Definitions of "sail and oar" boat

[rgthom]

There is some disagreement on what makes a boat "sail and oar". I think everyone agrees that it has no motor whatsoever. My own (biased) definition then includes:

1) Able to carry enough supplies for a week of solo camping, preferably able to camp aboard.

2) Light and lean enough to be a pleasure to row for 10 to 20 miles a day.

2) Plus, it has some kind of sail.

Please state your own definitions.

Rick

[Peerie Maa]

For me camping aboard is not a requirement.
I would give equal weight to being light and easy to row with being capable and handy under sail.

It may be that the Raid movement truly defines this type of boat.

http://www.raidengland.org/?page_id=7

[john welsford]

I agree with the no motor bit, and the rowing criteria but it has to sail well. Thats not an easy combination from a design point of view as the very factors that make a boat sail well through a wide range of conditions are not those that make a good rowing boat.
I'm not so sure about the camping gear and sleeping aboard, perhaps that can be for a "sail and oar CRUISER" rather than just a sail and oar boat.

But we would end up so subdividing all the categories to infinity.

But as a designer, when drawing a "sail and oar " boat, the very first thing I draw is the midsection, and work out the rowing geometry. Once thats done then all else follows, without that being correct it cant be a "Sail and oar" boat. You can row things that are not ideal in this respect but they are usually a real chore to move under oars and thats not what this category is all about.

John Welsford

There is some disagreement on what makes a boat "sail and oar". I think everyone agrees that it has no motor whatsoever. My own (biased) definition then includes:

1) Able to carry enough supplies for a week of solo camping, preferably able to camp aboard.

2) Light and lean enough to be a pleasure to row for 10 to 20 miles a day.

2) Plus, it has some kind of sail.

Please state your own definitions.

Rick

[Thorne]

Rick -

Au contraire, mon ami, but I don't see camping in the Sail & Oar™ equation at all.

I'd say it needs to have rowing as the primary propulsion with sail as a close secondary. We've discussed this before, and the definition is complex: a strong man can row a large boat short distances in calm water, and a rowing shell can be 'sailed' in very light winds (after a fashion).

So if pressed for a "hard" definition I'd have to list something like "Capable of being rowed at least at 3 nm/ hour for one hour" along with "Capable of being sailed in 10-15 knot winds for 1/2 nm".

[James McMullen]

Au contraire, mon ami, but I don't see camping in the Sail & Oar™ equation at all.

Nope. I've decided I don't give a xxxx what anyone else defines as a "sail and oar" boat, but Sail & Oar™ means precisely and only one thing. Yeadon coined that term to define our kind of boats. It means what we say it means. You can't have it. Get your own catchphrase.

And now the James is checking out. Both this topic and this forum are wearing him out. See you down the road, maybe.

[Peerie Maa]

May be we could start from the other end?

What existing boats are good sail and oar boats? Then we can identify common traits that make a good sail and oar boat.

I'll start with the Shetland model. They do sail well, but as we know from the St Ayles skiffs they row like stink.

Criteria. Very light efficient build. An easy slack section for minimum wetted surface, but on a sailing model like Peerie Maa hollow garboards and enough keel to sail well. Adequate beam for stability under sail and to spread the oar locks to accept a good length oar for power. Waterline beam about 0.24 of overall length. Double ended for a low drag slippery form when rowing, don't expect a planing form as it will be a pig to row and could be fatiguing on a long sail.

If you don't mind sacrificing internal space and utility, flatten the floors reduce the keel and fit a centreboard case.

[Peerie Maa]

Nope. I've decided I don't give a xxxx what anyone else defines as a "sail and oar" boat, but Sail & Oar™ means precisely and only one thing. Yeadon coined that term to define our kind of boats. It means what we say it means. You can't have it. Get your own catchphrase.

And now the James is checking out. Both this topic and this forum are wearing him out. See you down the road, maybe.

Yeadon must have nicked it from the French

The festival at Brest has always classified boats as Voile-Aviron/sail-and-oar boats.

