ianlf

F-22 Update

Recommended Posts

 

I have to side with IF. There is no need for a boom. The traveler allows for the sheeting angle laterally and the position of the sheet attachment to the clew board for the fore / aft position (this can also be done by raising or lowering the sail slightly. This is a fact, not debatable.

I think everyone knows how a traveler and sheet tension work to adjust the sail shape. The point that most of the critics miss is that the position of the sheet attachment to the clew board (or the vertical position of the sail) will change the shape vertically in the sail, much like the outhaul on a boomed main or fore / aft position of a headsail lead block would. Period, again no debate.

Now, the adjustability issue. It is true that changing the sheet attachment on the clew board is difficult while sailing. There are different ways to do this. First, the sail can be raised or lowered slightly with the halyard / downhaul to change the clew position, which is also a bit awkward. Solutions we have used are to add a short piece of traveler track on the clew with an adjustable car. This is kind of an outhaul adjuster without the rest of the boom. Another way would be to have a short strop attached to the back hole of the clew board, maybe 12" to 18" long and attach the mainsheet to it. Then, attach a multi- purchase to the forward end of the clew board and the mainsheet / strop attachment. Then by using the multi-purchase, you can change the fore / aft position. This would be like using a fore / aft barberhaul to control the twist on a headsail.

In the range of my multihull experience (Formula 40 tri, F 31, F9A, and F 28R), a 90 degree appt. wind angle is generally about right for best downwind VMG. The angle may vary a little with wind velocity. I can only remember adjusting the outhaul a few times on any of the boats.

There may be some justification for a boom other than "that's the way it's always been done". One would be if you wanted to get the clew as far aft as possible relative to the aft-most sheeting location. Also, if you are sailing really deep angles where you want the clew position well beyond the range of the traveler, a boom would be useful. Other than that, if you want to keep banging your head.......well just stop!

The reason I would want a boom is to use lazy jacks and a track and cars on the mast for a boat kept on a mooring. I have tried the roller furling with a boom and with boltrope and for a boat kept on a mooring I much prefer the lazy jacks and no topping lift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

WetnWild, on 07 Oct 2013 - 19:57, said:

I will be very interested in how you achieve optimum sail shape in the lower panels with it and the traveller positioned way aft of 90 degrees to the clew.

As you know I regularly sail an F22 with that setup and as a racer find it very frustrating. The Nacra analogy isn't a good one as their traveller is positioned about 90 degrees to the clew and the different clew positions allow fine tuning to a set and forget. On the pre-factory F22 the fine tuning clew positions are irrelevant as they are all at a poor angle to the leech. One solution would be a longer footed main (about 400mm) but then to get a decent leech profile the head and whole sail would be much bigger and too much for the boat. The other obvious solution is move the traveller forward but that compromises the design criteria of an uncluttered cockpit for cruising.

Having the mainsheet at 90 degrees to the clew will create significant problems and be slow. Traveler must be further aft than clew, so that mainsheet aims at a point around 55 to 60% up the luff. This is what has proven to work on the F-25C, which is still the benchmark for boomless mains on my designs, and proven to be faster than the boom version. This is a fact, like it or not, with wel

l set up boats, and is supported by results from identical boats over many years.

 

But again, if anyone wants to pay more for a boomed main that is heavier, less safe, known to be slower with its 500mm/20" less luff length, and a traveler that cuts cockpit in half, then this is an available option. You do not have to have a boomless main!

Ian Farrier

Farrier Marine

Design That Work

I'm not having a crack at you here. Simply trying to understand how you can achieve optimum sail shape in the bottom third when the angle of pull of the main sheet is clearly flattening the sail dramatically in the lower panels. Some of the posters here seem confused as to whether we are talking about vertical angle or lateral angle. I'm talking about vertical angle to the aft most clew hole from the traveller track which is positioned well aft of a vertical line drawn down from the clew. If that were 90 degrees to say the middle clew hole the fine tuning I mentioned either fore or aft would allow a boom less sail to be set fuller or flatter going to windward depending on wind strength. The wide angle on the 22 I sail only results in a very flat lower two panels. This would be able to be controlled to some extent by tweekers but in my view a bit complex and slow for racing. I fully understand where the forces need to go in the leech for optimum twist control, but it is only just a little more than 90 degrees in a modern big head sail. I can't see how the platform changes what an optimum sail shape needs to be to be fast. I've been sailing high performance multis for over 30 years at various places around the world and have yet to see that sort of a setup be fast. Guess I'll just have to crawl all over Plywood's boat and see how it works. Maybe a diagram with the tweaking arrangement would help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

WetnWild, on 07 Oct 2013 - 19:57, said:

I will be very interested in how you achieve optimum sail shape in the lower panels with it and the traveller positioned way aft of 90 degrees to the clew.

As you know I regularly sail an F22 with that setup and as a racer find it very frustrating. The Nacra analogy isn't a good one as their traveller is positioned about 90 degrees to the clew and the different clew positions allow fine tuning to a set and forget. On the pre-factory F22 the fine tuning clew positions are irrelevant as they are all at a poor angle to the leech. One solution would be a longer footed main (about 400mm) but then to get a decent leech profile the head and whole sail would be much bigger and too much for the boat. The other obvious solution is move the traveller forward but that compromises the design criteria of an uncluttered cockpit for cruising.

Having the mainsheet at 90 degrees to the clew will create significant problems and be slow. Traveler must be further aft than clew, so that mainsheet aims at a point around 55 to 60% up the luff. This is what has proven to work on the F-25C, which is still the benchmark for boomless mains on my designs, and proven to be faster than the boom version. This is a fact, like it or not, with wel

l set up boats, and is supported by results from identical boats over many years.

 

But again, if anyone wants to pay more for a boomed main that is heavier, less safe, known to be slower with its 500mm/20" less luff length, and a traveler that cuts cockpit in half, then this is an available option. You do not have to have a boomless main!

Ian Farrier

Farrier Marine

Design That Work

I'm not having a crack at you here. Simply trying to understand how you can achieve optimum sail shape in the bottom third when the angle of pull of the main sheet is clearly flattening the sail dramatically in the lower panels. Some of the posters here seem confused as to whether we are talking about vertical angle or lateral angle. I'm talking about vertical angle to the aft most clew hole from the traveller track which is positioned well aft of a vertical line drawn down from the clew. If that were 90 degrees to say the middle clew hole the fine tuning I mentioned either fore or aft would allow a boom less sail to be set fuller or flatter going to windward depending on wind strength. The wide angle on the 22 I sail only results in a very flat lower two panels. This would be able to be controlled to some extent by tweekers but in my view a bit complex and slow for racing. I fully understand where the forces need to go in the leech for optimum twist control, but it is only just a little more than 90 degrees in a modern big head sail. I can't see how the platform changes what an optimum sail shape needs to be to be fast. I've been sailing high performance multis for over 30 years at various places around the world and have yet to see that sort of a setup be fast. Guess I'll just have to crawl all over Plywood's boat and see how it works. Maybe a diagram with the tweaking arrangement would help?

The boomless mainsheet does not pull vertically. It will pull at exactly the same angle as the outhaul car pin would pull on the clew on a boomed main. To make the analogy with a headsail, the vertical pull on a low aspect headsail will be at a lower angle than on a high aspect headsail. Even on a high aspect headsail, the vertical sheet angle will never go to 90 degrees. Generally, the sheeting angle, if projected through the clew into the sail, in a low aspect sail, would intersect the luff about 35% of the luff length above the tack. On a high aspect sail, it would intersect about 50% above the tack.

 

If the sail you have is too flat in the lower sections and you are sheeting in the aft most clewboard hole, problem is: 1) the foot of the sail is too short, 2) the mast rake is more than the sail designer designed the sail for, or 3) the sail isn't hoisted as high as it was designed for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not having a crack at you here. Simply trying to understand how you can achieve optimum sail shape in the bottom third when the angle of pull of the main sheet is clearly flattening the sail dramatically in the lower panels.

 

Same as you sheet the jib - at the right angle and at the right tension. Do you use a boom on your jib? When going downwind I usually also use a barber hauler on the jib when racing, which is quick and easy to setup - far easier, lighter, and less expensive than a boom.

 

post-18231-0-69389100-1381257977_thumb.jpg

Barber hauler in use

 

One can also be used on a main as well if needed, and in fact I have also used one many times on a boomed main to hold the boom down or out, as they are not problem free downwind either with the typical (practical) mainsheet track. It is just a matter of tuning.

 

All the concerns about the boomless main have been noted, and I have shared some of them in the past, but now I'm convinced it is the way to go. Your choice is your choice, and we are happy to cater for different preferences whenever practical. One of those choices will be that F-22 buyers will have the option of going with a boom, and thus do not have to have any concerns. However, they should not then complain about the boomless version being faster because it has a longer luff, with more sail area low down just above the deck where it counts.

 

As to shape concerns, the bottom line remains that on identical boats the boomless version has proven to be faster in actual race results over the past 18 years, for one of the most successful trailerable trimarans in the USA - the F-25C. A couple of examples:

 

http://www.f-boat.com/pensacola99/index.html

http://www.f-boat.com/FWB2000/index.html

 

These results are not in dispute, have been repeated many times, and the fastest F-25C, sailed by one of the most experienced and successful multihull sailors in the world, did not even have a clew board the last time I saw it.

 

post-18231-0-03184300-1381256054_thumb.jpg

 

It is hard to argue against results, and actual real world performances are what influence me most when designing a boat, and hence the boomless main. All it needed to meet my requirements was the ability to be furled, and this has now been achieved.

 

Ian Farrier

 

Farrier Marine

Designs that Work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Rushsails,

If I pay for your flight down under will you come and tweak my boomless rig on boat 2 so we can thrash boat 3 on the water?

 

ps, name for new boat is now set.

 

BOOM!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Rushsails,

If I pay for your flight down under will you come and tweak my boomless rig on boat 2 so we can thrash boat 3 on the water?

ps, name for new boat is now set.

BOOM!

No imagination here PB. Wouldn't a better name be CLEWLESS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I'm not having a crack at you here. Simply trying to understand how you can achieve optimum sail shape in the bottom third when the angle of pull of the main sheet is clearly flattening the sail dramatically in the lower panels.

Same as you sheet the jib - at the right angle and at the right tension. Do you use a boom on your jib? When going downwind I usually also use a barber hauler on the jib when racing, which is quick and easy to setup - far easier, lighter, and less expensive than a boom.

