Talk:Sailing

Knock down? & Reefing

I just modified the "heeling" section and appreciate any input or edits (or reversions are ok too). I would like to add a section about knock down and reefing.... Regards Flibbertigibbets (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Isn't reefing handled by the section titled "Reducing sail"? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I did not notice the wikipedia reference -- a whole section on reefing. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Lateral resistance

The section "Lateral resistance" states (of foils, which I take to include any sort of keel that has a hydrodynamic effect) ...and they are never intentionally stalled.

I am not sure that this is correct, as if you heave to you often have the keel in a stalled position. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I concur that a keel may be stalled, when heaved to, so I added, "while under way". Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Whilst risking the criticism of being an extreme nit-picker, the legal and general definition of "underway", as given in the collision regs is (Rule 3, General definitions)
"(i). The word “underway” means that a vessel is not at anchor, or made fast to the shore, or aground."
So a hove-to vessel is still underway. I have changed the terminology in the article, though not sure if this could be explained or expressed better.

Incidentally, Underway really needs some attention. It is a typical muddled and poorly written maritime Wikipedia article with insufficient references. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Only one mention of leeway

I am surprise that this article only uses the word "leeway" only once. Efficient minimisation of leeway is an important element of sailing, so surely it deserves more than just one brief mention.

The article Leeway has an undue focus on the search and rescue context – so that needs some attention too.

I am not sure that I have sufficient sources to have a go at fixing this – hence the reason for flagging this up here. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Interesting observation, User:ThoughtIdRetired. I would have thought that minimization of leeway was primarily a nautical design issue, e.g. what kind of foils to use, not so much a navigation under sail issue. Certainly, a sailor must account for leeway in determining a course, but there's little more to do about leeway under sail than to make sure the available underwater foils are present.

In summary form, what would you suggest should be mentioned here? Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I guess that, beyond making allowance for leeway when judging the correct course, you need to be sure that you have sufficient boat speed for the hydrodynamic shape of the hull to act to counteract this force. This is certainly apparent with some traditional boats on tacking (heavy, whole hull acts as the "foil"). You have to let boat speed develop before getting hard on the wind. This might only be momentary, but it makes a difference tacking up a narrow fairway. Of course, that is just my opinion – hence the need for an RS.

I vaguely remember reading somewhere that, on vessels with a number of sail options, you have to be mindful of certain combinations creating more leeway, even though they look as though they are pulling well. Someone who had the right sources might be able to either confirm or debunk this recollection.

Additionally, the article goes into a lot of technical stuff about Hull physics, Lift and drag on sails, etc. In that context, leeway appears to be obvious missing element in that discussion.

It is certainly the case that the article Leeway needs attention from a sailing perspective. Otherwise, it is a subject that this encyclopaedia does not address. That may be the main point of the original post. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking at one source that I have (Cunliffe, Tom. Hand, Reef and Steer 2nd edition: Traditional Sailing Skills for Classic Boats) I see that leeway is mentioned quite a bit. There are comments like: "If you oversheet the jib in order to stuff the boat up another half point onto the wind, she will slow down and make far more leeway than she was when sailing at her optimum angle." – accompanied by diagrams and further explanations of comparative scenarios. I see that Cunliffe also discusses leeway in the context of heaving to.

Perhaps there would be more in this article if the concept of velocity made good was used for more than just downwind sailing. But looking at Velocity made good, that article seems to have little conceptual similarity to the term's use by academic staff at the University of Southampton (noted for its various maritime related courses) when explaining the relative performance of sailing craft. (As an additional criticism of Velocity made good, it is perfectly possible to explain the subject without going into formulae that are not accessible to all. This is another example of an editor wishing to show off their expertise without actually explaining anything.)

I apologise for having a bit of a rant, but there seems to be a general area here where wikipedia could do a better job. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for those thoughts, ThoughtIdRetired. I can see the case for discussing the matter as a bigger consideration for traditional vessels with only hull form and inefficient sails. It still seems to be a niche consideration for modern sailing vessels. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: University Writing 1020 Communicating Feminism MW 1 pm

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2024 and 9 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hayden.g.c (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Hayden.g.c (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Copy edits by User:Shinkolobwe

I have just changed some of the copy edits made by User:Shinkolobwe. Though the edit summary does the job (I think) it is worth pointing out that this is not the first time that a copyeditor has tried to change "the length of the Mediterranean" to "across the Mediterranean". I would hope the difference in meaning is clear to all. On the previous occasion, the copyeditor owned up to using a Large Language Model grammar checker to carry out copyediting. Clearly I don't know if that is the case here, but the result is the same: a large change in meaning.

I have raised a talk page section in case any discussion arises. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:31, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: Thank you for informing me about the significant change in meaning of my copy edit for the following sentences.

'It has been estimated that it cost less for a sailing ship of the Roman Empire to carry grain "the length of the Mediterranean" than to move the same amount 15 miles by road. Rome consumed about 150,000 tons of Egyptian grain each year over the first three centuries AD.'

I agree that the expression "across the Mediterranean Sea" (in any direction) is more vague than "the length of the Mediterranean Sea" and considerably changes the meaning of the sentence. However, the expression "length of the Mediterranean Sea" looked quite strange for me given its irregular geometry and no distance estimation is given. Speaking of the distance between the Strait of Gibraltar and the coast of Syria, or the west-east extent, would be less disturbing. According to Britannica, the dimensions of the Mediterranean Sea are about 4000 km (2500 miles) for its west-east extent (length) and 800 km (500 miles) for its north-south extent (height, width?), respectively. In the paragraph, one also compares a non-quantified length with a distance of 15 miles (24 km). Although the comparison is very speaking, it is not straightforward to directly determine the ratio (2500/15 = 167) between these distances by sea and by road. Plus, there was likely no grain exchange on this sea route. As Rome consumed about 150,000 tons of Egyptian grain each year over the first three centuries AD, it would have been much more speaking to directly compare the distance by sea route between Alexandria in the Nile delta where grain was cultivated in Egypt and Rome: 4450 km (2780 miles), which is about the same as the "Mediterranean "length". So, if this estimation is correct, it was more advantageous for Rome to cultivate grain in the Nile delta than at a distance greater than 15 miles by road from Rome, only because of transport considerations.

So, to avoid the confusing term "the length of the Mediterranean" and to be more accurate why not to simply write:

'It has been estimated that it cost less for a sailing ship of the Roman Empire to carry grain "from Alexandria across the Mediterranean Sea" than to move the same amount 15 miles by road. Rome consumed about 150,000 tons of Egyptian grain each year over the first three centuries AD.'

Best regards Shinkolobwe (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

What we are looking at here is a descriptive phrase which works with a deliberately broad brush. It clearly depicts a journey that is something like the longest dimension of that sea (so East/West, not North/South), but beyond that, neither this article nor the source intends to give it any more accuracy than that. This is similar to the argument against stating numbers to an excessive number of decimal places. When things are known to a limited level of accuracy, the description should match that.

I think what you may be missing is that "across" implies taking the shortest distance from one side of the Mediterranean to the other (i.e. North/South), which is not the intent and falls outside the "broad brush" level of accuracy that is being used. I appreciate that this could be considered a somewhat nuanced English construction, but surely most readers will understand it as a very common way of explaining things.

I have taken the liberty of substituting the way you have put the references in this topic, by using {{Reflist-talk}}. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 18:27, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer and the explanations. Shinkolobwe (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

References