Talk:Fore-and-aft rig

Untitled

I think this page should include a list of alternative (non Fore-and-aft) rigs. --Skyscraper 16:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Uniform

The Uniform section should be split into its own article. drbrain

04:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the uniform section altogether— it does belong in a stand-alone article, but since the whole section does not have any citations, it can't be put there easily and will be speedily deleted. In any case, it does not belong here. KDS4444^Talk 10:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

How does this differ from a square rig?

It seems the key difference lay in the use of yards on a square rig, but the photo included here shows a craft that also appears to have yards. swain (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a topsail schooner, so quite valid on the page, though I agree a photo of a more explicitly fore-and-aft rigged vessel would be more appropriate as the top image on the page. Martocticvs (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. I'll cobble together a photo gallery at some point to show variations on the fore-and-aft rig, but you're right; might as well avoid confusion in the meantime. --Fullobeans (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

But to answer your question, a square-rigged sail is set "square" to the keel of the ship (as opposed to along it), hence the name (which has nothing to do with the shape of the sail, incidentally). KDS4444^Talk 10:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Article is totally deficient

I have never seen a Wikipedia article that so completely misses the target of providing information on a subject. The European section is laughable. Fore and aft rig was used in classical Roman times - see Casson's Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World for the mention of spritsail fore and aft rig. The article suggests that fore and aft rig arrived in Europe in the later part of the middle ages. Given that this a standard source for the subject, this is a major failing. However, since the only source used for that section was written 2 years before Casson was born, that is perhaps not surprising.

There are a multitude of sources that could be used:

John Leather: Gaff Rig

John Leather: Spritsails and Lugsails

Tom Cunliffe: Hand Reef and Steer

Underhill's Sailing Ship Rigs and Rigging

The Schooner, Its Design and Development from 1600 to the Present

Sailing Rigs, an Illustrated Guide

....and probably many more. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

ThoughtIdRetired, Would you have time to rewrite the article? You are eminently qualified to do so, and we could rest easy knowing that an expert has vastly improved the article's coverage. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would just get on with it, but right now I have a big old house to get painted before the weather turns. If the job is still outstanding when I'm done, I might have a go. I don't know how other editors tackle a task like this, but I reckon it would take a week to 10 days, 3 to 4 hours a day – most of the work is the reading and planning. I reckon I would need a few more sources to cover all angles, hence the listing of some sources in this talk page post ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

That would be great. I would consider giving it a shot myself if I had more time, at least a start (with your input, of course), but I know you would do a much better job. I hope you write it. Best, Carlstak (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi ThoughtIdRetired!! Any tips on how to integrate all those sources? Thanks Wikain (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Uncited and wrong

I have removed "The triangular lateen sail was more maneuverable and speedier, while the square rig was labor-saving and seaworthy", not least because it is unsupported by any reference. The idea that lateen is more manoeuvrable than other rigs is complete nonsense. Unfortunately, it is nonsense that is repeated by some maritime historians who have spent too long in the library. In order to tack, unless you are going to sail "on the bad tack", a lateen sail has to have the sail and yard moved to the other side of the mast. This is not a straightforward task and is generally done by wearing (which, of course, loses ground when making short tacks in a narrow fairway). The precise method of moving the yard and sail appears to have varied over time (see Whitewright's discussion of the "umbrella handle" masthead that is believed to be associated with this action). The fact that lateen sails are used "on the bad tack", with the sail pressing against the mast and losing efficiency tells you that this is balanced against the work of moving the yard and sail over.

As for criticism of square rig:
(1) Much is made of the labour-saving of changing from square rig to fore and aft gaff rig. The schooners that replaced the brigs sailing in British coastal waters in the second half of the 19th century made this change to reduce crew sizes. Lateen, did need large crews to be able to hoist heavy yards in larger vessels that used this rig, but square rig needed capable seamen to work aloft and to man braces and sheets when tacking. (2) When in use, square rig was generally thought of as more manoeuvrable than gaff-rigged vessels. This is explained in Reid, Phillip (2020). The merchant ship in the British Atlantic, 1600-1800: continuity and innovation in a key technology. Leiden ; Boston: Brill. ISBN 978-9004424081. pp 209-210. The argument is based on: (a) practical experience by the designer of the Duyfken replica (and also Jewel of Muscat) (b) the reasoning that James Cook gave for wanting the survey schooner he was issued with re-rigged as a brig. (There is a lot more detail than I can give here.) This is all amplified by the review of Reid's book Batchvarov, Kroum (3 July 2021). "The Merchant Ship in the British Atlantic, 1600–1800: Continuity and Innovation in a Key Technology". International Journal of Nautical Archaeology. 50 (2): 403–406. doi:10.1080/10572414.2021.1987716.. Here the reviewer adds an extra thread to support Reid's arguments: Frederick Marryat. Marryat had served in the navy and his novels are regarded by maritime historians as having a great degree of accuracy on nautical matters. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 14:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

100% agree however that content was there and I wanted to preserve it until I was better informed. However I thought the square sail doesn't requires sailors to constantly tune sails and rigs, so I changed from labor intensive to labor saving, leaving everything untouched. So lateen needs more labor but square needs more qualified labor?

Once thing obvious to me, is that the square sail was better for long sea travels while the lateen or triangular sails are better for shorter distance, like recreational sailing. None is better, it's a tradeoff.

Please correct my if I'm wrong.

Why don't you add all what you know? Even if I go through all the sources you posted, it seems I won't get better than you. You seem to have good knowledge on this one. Maybe split the work? Half of the sources for each? Or maybe all for me, I make an edit and the you correct whatever is wrong?

Also, any comparison should be added to Square rig, since it's basically an empty page. Wikain (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

For completeness, here is the ref[1] for the operation of lateen rig. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

So I say about splitting work and you give me more stuff to read? Fine, but I'm not going to get to it until I have paywall access, finding open sources in Google/Scholar is too time-consuming and tiresome. Wikain (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)p

If you're bothered about paywalls, you are probably picking the wrong subject. If you are concerned about things being time consuming, the amount of reading-in to the subject would take you at least the rest of this year. The list of sources given above is just a demonstration of what is available. I would recommend that you hone your editing skills with simpler work. I note, for instance, that you do not have a grasp of how the two major sorts of referencing work when you copied an {{sfn}} reference into a different article with this edit[[2]. That's not a problem in itself – there are many editors here who do not have a full range of skills and very few know most of it (I certainly don't). Another issue is your comment Once thing obvious to me, is that the square sail was better for.... It does not matter what is obvious to you (i.e. what you think); Wikipedia is based on sources and whatever you put in an article should be based on what RSs say. Until you are fully signed up to the idea of WP:V, you might end up expending a lot of energy on content that is queried or deleted by other editors for failing this Wikipedia policy.

This sort of high level article is normally a lot more difficult to write than it first appears. Doing it without a reasonably complete toolkit seems a little brave. I am sorry to be delivering what appears to be an unfriendly message, but that is not my intent. I just get the feel you might be better steered in a different direction. Find yourself a subject of which you already have a good understanding and then read a good range of quality sources. Then see if you can add to Wikipedia with that work behind you. The reason this article has not yet been improved is that it is quite a complex job to get right. Of course, all this is just my opinion – others may think differently. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This is good advice from ThoughtIdRetired. He knows his stuff. Carlstak (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)