 

attachicon.gifSailingDownwind.jpg

Barber hauler in use

One can also be used on a main as well if needed, and in fact I have also used one many times on a boomed main to hold the boom down or out, as they are not problem free downwind either with the typical (practical) mainsheet track. It is just a matter of tuning.

 

All the concerns about the boomless main have been noted, and I have shared some of them in the past, but now I'm convinced it is the way to go. Your choice is your choice, and we are happy to cater for different preferences whenever practical. One of those choices will be that F-22 buyers will have the option of going with a boom, and thus do not have to have any concerns. However, they should not then complain about the boomless version being faster because it has a longer luff, with more sail area low down just above the deck where it counts.

 

As to shape concerns, the bottom line remains that on identical boats the boomless version has proven to be faster in actual race results over the past 18 years, for one of the most successful trailerable trimarans in the USA - the F-25C. A couple of examples:

 

http://www.f-boat.com/pensacola99/index.html

http://www.f-boat.com/FWB2000/index.html

These results are not in dispute, have been repeated many times, and the fastest F-25C, sailed by one of the most experienced and successful multihull sailors in the world, did not even have a clew board the last time I saw it.

 

attachicon.gifF-25CMainClew.jpg

It is hard to argue against results, and actual real world performances are what influence me most when designing a boat, and hence the boomless main. All it needed to meet my requirements was the ability to be furled, and this has now been achieved.

 

Ian Farrier

 

Farrier Marine

Designs that Work

I fully understand why you would design the boat as you have. It fits the criteria of cruising boat with racing capability. Nothing wrong with that and having sailed one regularly I am a very strong advocate for the boat as I get around the sailing community. (No charge for the free advertising). As I said in an earlier post, I'm looking at this from a purely racing perspective. It's a spurious argument that ahold sailor wins with a dodgy setup on the main against other not so good sailors with the same boat and likely the same dodgy setup. Good sailors always win. They will overcome the setbacks - just look at the AUS win in the AC!

The analogy with the jib setup as in your photo is not apples with apples. That barber hauler is sheeting the jib wide for a broad angle of attack for downwind. A racing sailor simply puts up a kite or screecher in that situation. In the windward situation the fore/aft jib track takes care of the foot depth - something not available on the main.

If I were a cruising sailor with a bit of racing in me I would be more than happy with your setup. As a pure racer it's inefficient and the addition of main tweekers adds complication I don't want to deal with in 20 knots in close quarters with 30 other boats at the leeward mark.

If I want to ake my mum out on the boat boom less is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have to side with IF. There is no need for a boom. The traveler allows for the sheeting angle laterally and the position of the sheet attachment to the clew board for the fore / aft position (this can also be done by raising or lowering the sail slightly. This is a fact, not debatable.

This is a fact ..... if you are cruising. When in a race are you going to stop disconnect a mainsheet system and re-connect it at a different position when you get a change in conditions. And when are you going to go mainsheet off and raise and lower a mainsail on the mast? This is great entertainment!

I think everyone knows how a traveler and sheet tension work to adjust the sail shape. The point that most of the critics miss is that the position of the sheet attachment to the clew board (or the vertical position of the sail) will change the shape vertically in the sail, much like the outhaul on a boomed main or fore / aft position of a headsail lead block would. Period, again no debate.

Mmmm - yeah but once again how do you do this whilst racing. Not possible without stopping.

Now, the adjustability issue. It is true that changing the sheet attachment on the clew board is difficult while sailing. There are different ways to do this. First, the sail can be raised or lowered slightly with the halyard / downhaul to change the clew position, which is also a bit awkward. Solutions we have used are to add a short piece of traveler track on the clew with an adjustable car. This is kind of an outhaul adjuster without the rest of the boom. Another way would be to have a short strop attached to the back hole of the clew board, maybe 12" to 18" long and attach the mainsheet to it. Then, attach a multi- purchase to the forward end of the clew board and the mainsheet / strop attachment. Then by using the multi-purchase, you can change the fore / aft position. This would be like using a fore / aft barberhaul to control the twist on a headsail.

This is not possible whilst racing and even if you attempted it what a gin show it would end up. Tracks with purchase systems on the clew / barberhaulers on the mainsheet take off..... what are you thinking

In the range of my multihull experience (Formula 40 tri, F 31, F9A, and F 28R), a 90 degree appt. wind angle is generally about right for best downwind VMG. The angle may vary a little with wind velocity. I can only remember adjusting the outhaul a few times on any of the boats.

This is true. Outhauls are not adjusted that often but if you use a boomless set up as you preach...... every time you ease a foot of mainsheet (for example to go low groove upwind) you are effectively easing a shit load of outhaul at the same time. The more sheet you ease the more outhaul you are easing. And if its set up the other way and you want to go high groove and a bit of chop for example...... your main could be as flat as a board. You have no tuning options available to you whilst racing.

There may be some justification for a boom other than "that's the way it's always been done". One would be if you wanted to get the clew as far aft as possible relative to the aft-most sheeting location. Also, if you are sailing really deep angles where you want the clew position well beyond the range of the traveler, a boom would be useful. Other than that, if you want to keep banging your head.......well just stop!

If your idea was faster - everyone would be doing it. Thats the point. Ian's only point of argument is that someone has one of his boats that has won some races. There are some good sailors that sail F24's etc but with no disrespect majority are lower level sailors and the F boats are truely great boats for them. Safe and easy to handle. They are great boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have experience racing anything bigger than a Fin - and I haven't been on the water for a very long time, so boomless is new to me and hard to grasp. However it does seem obvious that some of the detractors here are not speaking from experience with boom and without, rather the very idea of no boom simply seems blasphemous to them. Why there should be such religious rancour about what other people are doing with their own boats I don't know.

 

Personally if I didn't have a stake in the F22 (I do) I would be looking at this as an opportunity to observe over the coming months and years - and either confirm my scepticism or learn something new and useful - instead of building rhetorical positions that will be hard to climb down from.

 

Kevin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Rushsails,

If I pay for your flight down under will you come and tweak my boomless rig on boat 2 so we can thrash boat 3 on the water?

 

ps, name for new boat is now set.

 

BOOM!

I am willing to go. Contact me at rushsails@aol.com. I am available until skiing starts in November.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I have to side with IF. There is no need for a boom. The traveler allows for the sheeting angle laterally and the position of the sheet attachment to the clew board for the fore / aft position (this can also be done by raising or lowering the sail slightly. This is a fact, not debatable.

This is a fact ..... if you are cruising. When in a race are you going to stop disconnect a mainsheet system and re-connect it at a different position when you get a change in conditions. And when are you going to go mainsheet off and raise and lower a mainsail on the mast? This is great entertainment!

A fact is a fact regardless if you are cruising or racing. In my experience, the outhaul is rarely change on a multihull, even when racing. Most clewboards I have seen are most likely to have one hole that is almost worn through and the others unused. Have you ever sailed with a boomless main or jib with a clewboard?

I think everyone knows how a traveler and sheet tension work to adjust the sail shape. The point that most of the critics miss is that the position of the sheet attachment to the clew board (or the vertical position of the sail) will change the shape vertically in the sail, much like the outhaul on a boomed main or fore / aft position of a headsail lead block would. Period, again no debate.

Mmmm - yeah but once again how do you do this whilst racing. Not possible without stopping.

I have never adjusted an outhaul on a boomed multihull main while racing unless it was mis-position before starting. In case you do want to have the adjustability, below are 3 ways of adjusting.

Now, the adjustability issue. It is true that changing the sheet attachment on the clew board is difficult while sailing. There are different ways to do this. First, the sail can be raised or lowered slightly with the halyard / downhaul to change the clew position, which is also a bit awkward. Solutions we have used are to add a short piece of traveler track on the clew with an adjustable car. This is kind of an outhaul adjuster without the rest of the boom. Another way would be to have a short strop attached to the back hole of the clew board, maybe 12" to 18" long and attach the mainsheet to it. Then, attach a multi- purchase to the forward end of the clew board and the mainsheet / strop attachment. Then by using the multi-purchase, you can change the fore / aft position. This would be like using a fore / aft barberhaul to control the twist on a headsail.

This is not possible whilst racing and even if you attempted it what a gin show it would end up. Tracks with purchase systems on the clew / barberhaulers on the mainsheet take off..... what are you thinking

I have seen these used and were operable while under sail.

In the range of my multihull experience (Formula 40 tri, F 31, F9A, and F 28R), a 90 degree appt. wind angle is generally about right for best downwind VMG. The angle may vary a little with wind velocity. I can only remember adjusting the outhaul a few times on any of the boats.

This is true. Outhauls are not adjusted that often but if you use a boomless set up as you preach...... every time you ease a foot of mainsheet (for example to go low groove upwind) you are effectively easing a shit load of outhaul at the same time. The more sheet you ease the more outhaul you are easing. And if its set up the other way and you want to go high groove and a bit of chop for example...... your main could be as flat as a board. You have no tuning options available to you whilst racing.

The reason you would adjust the mainsheet is to change the twist in the sail. The mainsheet isn't used to change the fullness of the sail. With the way Ian has set up the traveler, if you leave the mainsheet alone and drop the traveler, the lower 1/3 of the sail will flatten.

There may be some justification for a boom other than "that's the way it's always been done". One would be if you wanted to get the clew as far aft as possible relative to the aft-most sheeting location. Also, if you are sailing really deep angles where you want the clew position well beyond the range of the traveler, a boom would be useful. Other than that, if you want to keep banging your head.......well just stop!

If your idea was faster - everyone would be doing it. Thats the point. Ian's only point of argument is that someone has one of his boats that has won some races. There are some good sailors that sail F24's etc but with no disrespect majority are lower level sailors and the F boats are truely great boats for them. Safe and easy to handle. They are great boats.

I think that the big reason booms are used, is that they allow boat designers the ability to place the sheeting point / traveler anywhere aft of the middle of the boom. On the F-22, having the mainsheet / traveler position well aft, allows for use of the boomless main.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have experience racing anything bigger than a Fin - and I haven't been on the water for a very long time, so boomless is new to me and hard to grasp. However it does seem obvious that some of the detractors here are not speaking from experience with boom and without, rather the very idea of no boom simply seems blasphemous to them. Why there should be such religious rancour about what other people are doing with their own boats I don't know.

 

Personally if I didn't have a stake in the F22 (I do) I would be looking at this as an opportunity to observe over the coming months and years - and either confirm my scepticism or learn something new and useful - instead of building rhetorical positions that will be hard to climb down from.