[Zymguy]

I don't think, if a boat met all other criteria, it should be dropped just because you could clamp an outboard to it .
I do think the difficulty/time that it takes to set up or teardown at a landing should be part of the criteria .

[SteveMSA]

No, see I disagree with y'all, just got off the phone with a mate who I sailed a Buccaneer National Champs with in 1988. Part of the regatta was that we had to row a 24ft keelboat 12nm to the startline of the regatta, reason being that the Seagull wouldn't start. (See, we had an outboard, so immediately don't qualify as an S&O boat.) 3 crew, one per oar, one on the tiller, we did the 12nm in 3hrs, which is an average of 4knots hullspeed. Sailed the 4 day regatta, came 3rd, and rowed back the 12nm, again in 3hrs. The moment you fit a Seagull outboard to a keelboat, it automatically qualifies as an S&O boat (or perhaps, S&M.. ) The thing I love most about rowing, is that where I now sail, it is irrelevant.

[skaraborgcraft]

Well, it appears that quite possibly, sail n oar boats of which have thousands of years of heritage, are just not the same and should not be discussed with Sail & Oar™, as they maybe too variable in their performances in either the sail and/or oar spheres of use to get any kind of consideration by some. Am i suppose to just forget all the centuries of hard won design work and only take note of what has happened in the last 20 years since Sail & Oar™ was apparently born?
It appears that my very broad opinion of what is sail n oar ruffles too many feathers.

[SteveMSA]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1lTpKFo0cA

[rgthom]

And now the James is checking out.

If you check out then this whole argument is going to start up again anytime someone starts a thread on this type of boat. You are somewhat central to the controversy, although from the posts above it seems no-one has precisely the same idea in mind when discussing sail and oar.

[skaraborgcraft]

It seems James was unwilling or unable to define where a sail n oar boats starts and a beach cruiser begins. Of course we may all have different ideas of what makes a sail n oar boat, especially those that do sail n oar, but the get told that their boat falls outside of Sail & Oar™, which is why i was attempting in the other thread to either get some hard data on specific sail/row variations, or just an admission that some of these calls are being made on a personal use basis that some boats just dont tick all the boxes for his own use in his location. As i ended up with James sayin "call it what you like ,i dont care", which does not help to clarify anything.
I own a fantastic Sail & Oar boat, or maybe because its older than 20 years with a design history going back even further, i cant call it a Sail & Oar™ boat? It is a genuine pleasure to row, and it sails ok, especially off the wind. BUT, i would gladly trade 10% of that rowing ability for a firmer mid section for better sailing, so is it still a sail n oar boat?
The only thing that i have read says the boat should be genuinely usuable under oars and sail, with no engine. I would say everything else is a matter of personal opinion and choice, rowing strength and typical local weather conditions. If our fellow forum members wish to say that only genuine 50/50 boats can be considered real boats under the guise of Sail & Oar™, then thats fine too; at least everyone else will know from what perspective they are judging other boats, and that mostly its just an opinion,even if based on experience .

[MoritzSchwarzer]

Oh boy... I think the spirited discussions and hairtrigger tempers around what makes a sail and oar boat has something to do with the very nature of cruising small boats.

A lot of boats sail by themselves and of those, a lot sail single-handed. It's an individualist's pursuit. Of course there is no broad consensus.

That said, here is my humble opinion.
1. The boat should be on the middle of the Bell curve for rowing - sailing.
2. Judge a boat by its midsection and breadth.
3. Above a certain weight and or length becomes unrealistic.
4. There needs to be space to store serious oars, I.e long ones.

Now that's not to say you can't happily cruise a big heavy broad boat with stayed rig and U midsection without outboard. But that there are better tools for the job.

Now the easy solution to categorising boats? Somebody has done it for you. A good design starts with a clearly defined use case. And since designers are pragmatic people, they don't keep those a secret.

For my money, the designers description carries the most weight and the clearer the categorisation, the better the designer.

