com, “lance_ryley” > <lance_ryley@> wrote:> >> > Jay,> > I don’t believe this is correct, although some other CK owners may > > have a differing opinion. My guess is that the difference in > pressure > > on the mast of, say, traveling 7 kts with both sails up or 4 kts > with > > one sail up is negligible at the pressures of mast loading. It’s > not > > like a Freedom 40 gets up on a plane in 20kts. And also remember > that > > there are very few points of sail where the mizzen is going to > even > > partially blanket the main.> > > > When sailing the F-40, it is good to heed the advice “Reef Early, > Reef > > Often.” On Bright Star, the reefing routine is usually 1st reef in > > Mizzen (reduces weather helm), 1st reef in Main (reduces mainmast > > stresses), 2nd Reef in Mizzen (usually again to maintain > steering), > > 2nd Reef Main, Drop Mizzen. the new main only has two reef points, > but > > they’re very deep. It seems more likely that if the PO was > > motorsailing in 20 kts with pounding seas, he may have been > > overcanvased for the conditions.> > > > Lance> > Bright Star> > — In freedomyachts2003@yahoogroups.com, “Jay Glen” <svfantasy@> > > wrote:> > >> > > Being relatively new to freestanding Cat-Ketches, is it correct > to > > > assume that you would reduce the stress to the foremast by > sailing > > > with the mizzen and main together? It seems to me that sailing > with > > > only the main up would place all the load on this one mast. The > > > previous owner lost the main mast while motorsailing in strong > head > > > seas in 20 kts of wind. It seems the stresses could have been > > reduced > > > by having both sails pulling the vessel along. Any thoughts.> > > > > > Thanks,> > > > > > Jay> > >> >>

8

Posted by Skip Turpin (skipperf33@…>)

While single handing my F33CK two years ago, I spent 24hrs. Fighting
with a storm off the Pacific coast of the Baja peninsula. Conditions
were as follows: Seas confused, Wind 50 knots, Waves 30’, Butt
PUCKERED!

Did my masts whip? You bet!

Was the wiping excessive? No!

Was I at any time concerned that a mast might snap? Not hardly!

Was I in fear of losing my boat or worse my life? Never! The boat
did predictably well. After that experience I would not hesitate to
stick my nose into worse! Though I would not go looking for it!

Was there more movement in the masts under sail or bare sticks? Way
more movement under sail! After all, the sticks weigh less than
200lbs each. The movement in them from being whipped by the motion
of the boat and seas was negligible compared to what they do while
driving 15,000 lbs. of boat and load through such conditions!

Our masts were designed to bend! That is how they distribute all the
forces imposed on them at any given moment. If a mast breaks under
most any conditions that the boat and mast designers could
realistically foresee us sailing into, there would have to be either
a manufacturing flaw or some kind of damage to the mast not
encountered by normal sailing of the vessel! I have heard of some
very strange things being done to the masts of our boats over the
years! And of course, we the Skippers never are the one at fault!
Someone else has to have been the one to screw up! Right!!!

Go sail your Freedoms in piece! Rest assured that they are among the
best out there! I often like to point out that I am sailing a
current State of the Art, 1982 boat! Gets em every time!!! Am
I prejudice? Damn Straight!

Skip

9

Posted by Norm Friberg (nfriberg@…>)

Hurrah for you, Skip!

----- Original Message -----
From: Skip Turpin
To: freedomyachts2003@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 6:03 PM
Subject: [freedomyachts2003] Re: Mast Stress on a Cat-Ketch


While single handing my F33CK two years ago, I spent 24hrs. Fighting with a storm off the Pacific coast of the Baja peninsula. Conditions were as follows: Seas confused, Wind 50 knots, Waves 30’, Butt PUCKERED!Did my masts whip? You bet!Was the wiping excessive? No!Was I at any time concerned that a mast might snap? Not hardly!Was I in fear of losing my boat or worse my life? Never! The boat did predictably well. After that experience I would not hesitate to stick my nose into worse! Though I would not go looking for it!Was there more movement in the masts under sail or bare sticks? Way more movement under sail! After all, the sticks weigh less than 200lbs each. The movement in them from being whipped by the motion of the boat and seas was negligible compared to what they do while driving 15,000 lbs. of boat and load through such conditions!Our masts were designed to bend! That is how they distribute all the forces imposed on them at any given moment. If a mast breaks under most any conditions that the boat and mast designers could realistically foresee us sailing into, there would have to be either a manufacturing flaw or some kind of damage to the mast not encountered by normal sailing of the vessel! I have heard of some very strange things being done to the masts of our boats over the years! And of course, we the Skippers never are the one at fault! Someone else has to have been the one to screw up! Right!!!Go sail your Freedoms in piece! Rest assured that they are among the best out there! I often like to point out that I am sailing a current State of the Art, 1982 boat! Gets em every time!!! Am I prejudice? Damn Straight!Skip