 

Kevin.

No one has experience with a boom less set up - because they are not used. They are not used because they do not work on racing boats. I think its more the fact that Ian keeps arguing for this to be used - but cannot answer any of the questions raised in this forum in regards to tuning the mainsail whilst racing. All he has said is that some one used it and won some races so it is now proven to be better than a boat with a boom. What he is doing in my view is misleading people that may not know better. If Ian could answer how to control lower mainsail shape across all wind ranges whilst underway then he would have half an argument. But he just says its better because its better. Misleading information. I think thats what is getting people upset about all this. Unless he can answer real questions in regards to mainsail tune, he should not be promoting it for racing. Thats my take on why this is becoming more of a talking point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one has experience with a boom less set up - because they are not used.

 

The thing is - giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you actually mean "hardly anyone uses boomless" as opposed to the much more categorical and demonstrably false; "they are not used" - it seems to me that in past decades the same thing would have been said of multi-hulls, and later, of foils.

 

I'm a big fan of empirical evidence - and however significant or insignificant, Ian and Multihauler are the only ones in this discussion providing any so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are available with a boom ...

but saying and I quote :

Ian's only point of argument is that someone has one of his boats that has won some races

 

is just crazy. Someone is Randy Smythe, who arguably is one of maybe a handful of the best Multi Sailors in the US.... Ijust check out his credentials and you know who " someone" is. A for winning "some" races ... lets say 98% of races in his own boat.

 

Lets just see what the boats will do with and without boom when handled by mere mortals :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I have to side with IF. There is no need for a boom. The traveler allows for the sheeting angle laterally and the position of the sheet attachment to the clew board for the fore / aft position (this can also be done by raising or lowering the sail slightly. This is a fact, not debatable.

This is a fact ..... if you are cruising. When in a race are you going to stop disconnect a mainsheet system and re-connect it at a different position when you get a change in conditions. And when are you going to go mainsheet off and raise and lower a mainsail on the mast? This is great entertainment!

I think everyone knows how a traveler and sheet tension work to adjust the sail shape. The point that most of the critics miss is that the position of the sheet attachment to the clew board (or the vertical position of the sail) will change the shape vertically in the sail, much like the outhaul on a boomed main or fore / aft position of a headsail lead block would. Period, again no debate.

Mmmm - yeah but once again how do you do this whilst racing. Not possible without stopping.

Now, the adjustability issue. It is true that changing the sheet attachment on the clew board is difficult while sailing. There are different ways to do this. First, the sail can be raised or lowered slightly with the halyard / downhaul to change the clew position, which is also a bit awkward. Solutions we have used are to add a short piece of traveler track on the clew with an adjustable car. This is kind of an outhaul adjuster without the rest of the boom. Another way would be to have a short strop attached to the back hole of the clew board, maybe 12" to 18" long and attach the mainsheet to it. Then, attach a multi- purchase to the forward end of the clew board and the mainsheet / strop attachment. Then by using the multi-purchase, you can change the fore / aft position. This would be like using a fore / aft barberhaul to control the twist on a headsail.

This is not possible whilst racing and even if you attempted it what a gin show it would end up. Tracks with purchase systems on the clew / barberhaulers on the mainsheet take off..... what are you thinking

In the range of my multihull experience (Formula 40 tri, F 31, F9A, and F 28R), a 90 degree appt. wind angle is generally about right for best downwind VMG. The angle may vary a little with wind velocity. I can only remember adjusting the outhaul a few times on any of the boats.

This is true. Outhauls are not adjusted that often but if you use a boomless set up as you preach...... every time you ease a foot of mainsheet (for example to go low groove upwind) you are effectively easing a shit load of outhaul at the same time. The more sheet you ease the more outhaul you are easing. And if its set up the other way and you want to go high groove and a bit of chop for example...... your main could be as flat as a board. You have no tuning options available to you whilst racing.

There may be some justification for a boom other than "that's the way it's always been done". One would be if you wanted to get the clew as far aft as possible relative to the aft-most sheeting location. Also, if you are sailing really deep angles where you want the clew position well beyond the range of the traveler, a boom would be useful. Other than that, if you want to keep banging your head.......well just stop!

If your idea was faster - everyone would be doing it. Thats the point. Ian's only point of argument is that someone has one of his boats that has won some races. There are some good sailors that sail F24's etc but with no disrespect majority are lower level sailors and the F boats are truely great boats for them. Safe and easy to handle. They are great boats.

 

It appears you still have no real idea of how a boomless main works, and still think that the main sheet has to be disconnected all the time. One of the world's premiere multihull sailors and an Olympic Silver medalist in Tornados certainly doesn't:

 

post-18231-0-19136600-1381280652_thumb.jpg

because it can't be moved anywhere

 

You still have not told us if you have ever actually used a boomless mainsail?

 

It is odd that they seem to obsess you so much as you obviously think they are slow, in which case you and your boom should have nothing to worry about. Boom or boomless is just one part of the F-22, buyers can choose either option, so if you think a boom mainsail is faster then buy one. It is as easy as that, just costs more.

 

Perhaps boomaphilics should start their own topic entitled "why we love our booms". Probably needs a new Anarchy forum, which could be called Traditional Anarchy, for those wary of anything new or different.

 

Ian Farrier

 

Farrier Marine

Designs that work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never used a boomless main, but am looking forward to when I can.

 

"If Ian could answer how to control lower mainsail shape across all wind ranges whilst underway then he would have half an argument. But he just says its better because its better. Misleading information. I think thats what is getting people upset about all this."

 

I will try to answer this.

Hard on the wind say medium airs: Traveller in the middle, mainsheet tension say 80% tight, causing slight depth in main.

Hard on the wind say light airs: Traveller up slightly, mainsheet tension say 75% tight, causing same depth in main, here is where maybe a traveller system on the clew may help to allow the top to fall off a bit.

Hard on the wind say heavy airs: Traveller down slightly, mainsheet tension say 85 - 90% tight, causing same depth in main, or if the depth to be less, add more mainsheet tension. Here the mainsheet tension is used as an outhaul on a boomed main, the traveller, the angle of the main to the wind.

Now

Flying a genniker: Traveller down far enough and main eased to give a good depth in the main. If there is too much power in the main reduce the depth by tightening mainsheet, lowering traveller. While using a boomed main I have never had the main out further than the traveller allows, so see no difference with the boomless main.(This is the point that has sold me on a boomless setup)

Also

Cracked sheets, Traveller down, and mainsheet altered once again to give the depth for drive.

 

I actually think it will be easier to alter the depth in the main with a boomless setup, rather than having an outhaul.

 

If my theory is flawed, please outline it to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are available with a boom ...

but saying and I quote :

Ian's only point of argument is that someone has one of his boats that has won some races

 

is just crazy. Someone is Randy Smythe, who arguably is one of maybe a handful of the best Multi Sailors in the US.... Ijust check out his credentials and you know who " someone" is. A for winning "some" races ... lets say 98% of races in his own boat.

 

Lets just see what the boats will do with and without boom when handled by mere mortals :-)

What Thor says........ two thumbs up..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, back in victorian racing anarchy, they were having the same arguments over baggy wrinkles on racing cutters.

 

I enjoy the simplicity of a boom less dinghy cat ATM, not as quick as my previous all singing cat, but the overall package is easier to own, and whats not to like about having 4 less breakable components? Most of us don't get much from having an outhaul, maybe a percent advantage *only if it is trimmed perfectly*, so forgetting outhaul and concentrating on the more important mainsheet/trav/down fucker/rotation control/going the right way seems like an easy compromise to me. The other advantage I enjoy, is not having to give 2 hoots about getting smacked on the head while gybing.

 

So, if you want a Seacart, stop moaning about Mr F's attempts to produce an owner friendly package, it will not be for you, whatever he does. Commercial success does not, it appears, come from making a product only 5% of the market can enjoy safely, this market reached saturation some time ago. While we all daydream about racing the latest greatest rocket ship, most of us compromise on the boat we choose to buy. If having no outrigger foils, boom, etc, but instead a kickass trailer, and a reliable easy to maintain and rig package, brings more grins to more sailors, and more $ to its maker, who are we to judge?

 

Loving the progress of this design, looking forward to seeing one in the flesh. Any chance of a video showing the reefing on the water process?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy the simplicity of a boom less dinghy cat ATM, not as quick as my previous all singing cat, but the overall package is easier to own, and whats not to like about having 4 less breakable components? Most of us don't get much from having an outhaul, maybe a percent advantage *only if it is trimmed perfectly*, so forgetting outhaul and concentrating on the more important mainsheet/trav/down fucker/rotation control/going the right way seems like an easy compromise to me. The other advantage I enjoy, is not having to give 2 hoots about getting smacked on the head while gybing.

 

So, if you want a Seacart, stop moaning about Mr F's attempts to produce an owner friendly package, it will not be for you, whatever he does. Commercial success does not, it appears, come from making a product only 5% of the market can enjoy safely, this market reached saturation some time ago. While we all daydream about racing the latest greatest rocket ship, most of us compromise on the boat we choose to buy. If having no outrigger foils, boom, etc, but instead a kickass trailer, and a reliable easy to maintain and rig package, brings more grins to more sailors, and more $ to its maker, who are we to judge?

 

Reading your comments, it seems like you are backing up the opinions that the boomless option is simple, easy and perfect for the mass market, but a boom and outhaul set-up gives you more options and control over your sail. I do not think any of the "boom proponents" disagree with you.

 

It is the people saying that a boomless setup is offering more control over the mainsail shape (and hence top-end speed) that seems to be more in question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


In regard to the point that because Randy Smyth has a boomless sail on his F25C, so it must be the fastest option, this does not really make sense.

 

The fact that a sailor as experienced in fast multihulls owned a F25, shows that he was willing to compromise on performance. I do not think that anyone (not even Ian Farrier) would claim that the F25C is the fastest 25 foot tri ever designed.

 

It is no doubt a brilliant mix of practicality with speed, and purchasers of these boats would weigh up the compromises and determine whether that suits their own usage requirements.

 

But, it is a compromise. The use of a boomless sail in no doubt a compromise, over a more conventional set-up.

 

To use the argument that because the compromises an Olympic medallist made in selecting his own boat as the proof sailing without a boom is the quickest solution is stretching it, in my opinion.