[skaraborgcraft]

Oh Moritz, can it really be so simple? And whats a bell curve anyway? Around here it seems that designers draw boats that many want to change into something it was never intended to be.....human nature i suppose.

[WI-Tom]

I agree with the no motor bit, and the rowing criteria but it has to sail well. Thats not an easy combination from a design point of view as the very factors that make a boat sail well through a wide range of conditions are not those that make a good rowing boat.
I'm not so sure about the camping gear and sleeping aboard, perhaps that can be for a "sail and oar CRUISER" rather than just a sail and oar boat.

So, John's comment suggests that from a designer's perspective, a sail and oar boat really is designed to be as close as possible to a 50/50 compromise, able to do each reasonably well (i.e. a boat that is just as happy to row 20 miles as it is to sail 20 miles). That's a fairly narrow, specific category of boats (I also agree that you can have a sail and oar daysailer, though I'm much more interested in cruising for my own boats). It'd be interesting to hear from other designers of sail and oar boats to see how much they agree with him.

I'm guessing other designers probably see it similarly--it's exactly that difficult compromise between rowing and sailing (and, I'd argue, quick and easy transitions between the two) that lies at the heart of the category.

I'd argue that trying to shoehorn all engineless sailboats into the category makes things less clear, and erodes the value of categorizing things in the first place. When you try to understand a category, you don't look for outliers (a boat with a stayed rig, a boat too beamy for most people to row easily, a boat that's biased 80/20 in favor of sailing, etc.). You look for the boats that fit the category best. Boundaries will always be blurry at the edges, with some overlap. But look for exemplars, not outliers.

Again, it's not a value judgment to say one boat fits the sail and oar category and another doesn't. This has nothing to do with saying one way of sailing is better than another. An extreme analogy: if I somehow managed to get permission to enter my Optimist dinghy in the America's Cup races, that wouldn't make it an America's Cup boat although (by strict definition) we would have to admit that it (weirdly) fits the category.

Tom

[MoritzSchwarzer]

Bell curve. And of course it can never be that simple, that's where life gets messy and interesting. But it's a start, I guess.

Around here it seems that designers draw boats that many want to change into something it was never intended to be.....human nature i suppose.

Guilty as charged
I am seriously in love with a flambart rigged Ebihen 18. Just because: schooner, lug and pretty.

And and at the moment, safe and warm on my couch and two to five years away from settling down and building a boat, I will go to great lengths to fit whatever imaginary use case I might have into that boat. From day sailing to family cruising.

My arm chair sailing aside, I do think the Salmo 18T makes at best a mediocre sail and oar boat. Too heavy, to broad, no dedicated oar stowage, wrong midsection, high freeboard and high, stayed rig so too much windage...

And Oars, rowlocks or even a thwart are not mentioned in the design description, not shown on the study plans and not pictured in the renderings. I would hazard a guess: rowing wasn't high on the list of requirements.

[Alan H]

I used to have an opinion about this.

Well, in a way I still do. I think that if the boat can be rowed for a while without being miserable, and if the boat sails some sort of reasonably, then it's a "sail-and-oar-boat".

if the boat can carry a few days worth of kit...food, water, an anchor, and so on, such that the people aboard it can go sailing/rowing and camping, then it's a sail-and-oar-cruiser, which is I suppose the same thing as a dinghy cruiser. Sort of... I think the classic sail and oar cruiser is the Mirror, with the Wayfarer close behind. However, an O'Day Daysailer can be sailed and rowed and can carry enough kit for a several-days expedition so it qualifies as well. I think my skerry settles nicely into this category.

I'm not exactly sure what the definition of the trademarked PNW "Sail and Oar-TM" boat is, but those lads have an idea and they like what they've got and it's silly to get upset over it.

In the end, it's a bunch of chitchat on the internet, trying to put names on things and that's fun but the idea of cruising around in a boat that has sails and that you can also row when you need/want to covers a whole, whole lot of boats.

[kelso]

Oh Moritz, can it really be so simple? And whats a bell curve anyway? Around here it seems that designers draw boats that many want to change into something it was never intended to be.....human nature i suppose.

