3 ms·

Yeah. There are two kinds of sailboats. There's the big square sailed ones which always have to move downwind. Then there are the triangular sailed ones, whi

by Tyr42 7y ago

Yeah. There are two kinds of sailboats. There's the big square sailed ones which always have to move downwind. Then there are the triangular sailed ones, which can move in any direction except for right into the wind. (Maybe a 30 degree on each side dead zone). The square sailed boats can't move faster than the wind, as they just rely on the air pushing on the sail to move with the wind. That's also how the triangular sailed boats move when moving directly downwind. They too can't outrun the wind. However, when moving sideways to the wind, the wind passes over the sail, which looks like a wing sticking out of the water. Like a wing, there's a "lift" force generated, although it's not up but sideways. The boats also have a fin sticking into the water, which prevents the boat from slipping directly along with that "lift" force, and instead move forward.

munificent 7y ago
> There's the big square sailed ones which always have to move downwind. Actually, that's not true. Square rigged "pirate-style" ships are more efficient when sailing downwind compared to fore-and-aft style sailboats, but they can still sail just fine close-hauled (into the wind) or on a reach (perpendicular). There are some efficiency pros and cons to both styles, but they all have the same aerodynamic capabilities. The main reasons square-rigged ships fell out of fashion, as far as I know, are mostly logistically. Square-rigged sails make sense when you have a really big ship. A single huge fore-and-aft sail would be too hard to handle. Square-rigged ships break that sail area down into a larger number of smaller individually manageable pieces. But larger vessels are almost all powered now. For a smaller sailing vessel, it's easier to manage the simpler Bermuda sail plan, and its more efficient. I think maybe square-rigged ships have an efficiency advantage when going straight downwind, but most sailboats simply carry a spinnaker to cover that case. (Caveat: I'm not a sailor, I've just read some textbooks.)
- tgarv 7y ago
  Well said, and I just want to add some detail about how square-rigged ships are able to sail close-hauled: They typically (or maybe always?) have "staysails", which run fore-and-aft between the masts, which works mostly like the main triangular sail you think of with a simple sailboat (with the exception that, as far as I know, these staysails aren't on a boom that can change its angle relative to the ship). These are able to take the wind at an angle but still generate forward thrust. The "yards", the sections that hold the square sails perpendicular to the ship, are also able to rotate between perpendicular and nearly-parallel to the ship, which lets them take advantage of a wide range of wind directions. (I'm also not much of a sailor, I've just sailed some tiny single-sail boats, but I've learned a lot while reading through the Aubrey-Maturin series and from playing the game Naval Action)
  - scooble 7y ago
    > A single huge fore-and-aft sail would be too hard to handle This isn't quite right, as split fore and aft rigs existed that solved this problem. I suspect it is more that power replaced sail for crossing oceans and square sails make little sense for coastal work so they had already switched to fore and aft rigs (with a few notable exceptions, such as Humberkeels in the north of England).
- BerislavLopac 7y ago
  > The main reasons square-rigged ships fell out of fashion, as far as I know, are mostly logistically. True, but it gets more complicated than that. For fast long-distance commercial travel they were replaced by the steam and later diesel propulsion, which both a) were faster and b) required less crew (so were logistically superior). On the other hand, where sailing is still used (and that's mainly sport and leisure) the square rig is still here, only in an evolved form: the spinnaker. But whenever the speed is not the primary factor, fore-and-aft rigs (primarily Bermuda) is preferred because it requires far less crew. And then again, when the goal is to have plenty of crew -- like in some navy office training -- classical square rig is still highly merited [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Training_ship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Training_ship
  - scooble 7y ago
    > preferred because it requires far less crew I think that only really applies when the sails were set from aloft. I'm familiar with square-rigged cargo vessels of around 60ft in the UK that were crewed by 2.
    - BerislavLopac 7y ago
      Yes, more modern versions of square rigs (using motors, or designed without the yards -- again, spinnakers) do have vastly reduced need for the crew. But I was focusing on traditional rigs.
      - scooble 7y ago
        The vessels I was thinking of, Humberkeels, are traditional.
  - Plough_Jogger 7y ago
    Beyond the spinnaker, there are several yachts using a modern square rig: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_Falcon_(yacht) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_Falcon_(yacht) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Pearl_(yacht) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Pearl_(yacht)
- usrusr 7y ago
  > The main reasons square-rigged ships fell out of fashion, as far as I know, are mostly logistically. Some numbers from Wikipedia: In 1902, the Preussen, famously huge square rigged ship launched with a crew complement of 45-49 while the contemporary Thomas W. Lawson, schooner rigged and even bigger, got by with 16-18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preussen_(ship) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preussen_(ship) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_W._Lawson_(ship) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_W._Lawson_(ship)