 

Ian's argument that the use of a boom causes a loss in sail area could easily be offset by increasing the mast height. Would the boom option then be faster than the boomless solution????

 

I do not think the F22 has been designed as an out and out fastest 22 foot tri ever made. It is a compromise, from the folding beams down to the construction methods adopted (why not a carbon/nomex hull and structure etc)

The boomless option is similarly no doubt a comprise that is probably a good option for the concept of the boat.

 

But lets not pretend it is the most efficient way to sail the boat.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's easy enough to pick holes in the extrapolations Ian makes from the few examples he's provided - but he has provided examples - and I suspect he's probably quite good at making extrapolations.

 

On the other hand - I've not seen any evidence at all from the boomies to back their assertion that boomless is only for cruising/families - there are theories about backhauls and clews that I can't follow (because it's been too long since I was in a boat) - but there's no evidence, no counter examples.

 

Show me the data!! (to paraphrase a cruise movie)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand - I've not seen any evidence at all from the boomies to back their assertion that boomless is only for cruising/families - there are theories about backhauls and clews that I can't follow (because it's been too long since I was in a boat) - but there's no evidence, no counter examples.

You are kidding right? How many boats have booms? The evidence is in the accepted normal of racings boats of all sizes and types.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On my boat there is an option to hang a short traveller type outhaul from the clew holes which the mainsheet then attaches to the bottom of the track, I still have my old one but never use it, the only people that may get some benefit are if they sail in light fickle air. The talk of playing out a foot or more of sheet trimming the boat and letting the sail loose shape is not serious race talk. Because of the purpose built design of the boat, sail and traveller you play the sheet in inches and dump the sheet in feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No - not kidding - it's perfectly simple, a counter example would be a boat with a boom consistently beating other boats in the same class that were boomless, or if you prefer, a boomless boat that consistently lost in it's class

 

A question for Autograph - who has sailed a boomed cat and now sails boomless and says current cat is slower - are they the same class with comparable sail area? are you racing others in same class with boomless?

 

say it with me one time! Show me the data!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no - not kidding - it's perfectly simple, a counter example would be a boat with a boom consistently beating other boats in the same class that were boomless, or if you prefer, a boomless boat that consistently lost in it's class

 

say it with me one time! Show me the data!!

 

Mate, if you seriously think that you will get more control of your sail shape without a boom, than with a boom, then I wish you all the luck in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

no - not kidding - it's perfectly simple, a counter example would be a boat with a boom consistently beating other boats in the same class that were boomless, or if you prefer, a boomless boat that consistently lost in it's class

 

say it with me one time! Show me the data!!

 

Mate, if you seriously think that you will get more control of your sail shape without a boom, than with a boom, then I wish you all the luck in the world.

That's the thing - I don't think that, I don't have an opinion yet - boomless was strange idea to me, - but I am very interested in the story and evidence Ian is presenting, and I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary yet, only entrenched opinion.

 

It's a decision I don't have to make for a year or two yet because I'm hull #62 - but at this stage I'll be taking the boomless option - unless the boomies start providing evidence based counters ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The boom less beach cat I now sail is a much lower performance boat overall than its racing cat predecessor. Like comparing apples and mice. My point was, I have as much fun in the simple beach cat, as the complex race cat, and as an average sailor, I can sail the simple boat much closer to its potential. I am not trying to say that no boom is faster in all conditions, only that the added advantage of a boom in a multi appears to be fairly insignificant, when the sail plan has been designed to suit, and as a compromise to make a better rounded package, i.e. cost/performance/hassle ratio, seems like a good bet. Having a boom is of less importance to the performance of the boat than, for example, having a well developed rig package with mast rotation and bend control.

 

Have fun y'all with your brand new F22's, bastards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

no - not kidding - it's perfectly simple, a counter example would be a boat with a boom consistently beating other boats in the same class that were boomless, or if you prefer, a boomless boat that consistently lost in it's class

 

say it with me one time! Show me the data!!

 

Mate, if you seriously think that you will get more control of your sail shape without a boom, than with a boom, then I wish you all the luck in the world.

That's the thing - I don't think that, I don't have an opinion yet - boomless was strange idea to me, - but I am very interested in the story and evidence Ian is presenting, and I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary yet, only entrenched opinion.

 

It's a decision I don't have to make for a year or two yet because I'm hull #62 - but at this stage I'll be taking the boomless option - unless the boomies start providing evidence based counters ...

If the boom version was demonstrably 1% faster, would you change your mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the boom version was demonstrably 1% faster, would you change your mind?

 

Dunno - as I say I haven't made up my mind yet, I haven't seen any posts with evidence of faster boomed sailing so far though.

 

Also I want to see the reefing system in action first, and I'd like to see more about running dead downwind. If I read right, it sounds like without a kite, running ddw is not something you do when boomless - and that perhaps you have better vmg at an angle anyway ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We broke our boom on a N20, loose footed mainsail going upwind, had 80 more miles to sail. Attached mainsheet to clew and proceeded to pass 2 boats in 15 kts of breeze. Would have finished the next 400 miles this way if a new boom wasn't sitting on the beach at the checkpoint.

 

Another point. Our outhaul on our F18 main is fixed. Yep, that's right, we don't adjust it. It comes stock from the factory this way. There is very little need for adjustment, as the apparent VMG on the main is basically upwind at all times. The only reason for a boom on this boat is it helps lock the mast rotation in. Fix that and you can go to a single bottom batten, I 100% stand by that option. At least on this scale, the boom is double the price of a lower batten, and the space is at a premium for a more complex mast rotation control system, i.e we'll keep our boom, but Ian's system sounds PERFECT for a larger boat where boom costs are much higher than battens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On the other hand - I've not seen any evidence at all from the boomies to back their assertion that boomless is only for cruising/families - there are theories about backhauls and clews that I can't follow (because it's been too long since I was in a boat) - but there's no evidence, no counter examples.

You are kidding right? How many boats have booms? The evidence is in the accepted normal of racings boats of all sizes and types.

 

The old traditional Anarchists used to say that a roomy small trimaran would never work, nor would my folding system, and one of their main reasons was that no one else was doing anything like it.

 

If you like to stick with the crowd then just buy a boom - it's an available option.

 

Ian Farrier

 

Farrier Marine

Designs That Work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We broke our boom on a N20, loose footed mainsail going upwind, had 80 more miles to sail. Attached mainsheet to clew and proceeded to pass 2 boats in 15 kts of breeze. Would have finished the next 400 miles this way if a new boom wasn't sitting on the beach at the checkpoint.

 

Another point. Our outhaul on our F18 main is fixed. Yep, that's right, we don't adjust it. It comes stock from the factory this way. There is very little need for adjustment, as the apparent VMG on the main is basically upwind at all times. The only reason for a boom on this boat is it helps lock the mast rotation in. Fix that and you can go to a single bottom batten, I 100% stand by that option. At least on this scale, the boom is double the price of a lower batten, and the space is at a premium for a more complex mast rotation control system, i.e we'll keep our boom, but Ian's system sounds PERFECT for a larger boat where boom costs are much higher than battens.

Multi 23 is a similar system. fixed outhaul, boom is only used to manage rotation. Mainsheet actually connects directly to the sail, without connecting to the boom. (Strops go around the boom, but are not connected to it) No vang so if I ever went broad reaching in light air, I suppose I'd need a crew member to hold her down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The old traditional Anarchists used to say that a roomy small trimaran would never work, nor would my folding system, and one of their main reasons was that no one else was doing anything like it.

 

Hang on - there was no real public internet until the early 90's (I used the Lynx browser at Uni when the internet was text only round 92/93) and I thought there were already dozens of F27s on the water by then?

 

Just how old is this forum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

very very old

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I have done it both ways. F25C boomless from 2000-2003. Boom from 2004 to present.

 

I added the boom to separate shape control from leach tension and provide easier furling and reefing. My boom is a carbon tube, all up about 10 lbs. About the same as the big battens and line clutches and other paraphernalia others use to manage without a boom. By end sheeting and using the aft traveler location it reduces the load on the boom so the boom doesn't have much compression or perpendicular loading. I insert a winch handle into end of boom to furl. One of the best boat bucks I spent on the boat.

 

Randy is so good he doesn't need a boom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geeez, guys...

 

I am NOT an expert, was never even close to an Olympic medal, and sailed a boomless boat only a few times. By no means do I have as much experience as many of the posters here. But: why not take a step back and look at it again?

  • with a boom, you can adjust the boom position, and on top of that you can adjust the main relative to the boom
  • without a boom, you directly position the main, i.e. you have less adjustments available than with a boom
  • so the boom version lets you adust more parameters, and if anything the sail shape can be as good, but potentially better than with a boomless setup
  • the question remains whether on an F-22, the larger sail of the boomless version makes up for the reduced trim possibilities in terms of boat speed

But in real life, for most people here the arguments to go with or without a boom are not racing related, but have to do with comfort, head banging fears, ease of use, space etc. So be it, fine. No problem.

 

"Arguments" such as "I don't understand your theory, but I claim that you didn't show any evidence" don't really help to advance the discussion. Not answering the relevant question about sail trim across all wind strengths neither. It appears that questioning any of the F-22 features is getting awfully close to blasphemy. Can't win the argument. Just accept it.

 

But don't stop the discussion! It's great fun, and I learn a lot just reading the thread!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The old traditional Anarchists used to say that a roomy small trimaran would never work, nor would my folding system, and one of their main reasons was that no one else was doing anything like it.

 

Hang on - there was no real public internet until the early 90's (I used the Lynx browser at Uni when the internet was text only round 92/93) and I thought there were already dozens of F27s on the water by then?

 

Just how old is this forum?

 

Not all that old, but there has always been that strong traditional faction. They are the ones who also said that Internet and emails would never work as very few were using them. Everybody was using letters and faxes, and the 'Letter to the Editor' pages were the only place for lively discussions, so no definitely no future for emails. :)

 

Ian Farrier

 

Farrier Marine

Designs that work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The old traditional Anarchists used to say that a roomy small trimaran would never work, nor would my folding system, and one of their main reasons was that no one else was doing anything like it.

 

Hang on - there was no real public internet until the early 90's (I used the Lynx browser at Uni when the internet was text only round 92/93) and I thought there were already dozens of F27s on the water by then?

 

Just how old is this forum?