As a Caledonia Yawl sailor, I've often been happy to agree with Mr McMullen regarding this, based simply on the fact that my hull is an enlarged rowing form -therefore a tad more cumbersome sled to row. But Moritz' post and James' above post have me convinced a fringe or transitional group should warrant a position under the definition.

[john welsford]

Do bear in mind that the very long distance ocean rowers are generally using boats of around 24 to 26 ft long, and at departure they're up around 2200 lbs displacement. They're doing around 45 to 50 miles a day in reasonable conditions, so you can move a lot more with oars than most people think.
That said, its not something that I'd be looking to do for fun, but I do enjoy rowing where the boat is light and slippery with good rowing geometry. I also enjoy sailing, but the boat has to sail well or I wont bother. A boat that combines the two at a level where I'll enjoy it is, in my opinion, a "Sail and Oar" boat.
A sailing boat that can be rowed, or a rowing boat that can be sailed does not in my opinion qualify for what is actually quite a narrow definition.

John Welsford

Oh boy... I think the spirited discussions and hairtrigger tempers around what makes a sail and oar boat has something to do with the very nature of cruising small boats.

A lot of boats sail by themselves and of those, a lot sail single-handed. It's an individualist's pursuit. Of course there is no broad consensus.

That said, here is my humble opinion.
1. The boat should be on the middle of the Bell curve for rowing - sailing.
2. Judge a boat by its midsection and breadth.
3. Above a certain weight and or length becomes unrealistic.
4. There needs to be space to store serious oars, I.e long ones.

Now that's not to say you can't happily cruise a big heavy broad boat with stayed rig and U midsection without outboard. But that there are better tools for the job.

Now the easy solution to categorising boats? Somebody has done it for you. A good design starts with a clearly defined use case. And since designers are pragmatic people, they don't keep those a secret.

For my money, the designers description carries the most weight and the clearer the categorisation, the better the designer.

[gilberj]

Sailing and rowing are two different things. I'd guess that most agree you cannot use an engine. For several years My Dad and I took care of a friends Rozinante ketch...err canoe yawl. there was an outboard bracket on the side, but the outboard was not reliable and we left it home, in three seasons we used it once. We had a 10' sweep and could keep the boat moving at over a knot with little trouble, and sail if there was any wind within a few hundred miles. That might be towards the extreme for short handed cruising, certainly on the sailing side mainly and rowing side very much secondary.
James and others are promoting boats that are more 50/50. generally 16 to 20' long. 20' is getting a little big to row easily for most people but on the other hand you have better cargo capacity and sailing.
My own choices would either lean towards rowing as a back-up or sailing as a back-up say 70/30 or 30/70. I have had both these combinations......I like rowing....a lot ...... and would resent having to deal with the clutter of a complicated rig in the boat. so perhaps a downwind ..reaching rig for fair winds.......or I really like sailing and would accept inferior rowing, assuming most of the time I can sail.....The again I have never had a 50/50 boat so perhaps I would really like it.
I do not see cruising as a central requirement for the type, but I doubt I would bother without the possibility of cruising.

[rgthom]

John - I thought those ocean rowing boats were mostly at the mercy of current and wind, and much of the daily mileage was due to getting into the right current. The windage of those big boats is surely not desirable, but what about weight? If a hull is mostly submerged, and has a very slippery shape, can a 2000 lb boat be rowed for several hours at 3+ kts? Just skin friction would have to make it slow, I would guess.

[rgthom]

If load carrying for camping is not part of the requirement, is Clint Chase's Drake a sail and oar boat?



How about Gartsides' Flashboat or Bob?



I would guess most would say "no", the downwind rigs are not good enough sails to meet the standard - too much oar and not enough sail.

[Alan H]

Well, they're nice rowing boats and they can be sailed. Works for me. But I'm a simple fellow.

[Yeadon]

I can't imagine how sailing and rowing little boats could be controversial in any way. I just know that I love what I do, and that I call it Sail & Oar™.