10

Posted by Alan Kusinitz (akusinitz@…>)


Nice to hear. One area I’ve been
working on that I think could cause a mast to fail is how it is secured at the
base. I’ve seen significant abrasion around the pins/bolts that go
through the collar at the step into holes in the mast to keep it from
turning/lifting. I’d imagine if left for many years through severe
conditions eventually the mast could move enough to lose support at the base
which could cause a break at the deck level or above. Any way just a thought of
something to check.
I’ve surfed with full main
sustaining 9.5 knots of boat speed for several minutes at a time dropping back
to around 7.5-8 and done this for a day at a time. (I know probably not a great
idea but it was a shakedown sail of sorts early in my ownership of the boat and
I wanted to gain some confidence in the masts.) On my masts the rig was
converted by Freedom early on to remove the wishbones and they cut 2x2 inch
holes in the front of the mast to allow access to tighten the bolts for the
gooseneck. These holes are open with just non-structural plates over them. So
my belief is we worry excessively over holes in the mast yet even these large
ones show no stress cracks even after 20 years or so. Even so I’m no fan
of drilling unnecessary holes.
I did check with Eric Sponberg (formerly
freedom but also a carbon fiber mast designer). He indicated that the front of
the mast in that location is not subject to a lot of stress relative to
strength of the mast at that level.

I also have come to the conclusion that
the masts are very strong and not something to worry about if checked for
abrasion.
Alan F-33 Hull #51 1982

The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments
is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s)
named above and may be subject to attorney client privilege if so marked. If
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that you have received this document in error and that any review,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by e-mail, and delete the original message.






From: freedomyachts2003@yahoogroups.com [mailto:freedomyachts2003@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Skip Turpin
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 6:03
PM
To: freedomyachts2003@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [freedomyachts2003] Re:
Mast Stress on a Cat-Ketch




While single handing my F33CK two years ago, I spent
24hrs. Fighting
with a storm off the Pacific coast of the Baja peninsula. Conditions
were as follows: Seas confused, Wind 50 knots, Waves 30’, Butt
PUCKERED!

Did my masts whip? You bet!

Was the wiping excessive? No!

Was I at any time concerned that a mast might snap? Not hardly!

Was I in fear of losing my boat or worse my life? Never! The boat
did predictably well. After that experience I would not hesitate to
stick my nose into worse! Though I would not go looking for it!

Was there more movement in the masts under sail or bare sticks? Way
more movement under sail! After all, the sticks weigh less than
200lbs each. The movement in them from being whipped by the motion
of the boat and seas was negligible compared to what they do while
driving 15,000 lbs. of boat and load through such conditions!

Our masts were designed to bend! That is how they distribute all the
forces imposed on them at any given moment. If a mast breaks under
most any conditions that the boat and mast designers could
realistically foresee us sailing into, there would have to be either
a manufacturing flaw or some kind of damage to the mast not
encountered by normal sailing of the vessel! I have heard of some
very strange things being done to the masts of our boats over the
years! And of course, we the Skippers never are the one at fault!
Someone else has to have been the one to screw up! Right!!!

Go sail your Freedoms in piece! Rest assured that they are among the
best out there! I often like to point out that I am sailing a
current State of the Art, 1982 boat! Gets em every time!!! Am
I prejudice? Damn Straight!

Skip

\

11

Posted by Dave_Benjamin (dave_benjamin@…>)

— In freedomyachts2003@yahoogroups.com, “Skip Turpin”
<skipperf33@…> wrote:

While single handing my F33CK two years ago, I spent 24hrs. Fighting
with a storm off the Pacific coast of the Baja peninsula.
Conditions
were as follows: Seas confused, Wind 50 knots, Waves 30’, Butt
PUCKERED!

I know of a 33 caught in a pretty significant storm off the coast of
Costa Rica for a few days. Young couple with a baby just rode it out.
Boat did fine. 33 CK’s are a great choice.