 

Not all that old, but there has always been that strong traditional faction. They are the ones who also said that Internet and emails would never work as very few were using them. Everybody was using letters and faxes, and the 'Letter to the Editor' pages were the only place for lively discussions, so no definitely no future for emails. :)

 

Ian Farrier

 

Farrier Marine

Designs that work

 

Holy #!.... fascinating. World-wide discussions/arguments in physical print - it was the only conclusion of course, but it's such an alien concept now I could scarcely believe it.

 

I'm pretty sure I don't belong to any other forums that started on paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

On the other hand - I've not seen any evidence at all from the boomies to back their assertion that boomless is only for cruising/families - there are theories about backhauls and clews that I can't follow (because it's been too long since I was in a boat) - but there's no evidence, no counter examples.

You are kidding right? How many boats have booms? The evidence is in the accepted normal of racings boats of all sizes and types.

 

The old traditional Anarchists used to say that a roomy small trimaran would never work, nor would my folding system, and one of their main reasons was that no one else was doing anything like it.

 

If you like to stick with the crowd then just buy a boom - it's an available option.

 

Ian Farrier

 

Farrier Marine

Designs That Work

Ian, you talk like you have invented something revolutionary. In terms of boomless mainsails they have been around since Jesus was a boy. Go to any beach resort and thats what they provide to all the punters. No one in the racing fraternity uses them because they dont work. VPLP, Nigel Irens, Schmidt, Morelli and Melvin, Martin Ficher, GC32, Volvo Extreme 40, the list is endless. These are just some top 'racing' designers and class's that were designed from scratch to be race boats. All have booms as it provides control of the mainsail shape. Of all sailing craft, multihulls require flatter more efficient sail shapes than monohulls for obvious reasons. How much more fact do you need. With a boom you have control and you can tweak this control whilst racing with no loss of speed and at ease across all conditions. I am sure no one is worried about the F22 and the effect of a boom or not, but the problem seems to be that you are promoting this as a racing benefit which is completely misleading. Your argument back to people 'that you have obviously never used one' does not hold water and could be considered an immature response to a fair question. You are the one that is acting like a politician and have clearly mastered the art of never answering a question on how to control sail shape across all conditions with your design.

 

Your comment re loss of sail area does not hold water either. On a boat that size, you would commonly use a 70mm carbon tube for the boom. You are hardly losing masses of sail area as suggested.

 

As for Randy and him proving that its the best thing since sliced bread, well put any top level sailor on a boat similar to another and they are likely to come out on top. Would you not be better to put a sailor from the middle of the fleet on your boomless boat and see how they stack up? I bet my right nut that Randy has tickled the boat in many other areas. All the F boats in our neck of the woods are completely different. The hulls may be of the same design, but the rig setup, sail designs, foils, prodder lengths, weights everything is different. So you can see why some people could be doubtful of your 'testing' with Randy Vs the rest.

 

So here is a direct question to Ian Farrier:

 

How does your boom less system maintain the optimum sail shape from 0 - 30 knots, high groove, low groove, reaching, running and in all wave conditions?

 

If you had of just answered this in the beginning, it would have stopped all the fuss. The fact that you continue to skirt answering the question will only bring more debate that I dare say is doing you no favours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We broke our boom on a N20, loose footed mainsail going upwind, had 80 more miles to sail. Attached mainsheet to clew and proceeded to pass 2 boats in 15 kts of breeze. Would have finished the next 400 miles this way if a new boom wasn't sitting on the beach at the checkpoint.

 

Another point. Our outhaul on our F18 main is fixed. Yep, that's right, we don't adjust it. It comes stock from the factory this way. There is very little need for adjustment, as the apparent VMG on the main is basically upwind at all times. The only reason for a boom on this boat is it helps lock the mast rotation in. Fix that and you can go to a single bottom batten, I 100% stand by that option. At least on this scale, the boom is double the price of a lower batten, and the space is at a premium for a more complex mast rotation control system, i.e we'll keep our boom, but Ian's system sounds PERFECT for a larger boat where boom costs are much higher than battens.

Nacra 6.0na did pretty well without a boom. Worst part was remembering to handle the rotation for every tack and jibe...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

On the other hand - I've not seen any evidence at all from the boomies to back their assertion that boomless is only for cruising/families - there are theories about backhauls and clews that I can't follow (because it's been too long since I was in a boat) - but there's no evidence, no counter examples.

You are kidding right? How many boats have booms? The evidence is in the accepted normal of racings boats of all sizes and types.

 

The old traditional Anarchists used to say that a roomy small trimaran would never work, nor would my folding system, and one of their main reasons was that no one else was doing anything like it.

 

If you like to stick with the crowd then just buy a boom - it's an available option.

 

Ian Farrier

 

Farrier Marine

Designs That Work

Ian, you talk like you have invented something revolutionary. In terms of boomless mainsails they have been around since Jesus was a boy. Go to any beach resort and thats what they provide to all the punters. No one in the racing fraternity uses them because they dont work. VPLP, Nigel Irens, Schmidt, Morelli and Melvin, Martin Ficher, GC32, Volvo Extreme 40, the list is endless. These are just some top 'racing' designers and class's that were designed from scratch to be race boats. All have booms as it provides control of the mainsail shape. Of all sailing craft, multihulls require flatter more efficient sail shapes than monohulls for obvious reasons. How much more fact do you need. With a boom you have control and you can tweak this control whilst racing with no loss of speed and at ease across all conditions. I am sure no one is worried about the F22 and the effect of a boom or not, but the problem seems to be that you are promoting this as a racing benefit which is completely misleading. Your argument back to people 'that you have obviously never used one' does not hold water and could be considered an immature response to a fair question. You are the one that is acting like a politician and have clearly mastered the art of never answering a question on how to control sail shape across all conditions with your design.

 

Your comment re loss of sail area does not hold water either. On a boat that size, you would commonly use a 70mm carbon tube for the boom. You are hardly losing masses of sail area as suggested.

 

As for Randy and him proving that its the best thing since sliced bread, well put any top level sailor on a boat similar to another and they are likely to come out on top. Would you not be better to put a sailor from the middle of the fleet on your boomless boat and see how they stack up? I bet my right nut that Randy has tickled the boat in many other areas. All the F boats in our neck of the woods are completely different. The hulls may be of the same design, but the rig setup, sail designs, foils, prodder lengths, weights everything is different. So you can see why some people could be doubtful of your 'testing' with Randy Vs the rest.

 

So here is a direct question to Ian Farrier:

 

How does your boom less system maintain the optimum sail shape from 0 - 30 knots, high groove, low groove, reaching, running and in all wave conditions?

 

If you had of just answered this in the beginning, it would have stopped all the fuss. The fact that you continue to skirt answering the question will only bring more debate that I dare say is doing you no favours.

Here you go. In all conditions, foot / lower 1/3 of the sail would be the same shape regardless of boom or no boom. For a boomless main in 0 to 8 appt. traveler would be above centerline and sheeted for desired twist / flow in upper 1/4. As wind increases, traveler is lowered and sheet tension increased. This is continued until the main cannot carry the leech without overpowering. Next step is reefing. My guess this would be at about 20 to 25 knt. appt. With reef in, traveler to centerline, sheet for flow in upper 1/4. High groove / low grove - tightening the leech to point of impending stall in upper 1/4 will give best pointing, easing sheet to twist open top 1/4 will allow sailing lower with less load on foils for choppy conditions. When reefed, it is simple to change the fullness of the boomless main by varying the tack height, higher reef tack position = fuller sail in lower 1/4, lower reef tack position = flatter shape in lower 1/4. BTW, boomed mains usually can't be adjusted when reef to change lower 1/4 shape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

On the other hand - I've not seen any evidence at all from the boomies to back their assertion that boomless is only for cruising/families - there are theories about backhauls and clews that I can't follow (because it's been too long since I was in a boat) - but there's no evidence, no counter examples.

You are kidding right? How many boats have booms? The evidence is in the accepted normal of racings boats of all sizes and types.

 

The old traditional Anarchists used to say that a roomy small trimaran would never work, nor would my folding system, and one of their main reasons was that no one else was doing anything like it.

 

If you like to stick with the crowd then just buy a boom - it's an available option.

 

Ian Farrier

 

Farrier Marine

Designs That Work

Ian, you talk like you have invented something revolutionary. In terms of boomless mainsails they have been around since Jesus was a boy. Go to any beach resort and thats what they provide to all the punters. No one in the racing fraternity uses them because they dont work. VPLP, Nigel Irens, Schmidt, Morelli and Melvin, Martin Ficher, GC32, Volvo Extreme 40, the list is endless. These are just some top 'racing' designers and class's that were designed from scratch to be race boats. All have booms as it provides control of the mainsail shape. Of all sailing craft, multihulls require flatter more efficient sail shapes than monohulls for obvious reasons. How much more fact do you need. With a boom you have control and you can tweak this control whilst racing with no loss of speed and at ease across all conditions. I am sure no one is worried about the F22 and the effect of a boom or not, but the problem seems to be that you are promoting this as a racing benefit which is completely misleading. Your argument back to people 'that you have obviously never used one' does not hold water and could be considered an immature response to a fair question. You are the one that is acting like a politician and have clearly mastered the art of never answering a question on how to control sail shape across all conditions with your design.

 

Your comment re loss of sail area does not hold water either. On a boat that size, you would commonly use a 70mm carbon tube for the boom. You are hardly losing masses of sail area as suggested.

 

As for Randy and him proving that its the best thing since sliced bread, well put any top level sailor on a boat similar to another and they are likely to come out on top. Would you not be better to put a sailor from the middle of the fleet on your boomless boat and see how they stack up? I bet my right nut that Randy has tickled the boat in many other areas. All the F boats in our neck of the woods are completely different. The hulls may be of the same design, but the rig setup, sail designs, foils, prodder lengths, weights everything is different. So you can see why some people could be doubtful of your 'testing' with Randy Vs the rest.

 

So here is a direct question to Ian Farrier:

 

How does your boom less system maintain the optimum sail shape from 0 - 30 knots, high groove, low groove, reaching, running and in all wave conditions?

 

If you had of just answered this in the beginning, it would have stopped all the fuss. The fact that you continue to skirt answering the question will only bring more debate that I dare say is doing you no favours.