by Tyr42 7y ago

munificent 7y ago

> There's the big square sailed ones which always have to move downwind. Actually, that's not true. Square rigged "pirate-style" ships are more efficient when sailing downwind compared to fore-and-aft style sailboats, but they can still sail just fine close-hauled (into the wind) or on a reach (perpendicular). There are some efficiency pros and cons to both styles, but they all have the same aerodynamic capabilities. The main reasons square-rigged ships fell out of fashion, as far as I know, are mostly logistically. Square-rigged sails make sense when you have a really big ship. A single huge fore-and-aft sail would be too hard to handle. Square-rigged ships break that sail area down into a larger number of smaller individually manageable pieces. But larger vessels are almost all powered now. For a smaller sailing vessel, it's easier to manage the simpler Bermuda sail plan, and its more efficient. I think maybe square-rigged ships have an efficiency advantage when going straight downwind, but most sailboats simply carry a spinnaker to cover that case. (Caveat: I'm not a sailor, I've just read some textbooks.)

tgarv 7y ago
Well said, and I just want to add some detail about how square-rigged ships are able to sail close-hauled: They typically (or maybe always?) have "staysails", which run fore-and-aft between the masts, which works mostly like the main triangular sail you think of with a simple sailboat (with the exception that, as far as I know, these staysails aren't on a boom that can change its angle relative to the ship). These are able to take the wind at an angle but still generate forward thrust. The "yards", the sections that hold the square sails perpendicular to the ship, are also able to rotate between perpendicular and nearly-parallel to the ship, which lets them take advantage of a wide range of wind directions. (I'm also not much of a sailor, I've just sailed some tiny single-sail boats, but I've learned a lot while reading through the Aubrey-Maturin series and from playing the game Naval Action)
- scooble 7y ago
  > A single huge fore-and-aft sail would be too hard to handle This isn't quite right, as split fore and aft rigs existed that solved this problem. I suspect it is more that power replaced sail for crossing oceans and square sails make little sense for coastal work so they had already switched to fore and aft rigs (with a few notable exceptions, such as Humberkeels in the north of England).
BerislavLopac 7y ago
> The main reasons square-rigged ships fell out of fashion, as far as I know, are mostly logistically. True, but it gets more complicated than that. For fast long-distance commercial travel they were replaced by the steam and later diesel propulsion, which both a) were faster and b) required less crew (so were logistically superior). On the other hand, where sailing is still used (and that's mainly sport and leisure) the square rig is still here, only in an evolved form: the spinnaker. But whenever the speed is not the primary factor, fore-and-aft rigs (primarily Bermuda) is preferred because it requires far less crew. And then again, when the goal is to have plenty of crew -- like in some navy office training -- classical square rig is still highly merited [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Training_ship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Training_ship
- scooble 7y ago
  > preferred because it requires far less crew I think that only really applies when the sails were set from aloft. I'm familiar with square-rigged cargo vessels of around 60ft in the UK that were crewed by 2.
  - BerislavLopac 7y ago
    Yes, more modern versions of square rigs (using motors, or designed without the yards -- again, spinnakers) do have vastly reduced need for the crew. But I was focusing on traditional rigs.
    - scooble 7y ago
      The vessels I was thinking of, Humberkeels, are traditional.
- Plough_Jogger 7y ago
  Beyond the spinnaker, there are several yachts using a modern square rig: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_Falcon_(yacht) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_Falcon_(yacht) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Pearl_(yacht) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Pearl_(yacht)
usrusr 7y ago
> The main reasons square-rigged ships fell out of fashion, as far as I know, are mostly logistically. Some numbers from Wikipedia: In 1902, the Preussen, famously huge square rigged ship launched with a crew complement of 45-49 while the contemporary Thomas W. Lawson, schooner rigged and even bigger, got by with 16-18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preussen_(ship) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preussen_(ship) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_W._Lawson_(ship) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_W._Lawson_(ship)