Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

date / name that vintage car / ship / etc

Roadkill said:
Debateable: I think the main reason that many ships were re-rigged as barques is that they were cheaper to run. The slight loss of performance from losing the square sails on the aftermost mast was outweighed by the savings in materials and handling costs.

let's debate then.:)

the cost differences can only have been marginal, you'd still need a full set of hands to go aloft on the fore- and mainmasts.

Performance wise, the rig wouldn't make much difference off the wind, and the main trade routes were downwind. But the advantages of fore-and-aft rig come in sailing closer to the wind; a barque must surely have been able sail a point or two closer to the wind than a ship. Which would matter at the beginning and end of the voyage, when tugs were used to bring the ships home. (in the Last Grain Race, the Moshulu picked up a tug off the Scillies rather than sailing up the Channel)
 
Roadkill said:
That's hardly a boat... 'Boat' usually refers to an undecked (i.e. open) craft: that's very definitely a ship.

If it floats on water and carries stuff it's a boat imo :p Ships is just BIG boats.

The pram one is late 20/early 30s imo.
 
fortyplus said:
let's debate then.:)

the cost differences can only have been marginal, you'd still need a full set of hands to go aloft on the fore- and mainmasts.

If my memory serves me rightly, barques could afford to sail with one or two less hands than ships of the same size, which in the late nineteenth century, with profit margins tight, could be significant.

Plus, fore and aft rig is simpler to set up and doesn't require as much in the way of canvas, spars and rigging as square rig. I couldn't give any figures offhand, but losing a third of a quarter (on a 3- or 4-masted vessel) of the square sails has to have been a pretty significant saving.

Performance wise, the rig wouldn't make much difference off the wind, and the main trade routes were downwind. But the advantages of fore-and-aft rig come in sailing closer to the wind; a barque must surely have been able sail a point or two closer to the wind than a ship. Which would matter at the beginning and end of the voyage, when tugs were used to bring the ships home. (in the Last Grain Race, the Moshulu picked up a tug off the Scillies rather than sailing up the Channel)

Square sails are more effective downwind, so the full-rigged vessel was a little faster. And as you say, most trading routes followed the trade winds, meaning they sailed downwind much of the time. Upwind, well, I'm not sure a barque would sail all that much closer to the wind, given that she still had two or three square-rigged masts. The barque's advantage, however, would be that she was easier to tack or to wear, with fewer square sails to attend to. She'd probably be quicker in stays too. As you say, the greater ease of handling a barque would count when manouevring in restricted waters at the beginning and end of a voyage.

On balance, I still think the ship rig offered better performance, but in the latter years of the commercial square-rigger performance mattered less since most trades where speed was important had been taken over by steamships, and cost-saving was the order of the day.

The Last Grain Race is a fantastic book, btw, isn't it? :)
 
Roadkill said:
The barque's advantage, however, would be that she was easier to tack or to wear, with fewer square sails to attend to. She'd probably be quicker in stays too.
yup I was just thinking that - tacking would at least be practical with a barque, I'm pretty sure with a ship you'd always wear her.

With a barque sailing dead downwind might've been a bit alarming, wouldn't fancy gybing accidentally...
 
fortyplus said:
yup I was just thinking that - tacking would at least be practical with a barque, I'm pretty sure with a ship you'd always wear her.

With a barque sailing dead downwind might've been a bit alarming, wouldn't fancy gybing accidentally...


060218-catherine-tate-nan-video-1.jpg


"Wassat man saying?"
 
fortyplus said:
yup I was just thinking that - tacking would at least be practical with a barque, I'm pretty sure with a ship you'd always wear her.

With a barque sailing dead downwind might've been a bit alarming, wouldn't fancy gybing accidentally...

They did tack ships, but it was a long job with a significant risk of being caught in stays. Presumably, the barque's fore and aft rigged mizzen, or jigger, made it easier to make the stern go where they wanted it to!

My guess would be that when running dead before a wind a barque's fore and aft sails would probably be furled. If not, an accidental gybe would probably bring the mast down...

Broaching to was a much bigger threat than either of the above though. Many, many ships were lost that way.


Btw, for the benefit of anyone who hasn't a clue what me and fortyplus are on about...

Potosi, built 1895, a barque:

potosi01_b.gif


Preussen, built 1902, a ship:

preussen03_b.gif


Both of these are five-masted, and among the largest sailing vessels ever built. They were both built for the nitrate trade to south America, by the Laiesz shipping line of Hamburg. Magnificent, aren't they?
 
Back
Top Bottom