Here you go. In all conditions, foot / lower 1/3 of the sail would be the same shape regardless of boom or no boom. For a boomless main in 0 to 8 appt. traveler would be above centerline and sheeted for desired twist / flow in upper 1/4. As wind increases, traveler is lowered and sheet tension increased. This is continued until the main cannot carry the leech without overpowering. Next step is reefing. My guess this would be at about 20 to 25 knt. appt. With reef in, traveler to centerline, sheet for flow in upper 1/4. High groove / low grove - tightening the leech to point of impending stall in upper 1/4 will give best pointing, easing sheet to twist open top 1/4 will allow sailing lower with less load on foils for choppy conditions. When reefed, it is simple to change the fullness of the boomless main by varying the tack height, higher reef tack position = fuller sail in lower 1/4, lower reef tack position = flatter shape in lower 1/4. BTW, boomed mains usually can't be adjusted when reef to change lower 1/4 shape.

Oh mate - you have killed me. Please stop.

 

'The lower 1/3 of the sail is the same across all conditions'. ......... No more questions your honor! Have you ever raced at a high level - because this is what we are referring to..... racing.

 

You just said quote ' In all conditions, foot / lower 1/3 of the sail would be the same shape regardless of boom or no boom.' Can I point out that any time that a boomless setup is eased, or the mainsheet is eased, the sail has no choice but to become deep. The more you ease from max trim the deeper the sail gets. It has no choice. You are holding one piece of cloth fixed at the mast and easing the other end out. Big deep footed sails are soooo efficient on multihulls........!! This is why this system is never seen on a race boat.

 

Jesus christ is this the level you guys are at.

 

Lets see Ian answer the question asked in my previous post. Standing by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian, you talk like you have invented something revolutionary. In terms of boomless mainsails they have been around since Jesus was a boy. Go to any beach resort and thats what they provide to all the punters. No one in the racing fraternity uses them because they dont work. VPLP, Nigel Irens, Schmidt, Morelli and Melvin, Martin Ficher, GC32, Volvo Extreme 40, the list is endless. These are just some top 'racing' designers and class's that were designed from scratch to be race boats. All have booms as it provides control of the mainsail shape. Of all sailing craft, multihulls require flatter more efficient sail shapes than monohulls for obvious reasons. How much more fact do you need. With a boom you have control and you can tweak this control whilst racing with no loss of speed and at ease across all conditions. I am sure no one is worried about the F22 and the effect of a boom or not, but the problem seems to be that you are promoting this as a racing benefit which is completely misleading. Your argument back to people 'that you have obviously never used one' does not hold water and could be considered an immature response to a fair question. You are the one that is acting like a politician and have clearly mastered the art of never answering a question on how to control sail shape across all conditions with your design.

 

Your comment re loss of sail area does not hold water either. On a boat that size, you would commonly use a 70mm carbon tube for the boom. You are hardly losing masses of sail area as suggested.

 

As for Randy and him proving that its the best thing since sliced bread, well put any top level sailor on a boat similar to another and they are likely to come out on top. Would you not be better to put a sailor from the middle of the fleet on your boomless boat and see how they stack up? I bet my right nut that Randy has tickled the boat in many other areas. All the F boats in our neck of the woods are completely different. The hulls may be of the same design, but the rig setup, sail designs, foils, prodder lengths, weights everything is different. So you can see why some people could be doubtful of your 'testing' with Randy Vs the rest.

 

So here is a direct question to Ian Farrier:

 

How does your boom less system maintain the optimum sail shape from 0 - 30 knots, high groove, low groove, reaching, running and in all wave conditions?

 

If you had of just answered this in the beginning, it would have stopped all the fuss. The fact that you continue to skirt answering the question will only bring more debate that I dare say is doing you no favours.

 

You certainly have a funny way of looking at things. I have never claimed to have invented the boomless main, but was impressed by the potential when I first sailed one, initially with an F-25C and then an F-31. So decided to use it on the F-22 if I could develop a workable roller furling system, which was the main defect I could see.

 

I have also never ever claimed it as a racing option - the F-22 is a roomy cruiser that also just happens to be fast, and it has a boomless main as standard, mainly for the convenience and cost saving. I have however said it is not as slow as the prophets of doom keep claiming during this endless saga, and in fact the evidence with identical boats appear to show it to be actually be faster. Randy is not the only one to win races with a boomless F-25C.

 

http://www.f-boat.com/pages/News2/F-25CEurope.html

 

As to how my boomless main holds the optimum shape from 0 - 30 knots - this would take far too long to answer, with the many options and techniques available, some of which are still being implemented. The exact same question can also be asked of a boomed main, which doesn't give a good shape off the wind as it stands either. Outhauls are frequently too hard to use, plus some outside assistance is needed, as otherwise without a vang (which can't be used on a rotating mast), it will lift up too high and spill wind. One thus needs a downhaul at the end of the boom to give a decent shape with the typical main hull only sheet track as used on my designs. Nothing is perfect.

 

The only real answer is to wait until I have it all fully setup, with videos etc. and I have a track record of usually getting it right. I'm also not in the habit of keeping it all secret, and the whole development of the F-22 is right out in the open, with hundreds of photos of every stage over the past three years.

 

http://www.f-boat.com/pages/News4/FM-Factory2013.html

 

Strangely most of the copiers seem to try and keep everything secret, it being difficult to get any photos at all?

 

However, one has to wonder just what your beef is about the boomless mainsail on the F-22, as it appears to upset you greatly, and the general vitriol on this subject from some quarters is quite astounding. I have tried it, seen all the evidence, race results, etc. and decided it was the thing to use on the F-22, simple as that. It is my choice, for my design, so why does my decision upset you so much? Does a boomless main threaten you in some way?

 

You claim to be an expert racer, but you are also not game to use your real name - what is your name? Why hide behind 'windwhacker' and why not back your opinions with your name? What races have you won and in what?

 

No one is asking you buy an F-22, or to use a boomless main, and if it is not your preference then just buy a boom. I use and offer both.

 

Meanwhile, there are boats to deliver, the next two having a boomless main and a boomed main. Not a problem either way, though it is strange to see such an unruly crowd outside who appear to be afraid that the world will somehow end if any more boomless mains are sent out.

 

Ian Farrier

 

Farrier Marine

Designs that work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We broke our boom on a N20, loose footed mainsail going upwind, had 80 more miles to sail. Attached mainsheet to clew and proceeded to pass 2 boats in 15 kts of breeze. Would have finished the next 400 miles this way if a new boom wasn't sitting on the beach at the checkpoint.

 

Another point. Our outhaul on our F18 main is fixed. Yep, that's right, we don't adjust it. It comes stock from the factory this way. There is very little need for adjustment, as the apparent VMG on the main is basically upwind at all times. The only reason for a boom on this boat is it helps lock the mast rotation in. Fix that and you can go to a single bottom batten, I 100% stand by that option. At least on this scale, the boom is double the price of a lower batten, and the space is at a premium for a more complex mast rotation control system, i.e we'll keep our boom, but Ian's system sounds PERFECT for a larger boat where boom costs are much higher than battens.

Nacra 6.0na did pretty well without a boom. Worst part was remembering to handle the rotation for every tack and jibe...

 

Maybe some constrictors will help...probably better used for the foil/rig tension controls...

 

Back to the F22, hopefully we get one on the Chesapeake next year, boom or no boom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Can I point out that any time that a boomless setup is eased, or the mainsheet is eased, the sail has no choice but to become deep"

 

I agree, IF the mainsheet is eased. You ease a boomless setup by easing the traveller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about all these guys fuck off and we keep this for F-22 updates
If you are not interested go enjoy your boat whatever that is, whether it be less practical, slower/faster, non-single-handleable, have less room inside, have no where practical to keep it, have a re-sale value... etc... (Hmm maybe its an awesome thing leave it alone and go away seriously guys)

And for Ian

Thank you for the F24, that stored rigged on an air-dock was pretty much the best sailing times of my life!

And as for these guys, if the boomless doesn't work in the end, omg how hard is it to make a boom? omg it must be some space age technology or something, (seriously its a piece of pie, what are they complaining about? their own idiocy)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about all these guys fuck off and we keep this for F-22 updates

If you are not interested go enjoy your boat whatever that is, whether it be less practical, slower/faster, non-single-handleable, have less room inside, have no where practical to keep it, have a re-sale value... etc... (Hmm maybe its an awesome thing leave it alone and go away seriously guys)

 

And for Ian

 

Thank you for the F24, that stored rigged on an air-dock was pretty much the best sailing times of my life!

 

And as for these guys, if the boomless doesn't work in the end, omg how hard is it to make a boom? omg it must be some space age technology or something, (seriously its a piece of pie, what are they complaining about? their own idiocy)

Well thank you for adding to the discussion.

 

I am actually rather interested in the F22. I have sailed on a Sprint, which we raced against a tickled F22 (and actually beat more times then they beat us FYI). I now own a modified Grangier Tri (which we use for racing) and have recently been having discussions with the minister for finance about whether we purchase a Sprint/Dash type tri to keep on the boat ramp at home (race boat is not really practical for this) and cruise around on with the kids. The F22 would no doubt be part of the mix if it was available

I am not calling into question Ian's designs, or the quality or practicality of the F boats.

 

My issue is that Ian claimed that having no boom on his F22 design will make it faster than with a boom.

The F-Boat groupies (of with I assume you include yourself) telling the world that because Ian says it is faster, so therefore it is, is so short sighted and defies logic.

 

If I do buy an F22, I would go with the boomless option. But this would not be because it is faster. It would be because it is a simple and practical set-up that would suit the type of sailing I would do in the boat,

But lets not bullshit about it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Clipper,

So if the boat is designed properly (as the F22R is) do you think the boomless main would be worth a try. I had in mind to get it built with the option of moving the traveller further forward if necessary, and getting the mast built in such a way that a gooseneck could be added if necessary.

To me it seems to be worth a try as it will simplify cruising and derigging.

I would go for the boomless for sure and don't see why the traveller would have to be moved forward if you later decided to add a boom.

Also why have a gooseneck on the mast?

For cruising I wouldn't even get the main out. just use headsails.

Ian wrote:

"Adding a boom is an available option. However it will cost another $1500 or more and, besides adding expense, you will also be adding weight, complexity, and traveler has to be moved forward (which we can do) to where it is in the way and splits up the cockpit."

 

I am sure the boomless setup will/does work and works just as well as with a boom. I do object to the statement that traveler has to be moved forward.

My sprint has the traveller just below the mainsail clew and very close to the back of the cockpit. Thus I don't have to do anything to the mainsheet to roll the main. I am sure that it would work just as well with the traveller even further back where it would need to be to go boomless. In fact If I were keeping the boat I would be tempted to convert to boomless.