And now, though no one asked, Sail & Oar™ as defined by me would include:
- no motor use, ever
- a co-equal propulsion scheme that includes sailing and rowing (personally, I prefer a boat that's more sail than oar, say 55/45, but you still need to be able to row well enough too)
- ability to transition quickly between sailing and rowing
- ability to either row or sail for the entire day, and not hate it because the boat isn't designed to do it
- ability to quickly and efficiently reef while on the water (2 min or less)
- ability to completely strike and/or deploy the sail rig quickly (2 minutes or less)
- ability to handle up to 22-25 knots of wind (more is fine, but I'm probably headed in at that point, as I'm no hero)
- ability to comfortably row 2.5 knots in flatwater, sans current, for 8 hours (though the next day you'll probably be sore)
- ability to safely and quickly heave-to while single handing

I do these things in concert with camping, and I love it.

Therefore, optional to the list above, but important to me:
- ability to store all my camp & safety gear on the boat for a weeklong-plus adventure
- ability to sleep on the boat, with reasonable comfort
- ability to cook on the boat
- ability to carry enough ground tackle (Rocna + 20' chain + 150' of rode) to not force me into a situation where I have to make it to a specific campsite or beach for the night
- boat must be pretty

Additionally, based on many of the requirements above, I've chosen to use the lug yawl sail rig ... because:
- the mizzen allows me to safely and quickly heave-to in nearly any situation
- the main can be quickly reefed while on the water
- as an unstayed rig it can be completely struck and/or deployed on the water, allowing for ease of transition between sailing and rowing
- split rigs look really really cool

There's probably more to say but this is what I thought of.

[Daniel Noyes]

Sail & Oar PAT.PEND.

[BBSebens]

I can't imagine how sailing and rowing little boats could be controversial in any way. I just know that I love what I do, and that I call it Sail & Oar™.

And now, though no one asked, Sail & Oar™ as defined by me would include:

- ability to transition quickly between sailing and rowing

I think this is one of the key characteristics of Sail & Oar™, as opposed to other sailing and rowing craft. The variability in our local waters makes this feature key. It is not dependent on hull form, but is a function of how everything interacts.

[jsjpd1]

I can't imagine how sailing and rowing little boats could be controversial in any way. I just know that I love what I do, and that I call it Sail & Oar™.

And now, though no one asked, Sail & Oar™ as defined by me would include:
- no motor use, ever
- a co-equal propulsion scheme that includes sailing and rowing (personally, I prefer a boat that's more sail than oar, say 55/45, but you still need to be able to row well enough too)
- ability to transition quickly between sailing and rowing
- ability to either row or sail for the entire day, and not hate it because the boat isn't designed to do it
- ability to quickly and efficiently reef while on the water (2 min or less)
- ability to completely strike and/or deploy the sail rig quickly (2 minutes or less)
- ability to handle up to 22-25 knots of wind (more is fine, but I'm probably headed in at that point, as I'm no hero)
- ability to comfortably row 2.5 knots in flatwater, sans current, for 8 hours (though the next day you'll probably be sore)
- ability to safely and quickly heave-to while single handing

I do these things in concert with camping, and I love it.

Therefore, optional to the list above, but important to me:
- ability to store all my camp & safety gear on the boat for a weeklong-plus adventure
- ability to sleep on the boat, with reasonable comfort
- ability to cook on the boat
- ability to carry enough ground tackle (Rocna + 20' chain + 150' of rode) to not force me into a situation where I have to make it to a specific campsite or beach for the night
- boat must be pretty

Additionally, based on many of the requirements above, I've chosen to use the lug yawl sail rig ... because:
- the mizzen allows me to safely and quickly heave-to in nearly any situation
- the main can be quickly reefed while on the water
- as an unstayed rig it can be completely struck and/or deployed on the water, allowing for ease of transition between sailing and rowing
- split rigs look really really cool

There's probably more to say but this is what I thought of.

Works well enough for me.

Jim

[BBSebens]

Sail & Oar™ is more like a local club .