I am sure that if a F22 owner wanted to convert from boomless to adding a boom it would not be necessary to move the traveler.

If I was ordering a new F22 I would order a boomless but I would want a track and cars on the mast. Then I would add a very light minimalist boom as described earlier in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Rushsails,

If I pay for your flight down under will you come and tweak my boomless rig on boat 2 so we can thrash boat 3 on the water?

 

ps, name for new boat is now set.

 

BOOM!

Haven't even got the boats yet and already organizing the hired guns

We must have you worried :D

 

Ken

F22r #003 The one with a boom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE STFU!!!

 

I love the goddamn internet where any blasted tosser thinks he can argue with a guy whose designed boats that have sold in the thousands!

 

If you want an F22 with a boom get one with a boom. Ian's said a million times you can get one that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hey Rushsails,

If I pay for your flight down under will you come and tweak my boomless rig on boat 2 so we can thrash boat 3 on the water?

 

ps, name for new boat is now set.

 

BOOM!

Haven't even got the boats yet and already organizing the hired guns

We must have you worried :D

 

Ken

F22r #003 The one with a boom

Perhaps a good boat name for your number 3, might be, Boomer-rang.... :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE STFU!!!

 

I love the goddamn internet where any blasted tosser thinks he can argue with a guy whose designed boats that have sold in the thousands!

 

If you want an F22 with a boom get one with a boom. Ian's said a million times you can get one that way.

P

 

What if you want one with a boom and the traveler at the back? Ian says that you have to have the traveler forward if your gave a boom but he won't say why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you have a real long foot and boom or an arrangement where your boom sticks out past the sail you need the traveller a bit short of where the sheets attach so that the boom doesn't get pulled of and the mast can rotate. With boomless you pull the sail further back with your sheets, the harder you sheet on the more it pulls the rotation into correct position if the sail is designed for the boat. Was covered in an earlier post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How about all these guys fuck off and we keep this for F-22 updates

If you are not interested go enjoy your boat whatever that is, whether it be less practical, slower/faster, non-single-handleable, have less room inside, have no where practical to keep it, have a re-sale value... etc... (Hmm maybe its an awesome thing leave it alone and go away seriously guys)

 

And for Ian

 

Thank you for the F24, that stored rigged on an air-dock was pretty much the best sailing times of my life!

 

And as for these guys, if the boomless doesn't work in the end, omg how hard is it to make a boom? omg it must be some space age technology or something, (seriously its a piece of pie, what are they complaining about? their own idiocy)

Well thank you for adding to the discussion.

 

I am actually rather interested in the F22. I have sailed on a Sprint, which we raced against a tickled F22 (and actually beat more times then they beat us FYI). I now own a modified Grangier Tri (which we use for racing) and have recently been having discussions with the minister for finance about whether we purchase a Sprint/Dash type tri to keep on the boat ramp at home (race boat is not really practical for this) and cruise around on with the kids. The F22 would no doubt be part of the mix if it was available

I am not calling into question Ian's designs, or the quality or practicality of the F boats.

 

My issue is that Ian claimed that having no boom on his F22 design will make it faster than with a boom.

The F-Boat groupies (of with I assume you include yourself) telling the world that because Ian says it is faster, so therefore it is, is so short sighted and defies logic.

 

If I do buy an F22, I would go with the boomless option. But this would not be because it is faster. It would be because it is a simple and practical set-up that would suit the type of sailing I would do in the boat,

But lets not bullshit about it

 

Thats exactly what the boats are about... Im not saying because Ian says its faster, because its designed for it and it actually works is why it is faster in some certain circumstances.

 

If you want fast, I invite you out my Tornado, in Perth on a Typical 20 knot day! HAHA Because that's what I am a fanboy for, something ridiculously serious!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you have a real long foot and boom or an arrangement where your boom sticks out past the sail you need the traveller a bit short of where the sheets attach so that the boom doesn't get pulled of and the mast can rotate. With boomless you pull the sail further back with your sheets, the harder you sheet on the more it pulls the rotation into correct position if the sail is designed for the boat. Was covered in an earlier post.

If you use the boom setup I described earlier, where the mainsheet and the clew of the sail does not attach to the boom, then the above does not apply and you don't need the traveler forward. Just a webbing loop attaching the mainsheet to the clew. The boom passes uh rough that loop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

But then your boom is pointless because the traveller is mounted aft of the clew so would always pull the foot tight and would mean your outhaul wouldn't work, unless you cut your sail with a longer foot, then that would work. But in the case you are talking you need the traveller inline with or slightly in front of the clew to make it work.

Where as in the boomless version, the traveller is set behind the clew (by quite a long way by the looks) to pull the sail at the correct angle to get the right shape, otherwise all you would have is a bit bag that dragged you sidways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

But then your boom is pointless because the traveller is mounted aft of the clew so would always pull the foot tight and would mean your outhaul wouldn't work, unless you cut your sail with a longer foot, then that would work. But in the case you are talking you need the traveller inline with or slightly in front of the clew to make it work.

Where as in the boomless version, the traveller is set behind the clew (by quite a long way by the looks) to pull the sail at the correct angle to get the right shape, otherwise all you would have is a bit bag that dragged you sidways.

Just think about it a little.

Why would it pull the foot tight with a boom there, in the webbing loop but not attached to it.

The boomless does not pull the foot tight does it.

The boomless pulls the sail at just the right angle.

What difference does the boom make and why would you need an out haul?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have that setup - it makes it simple to deal with rotation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well then why put a boom with a webbing loop on? Why not just leave it boomless?

I keep my boat on a mooring and only go on a trailer once or twice a year. I hate bolt ropes and topping lifts. I love mast tracks and cars and lazy jacks. Without a boom there is nothing to which to attach lazy jacks.

I see Ian's point if every time you want to go sailing you are happy to hitch up the trailer, tow to the launching ramp, raise the mast, launch the boat and then at the end of the day do all that in reverse. For me, if it took all that I just would not bother. I have had boats on moorings since 1981 and I love the convenience. Having lazy jacks and a mast track just enhances the experience.

I also like to have the traveler at the back of the cockpit where it belongs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the traveller curved on the F22, and if not does this have an effect of tightening the main if the traveller is dropped in a gust?

No and yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How big a job would it be to fit a curved travellor, as I could see this could simplify tuning the main. Can these travellors be bent or do they have to be manufactured with the curve in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A curve traveller is just a straight one with a slight curve rolled into it. The traveller doesn't seem very wide though, so not sure how much the main would tighten when you drop it completely.

 

It all makes sense now NUDDY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How big a job would it be to fit a curved travellor, as I could see this could simplify tuning the main. Can these travellors be bent or do they have to be manufactured with the curve in them.

 

If there was any need for a curved traveler then one would be fitted on the F-22 as standard, but such a complication is unnecessary and unwarranted.

 

All the travelers on the fastest F-25Cs (boomless) are straight, around 2m long, simple and low cost, or the same as the F-22. Such straight travelers are already proven to be more than fast enough, but, in addition, the F-22 may also come with a unique lower batten that will stiffen automatically to the right curve so that it can hold the main foot exactly as required (not too full) when needed off the wind.

 

In this regard, one shortcoming I have always found with boomed mains is how flat and inefficient they can be downwind, particularly in the lower half, with what is usually only limited outhaul adjustment. In contrast, the boomless main has the potential to be setup to be nice and full much more easily, or as a main should be off the wind.

 

Not on the prototype yet, but we are making the first one this week, and this will be standard if it all works as expected. Just a little patience is required.

 

Ian Farrier

 

Farrier Marine

Designs that work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's 2 meters?

 

F-22SternViewatdock.jpg

 

I would think it is short enough that it wouldn't need to be curved. And I would think that if you want to dump the main or depower quickly, the sheet would be the way to do it. And I would think that as you are adjusting power, you would want to do it with the sheet anyway, playing with the twist... No? Sure, it is more tension to manage, but that is what you are having to manage. And isn't that a fine tune? Seems to me like it should be smoother and more effective than the trav.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is the traveller curved on the F22, and if not does this have an effect of tightening the main if the traveller is dropped in a gust?

No and yes.

Just answering the question. I agree that with such a short traveller there would be no point curving it. I have long been an advocate of easing mainsheet in gusts rather than traveller to depower the top of the mainsail where it has the greatest leverage. IMO the traveller is for fine tuning, to bring the foot of the sail up to centreline with the sheet eased to twist the sail off and to drop the foot of the sail below centreline when overpowered short term (before reefing) as well as setting the main for reaching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Is the traveller curved on the F22, and if not does this have an effect of tightening the main if the traveller is dropped in a gust?

 

No and yes.
Just answering the question. I agree that with such a short traveller there would be no point curving it. I have long been an advocate of easing mainsheet in gusts rather than traveller to depower the top of the mainsail where it has the greatest leverage. IMO the traveller is for fine tuning, to bring the foot of the sail up to centreline with the sheet eased to twist the sail off and to drop the foot of the sail below centreline when overpowered short term (before reefing) as well as setting the main for reaching.

Not quite, easing the sheet on a boomless boat makes the sail very full, the lower third powers up, the whole sail gets very draughty. Trav and Cunningham, all the way, if dumping the sheet, you need to dump it ALL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Is the traveller curved on the F22, and if not does this have an effect of tightening the main if the traveller is dropped in a gust?

No and yes.
Just answering the question. I agree that with such a short traveller there would be no point curving it. I have long been an advocate of easing mainsheet in gusts rather than traveller to depower the top of the mainsail where it has the greatest leverage. IMO the traveller is for fine tuning, to bring the foot of the sail up to centreline with the sheet eased to twist the sail off and to drop the foot of the sail below centreline when overpowered short term (before reefing) as well as setting the main for reaching.

Not quite, easing the sheet on a boomless boat makes the sail very full, the lower third powers up, the whole sail gets very draughty. Trav and Cunningham, all the way, if dumping the sheet, you need to dump it ALL.

Sounds horrible.

I understand how Cunningham works on a sailboard with a bendy mast, and on a dinghy with a bendy mast but I don't see how tevioning the Cunningham beyond just enough to take the scallops out of the luff has any effect when using non stretch sailcloth and a mast that does not bend. Perhaps you are talking about a mast that does bend.

Perhaps Ian will enlighten us. What is the recommended response to a sudden overpowering gust when sailing a boomless production F22?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of course you can dump the sheet completely in a sudden unexpected gust, and sometimes you have to, but, same as any other boat, easing a couple of inches of main does not de power you, it powers you up, and kills your pointing/ability to feather, and makes your forestay slacker. gust on, ease track, open slot, pull on cunningham, and if still overpowered, reef/change down. same as any other boat. don't see how a boom changes any of this.

 

and, cunningham was of practical use long before bendy masts. for reference on what the cunningham does, see any tuning guide, from any sailmaker, for any class of boat, ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. It's quite clear that most folks on this thread don't understand multihull mains, least of all those with boomless mains. Forget about the boom for a second. Honestly it has very little bearing on sail shape!!!! This rig is >=31' tall. You don't think there will be a delta at the top, and the gust will hit first in the top 1/3rd of the sail? Upwind you need to de-power the upper 1/3rd of the leech-that means crank the Cunningham on, and ease the sheet. I seriously doubt the mast won't bend on an Aluminum/Carbon rotating rig designed for a square top main! Downwind, well there it can get tricky. If you don't have the chute up-honestly that can be a bad idea if you're trying to go deep, as the chute balances the sail plan and pulls the boat back under the rig when you run out of rudder-it's the same as upwind since the apparent wind is still generally forward of 90 degrees. However, with the chute up it is preferable to dump traveler, as the main is serving as a bit of a back stay. However, in our experience, the rig is 10X more robust than the owner of said rig thinks, and dumping it all to save the boat is probably a good idea downwind. Finally, the traveler length Ian has designed looks perfectly adequate, it is practically all we touch on the F18, and the F22 has much more bow volume for the same size rig. It all looks perfectly safe and well thought out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cunno will still help nuddy (cranked on) it aids upper twist

 

try with a small piece of cloth and stretch one edge with your hands

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam - No intent to be critical here and I am with you in terms of cunningham on to flatten the main and move the draft of the sail... but ease the sheet in a puff upwind??

 

Its got to be a pretty big ease then, no? Even on my F27 (non rotating rig and upper and lower checks to help keep forestay tension when easing sheet, the first thing that happens on a little bit of mainsheet ease is the whole boat poweres up a bit. The forestay is a bit more slack and the main more powered up initially. Or do you mean dump so much sheet that you are twisting off the top and luffing it?

 

In breeze and puffs in our 27 upwind, its cunningham full on first. Deal with puffs by easing the traveler. Second, and here is where folks start yelling but it works on the 27... then I start vang sheeting (yes, vang sheeting but should be reefing at this stage). Its pretty darn rare that between this and driving (feathering) that we can't get the boat under control but if dealing with big waves and chop such that feathering is not practical and we need to foot then if still over-powered its full twist mode (traveler up, less vang and less sheet) and rag off the top and back to dumping traveler in puffs.

 

After that I start praying.

 

Ideally after reefing.

 

I do wonder about this boomless thing but an open to learning something new.

 

Wess

Wow. It's quite clear that most folks on this thread don't understand multihull mains, least of all those with boomless mains. Forget about the boom for a second. Honestly it has very little bearing on sail shape!!!! This rig is >=31' tall. You don't think there will be a delta at the top, and the gust will hit first in the top 1/3rd of the sail? Upwind you need to de-power the upper 1/3rd of the leech-that means crank the Cunningham on, and ease the sheet. I seriously doubt the mast won't bend on an Aluminum/Carbon rotating rig designed for a square top main! Downwind, well there it can get tricky. If you don't have the chute up-honestly that can be a bad idea if you're trying to go deep, as the chute balances the sail plan and pulls the boat back under the rig when you run out of rudder-it's the same as upwind since the apparent wind is still generally forward of 90 degrees. However, with the chute up it is preferable to dump traveler, as the main is serving as a bit of a back stay. However, in our experience, the rig is 10X more robust than the owner of said rig thinks, and dumping it all to save the boat is probably a good idea downwind. Finally, the traveler length Ian has designed looks perfectly adequate, it is practically all we touch on the F18, and the F22 has much more bow volume for the same size rig. It all looks perfectly safe and well thought out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of course you can dump the sheet completely in a sudden unexpected gust, and sometimes you have to, but, same as any other boat, easing a couple of inches of main does not de power you, it powers you up, and kills your pointing/ability to feather, and makes your forestay slacker. gust on, ease track, open slot, pull on cunningham, and if still overpowered, reef/change down. same as any other boat. don't see how a boom changes any of this.

 

and, cunningham was of practical use long before bendy masts. for reference on what the cunningham does, see any tuning guide, from any sailmaker, for any class of boat, ever.

I just wrote a long response to this on the ipad and lost the lot when the ipad blinked. Can't be bothered and too late at night to do it all again right now but I will say 2 things.

1. when I am flying a hull and get hit by a gust, I first point higher, up to about 10 degrees higher. Then if the hull is still rising I don't dump the mainsheet, I ease a couple of inches (I always have it hand held, not cleated when hull flying) and the hull comes back down a little. You can't tell me that is powering up. as the gust eases it takes less than half a turn on the winch to regain that couple of inches to stand the leech back up and power up again.

Remember we are talking about gust response here, not response to a sustained wind increase where I would drop some traveller and reduce rotation as an interim measure before reefing.

2. I make adjustments to sail controls based on what I see them do to sail shape, not on what a tuning guide might tell me to do. I have observed what a cunningham does with a non bending mast and a cotton sail, a non bending mast with a dacron sail, a bendy mast with a dacron sail, a bendy mast with a Spectra sail, a bendy mast with kevlar sail, a bendy mast with a carbon membrane sail and a non bending mast with a kevlar (technora) sail. I have yet to experience a non bending mast with a carbon membrane but I expect the cunningham will have no further effect after the scallops/wrinkles have been removed from the luff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuddy, I agree with procedure #1 you outlined. Same exact procedure I have used on the 18, 20, and Corsair 43.

 

Wess, the key to your post was loss of rig tension as you eased the mainsheet. This, IMO, means your rig is not setup for breezy conditions! I understand it's non-trivial on a F27 or similar to crank the rig tension up, and the traveler method you use also works well but is slower IF you have someone who can constantly run the mainsheet, but I would evaluate how to carry more tension! We are running close to 500 lbs on an 18' cat, extrapolating I'd say you want 1500 lbs of tension between your 2 side stays in breeze.

 

That's all, time to save some hot air for the large gulp I'll be taking when we see a brand new F22 in person :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuddy, I agree with procedure #1 you outlined. Same exact procedure I have used on the 18, 20, and Corsair 43.

 

Wess, the key to your post was loss of rig tension as you eased the mainsheet. This, IMO, means your rig is not setup for breezy conditions! I understand it's non-trivial on a F27 or similar to crank the rig tension up, and the traveler method you use also works well but is slower IF you have someone who can constantly run the mainsheet, but I would evaluate how to carry more tension! We are running close to 500 lbs on an 18' cat, extrapolating I'd say you want 1500 lbs of tension between your 2 side stays in breeze.

 

That's all, time to save some hot air for the large gulp I'll be taking when we see a brand new F22 in person :)

Sam - I think you maybe (?) misunderstood me. Because my F27 is not a rotating rig and has upper and lower check stays its actually easier to get and keep rig tension regardless of the mainsheet. To the extent I keep tugging on the tensioners (attached to the upper and lower checks) I bend the heck out of the mast and flatten the sail and tighten the forestay. So that is all good things and a starting point for heavy air.

 

My point was that even when doing this, when in upwind mode in moderate to heavy air we are running as much mainsheet as we can get and while due to the aforementioned the mainsheet is pretty marginal as a backstay, it still does have some effect in that regard. And if I ease enough mainsheet to move the boom 6 inches for example I would bet the boom moves up (straight vertical) by 3 inches and to leeward by about 3 inches. At the same time the forestay has slightly less tension (more sag) though marginally so, but still slightly shifting the draft of the jib and fattening it. The net effect of this is that the head of the main while more twisted is still pulling and the rest of the main (and jib) are more powered up. That has not helped our cause to deal with the puff and to get those 6 inches of mainsheet back takes some serious beef and is slow.

 

On the other hand if we ease the traveler 6 inches to leeward the whole main shifts and the leading edge will show signs of luffing and may bubble if the jib is not also eased slightly. Its pretty ease and fast to get those 6 inches of traveler back when the puff has passed. That is why when fully crewed racing and hit by a puff in upwind mode in flat water we pinch up a bit first, then ease traveler. If we need to foot due to waves we ease traveler and jib sheet in the same puff. I can't understand why you are thinking a mainsheet ease would be either more effective or faster. Not wanting to start a fight here (frankly am curious if there is a better way).

 

Wess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wess,

 

Your setup is all making much more sense now. There are large fundamental differences between your F27 rig and the F22 rig talked about here, plus the rigs I mentioned, which all rotate, and all rely on heavy amounts of downhaul to aid the the diamonds in bending the mast and flattening the top of the sail (similar to your check stays). I am assuming you are running a pintail top main vs. a big square top main? I ask because I have no experience running pintail mains on non-rotating masts on multihulls; only on monohulls, where the VMG's are dramatically different, and the exact same depowering procedure you outlined is what we used on the monohulls I have raced (extensively). In short I suspect my experience is not relevant to your rig+hull combination.

 

On the boat I am currently campaigning it is too small for winches and playing the traveler from the trap wire can be difficult, so the crew plays the mainsheet which has an immediate effect on depowering the boat. On the Corsair 43, one crew has traveler, the other has the mainsheet. Double handed, the mainsheet is played first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam,

 

No, we are not running a pintop, we have a squaretop. Most F27s are these days. I see what you mean about being shorthanded - like you say for the C43 - and you can only manage one or the other of the mainsheet or traveler... yup, I am taking the mainsheet. I was talking racing.

 

Where is the C43?

 

Wess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, took me a minute to figure it out. You are busted. We have crossed tacks in small boats on WR and larger on the Bay. Is Tim doing Balt and Back on Triple and are you crewing? If so I need to catch up there, say goodbye and get him drunk before he heads south the lucky dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No successful race boat has a boom less mainsail and there are people / designers / teams throwing plenty of money at development. Alinghi5, leblack, groupama, D35's, Seacart, European lake boats, Oracle BOR90 with soft rig, Offshore multis, Orma 60's, F18's and off the beach boats. Someone mentioned that the Nacra guys use the boomless mainsail. Have a look at the Nacra range. The boats without booms are the ones sold to resort's for punters to take out for a sail. The pictures someone posted above showing how boomless mainsails are used on race boats ar