There ya go.

I think it's worth clarifying, again, that Sail & Oar™ is a specific style of cruising, while boats that are both rowable and sailable is a much larger genre.

Its like debating the genre of Sci-Fi, and having a small, vocal faction, getting all excited about Firefly.


If you want to define Sail & Oar™, Tim did that for you. If you want to define/discuss sail and oar boats, have at it!

[Otter99]

I can't imagine how sailing and rowing little boats could be controversial in any way. I just know that I love what I do, and that I call it Sail & Oar™.

And now, though no one asked, Sail & Oar™ as defined by me would include:
- no motor use, ever
- a co-equal propulsion scheme that includes sailing and rowing (personally, I prefer a boat that's more sail than oar, say 55/45, but you still need to be able to row well enough too)
- ability to transition quickly between sailing and rowing
- ability to either row or sail for the entire day, and not hate it because the boat isn't designed to do it
- ability to quickly and efficiently reef while on the water (2 min or less)
- ability to completely strike and/or deploy the sail rig quickly (2 minutes or less)
- ability to handle up to 22-25 knots of wind (more is fine, but I'm probably headed in at that point, as I'm no hero)
- ability to comfortably row 2.5 knots in flatwater, sans current, for 8 hours (though the next day you'll probably be sore)
- ability to safely and quickly heave-to while single handing

I do these things in concert with camping, and I love it.

Therefore, optional to the list above, but important to me:
- ability to store all my camp & safety gear on the boat for a weeklong-plus adventure
- ability to sleep on the boat, with reasonable comfort
- ability to cook on the boat
- ability to carry enough ground tackle (Rocna + 20' chain + 150' of rode) to not force me into a situation where I have to make it to a specific campsite or beach for the night
- boat must be pretty

Additionally, based on many of the requirements above, I've chosen to use the lug yawl sail rig ... because:
- the mizzen allows me to safely and quickly heave-to in nearly any situation
- the main can be quickly reefed while on the water
- as an unstayed rig it can be completely struck and/or deployed on the water, allowing for ease of transition between sailing and rowing
- split rigs look really really cool

There's probably more to say but this is what I thought of.

Works for me too. ~Dan

[john welsford]

They use whatever help they can get from the environment, but they're a lot quicker than you'd think.
That said, I've rowed one for a few hours, sliding seat and big chopper oars, and it was pretty hard work.
I drew a four man boat for a trans ocean challenge a while back and the customer specified 8500 calories a day, and 6 litres of water which will give you an idea of the energy output. That sort of workrate is way beyond most people, even with years of training its hard to get to that level.
My client by the way was an ex world rowing champion and an olympic rower.
Tough guy.

On food/fuel consumption, if rowing any distance each day its an issue, some years back I did a 160 mile rowing trip over 8 days, burned 4500 calories a day, lost weight at that. Its damned hard to eat that much food even when its high value foods, 8thou plus is a real chore and I dont know how they do it.
John Welsford

John - I thought those ocean rowing boats were mostly at the mercy of current and wind, and much of the daily mileage was due to getting into the right current. The windage of those big boats is surely not desirable, but what about weight? If a hull is mostly submerged, and has a very slippery shape, can a 2000 lb boat be rowed for several hours at 3+ kts? Just skin friction would have to make it slow, I would guess.

[skaraborgcraft]

I think Tims list completely nails his ideals for what works for him, and in general, but...

"ability to either row or sail for the entire day, and not hate it because the boat isn't designed to do it"

is completely open to personal opinion of what rows(or sails) like a pig. Some people may be more than happy to be able to row at 2kn with effort, becuase they know when the wind does return they may be able to make up for lost time (if its even considered important) under sail/or vice-verca. Would a better definition be one that 75% of hull speed must be obtainable under both forms? Not for me to judge.

Location. How about you live in an area where you usually have more wind than calms, so you can happily have a 70/30 based more on sail, yet as above, still rowable with some effort? Sail n oar or not?

John Welsfords design assesment is spot on, and a genuine 50/50 is a compromise of trying to do both well, challenging indeed. Clints Drake and Pauls flashboat i would definately consider sail and oar but more oar focused, but that may work better in areas where winds are very light.

Perhaps the issue here is that of when someone refers to sail n oar, they may very well be talking about anything form a viking long boat, to a Medway Doble, and NOT necessarily a Sail & Oar™ as defined by Tim or James.

So when i read something like " that rig is sub-optimal", and a whole lot of other "sub-optimal" deficiencies, i realise its from a point of view that is focused on a narrow set of parameters, nothing wrong with that, but why assume just because someone may use those 3 words, that it must fall under there own definition of Sail & Oar™ , and not the broader genre that has a history somewhat longer than the last 20 years? .So yeah, though i dont think it should be necessary, it may be helpfull in future to point out if we are talking "real" sail n oar , or new age
Sail & Oar™.

[PeterSibley]

They use whatever help they can get from the environment, but they're a lot quicker than you'd think.
That said, I've rowed one for a few hours, sliding seat and big chopper oars, and it was pretty hard work.
I drew a four man boat for a trans ocean challenge a while back and the customer specified 8500 calories a day, and 6 litres of water which will give you an idea of the energy output. That sort of workrate is way beyond most people, even with years of training its hard to get to that level.
My client by the way was an ex world rowing champion and an olympic rower.
Tough guy.

On food/fuel consumption, if rowing any distance each day its an issue, some years back I did a 160 mile rowing trip over 8 days, burned 4500 calories a day, lost weight at that. Its damned hard to eat that much food even when its high value foods, 8thou plus is a real chore and I dont know how they do it.
John Welsford

Total thread drift warning !

When I was a young bloke I had a friend who ate constantly, ran and worked out all the time and was just muscle, sinew and bone. No fat, he couldn't seem to make fat . If he didn't work out he became quite thin, if he worked out he turned into Charlie Atlas in a couple of weeks. We calculated his daily food intake at 7000 calories .

A very unusual physiology.

[Thorne]

This is all good stuff, and I'll grudgingly yield to John W's requirement that a Sail & Oar™ boat be rowable for long distances, as well as being easy to reef and strike/raise the mast(s). By that definition some of the boats I routinely sail with are just sailboats that can be rowed / rowboats that can be sailed -- not Sail & Oar™ boats. But we do often make trips of several miles under oar, or rely on the spruce breeze to get us back if the winds fail.

It is still strange to see videos of 17-19' sailboats using their outboards to clear the dock after launching, motor out 50' and then set sail. In some cases this may be necessary, but in others a few strokes of the oars would work just as well or better.

[rgthom]

The Raid boats cover a wide range, many are far on the sail side of the balance. I would not want to row a Bay Raider 20 any distance.

The Salish sailors have all coalesced on a specific set of requirements for the type of boating they do. I know the requirement to strike the rig completely in minutes has been stated before, but am now not sure I remember why. Your rigs are able to sail well to weather, so I assume you row mainly in the calms. My own experience is that a bare mast is not much impediment to rowing in calm, why do you strike the mast so often?

My very biased personal preference leans well over to the rowing side. My short list of ideal Oar and Sail boats includes Walkabout, Alaska, Drake-19, and probably Phoenix III. Vivier's Seil is also appealing, but may not be seaworthy enough without more decking. Of Oughted's boats, maybe Elfyn. On flat water, with a full gear load, I am pleased that Walkabout can do 3.5 kts rowing for many hours. With a downwind sail she has hit 6-7 kts on strong wind. I would probably exclude a Sooty Tern from my list, it seems too heavy especially with the 90 lbs of ballast installed. With ballast and a week's gear, I think of it as a 2.5 kt rowing boat. Not to ruffle any feathers, but that would be sub-optimal .

Clearly many different interpretations of the ideal "Sail & Oar" boat, with "optimal" meaning different things to different people. Hopefully we can appreciate the differences, and not have to fight this out again each time the term is used on another thread.