Jump to content


Robin

Member Since 10 Feb 2004
Offline Last Active Aug 31 2014 10:06 PM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Why did bloopers die

31 August 2014 - 10:05 PM

When I bought my Peterson 43 (used) it had a full complement of sails including both a light and heavy blooper, double head rig, blast reacher, tallboy staysail, on and on.  It was the last boat that I have owned that on which many of the specialty sails worked to increase boat speed when used in the right conditions and at the right angles.  I attibute that to the nature of the rig for that boat--high aspect main, masthead, very big fore triangle that was the rule for the early successfull bigger boats under the IOR.  As advantages of fractional rigs, larger mains, smaller jibs move up the fleet from the small boats the bloopers on larger boats disappeared as they did not work.  Under, ORR, IMS and IRC they are prohibitted.

 

I used the heavy blooper a lot on long races and the staysails both genoa and tallboy a lot. If I still had the 43 and was racing PHRF which permits the blooper I would still use it (but not on a 1 mile windward leward race).

 

Unlike many I never considered the early to mid era IOR machine's unstable down wind just more difficult drive well.  No question current boats have more stability and are much faster in every way.  My Sydney 38 rates PHRF 27 while the Peterson rated PHRF 60 or 57. But we had really great racing--I have a small picture on my wall of a local race in Chicago that has all of the boats in IOR section 1 racing that day (olympic course -- not yet endless W-Ls) with my 43 in the lead (put getting killed on handicap) with 3 NM 41s, 2 morgan 45s, 2 more Peterson 43s and a boat I cannot identify. The competition was great, better than it is today.  So maybe the IOR era was not so bad? 

 

Robin


In Topic: Ior boat a sym or sym spinn

28 August 2014 - 10:56 PM

I wonder if a boat with the tiny fore triangle and big main like this, wouldn't get more mileage out of a set of jumpers and a much roachier main.  Mainsail area works for you on every leg of the course, and makes a big difference downwind.  This could be traded against a slightly smaller jib, which gets back to the OP's idea of making the boat easier to sail and maybe needing a hair less crew on the side...

PHRF already allows a little more roach than early 80s IOR did. More than that, backstay clearance a problem. Jumpers not necessary for PHRF roach. Smaller genoa not too practical b/c foot too short to wrap around the shrouds and sheet inboard, unless you go all the way down to a 100% jib that sheets fwd of shrouds. That is much too small for the boat.
I agree the there were/are a number of ways to make the boat easier to sail but going from the overlapping genoas to 100% or 105% jib would make it way underpowered up wind in light air. Using jumpers makes sense only if you are going to mast head spinnaker (whether assym or sym). The rig had plenty of stability with its swept back spreaders. Although not swept back enough not to need runners and checks for best up wind performance. I also agree that given the mast location the roach clearance on the backstay would be a problem with a much bigger roached main.

Robin

In Topic: Using attached mainsail loose footed - will the sail hold up?

28 August 2014 - 09:24 PM

My belief is yes but as always talk to your sailmaker and you also may lose shape. You have another problem, unless the boat is very small it is not going to be easy to detach the clew while trying to steer if there is any wind in the sail at all. Much more likely to be able to dump the Main Halyard while easing the outhaul.

Robin

In Topic: Ior boat a sym or sym spinn

28 August 2014 - 09:16 PM

Cheetah,
Unlike some here, I'm can't think of a reason why it would not work ok.  A J/109 is certainly no planning sportboat, but does just fine with an assym.  If fact, if you look at the specs, there are a fair number of similarities.  The J has about a foot more LWL,  is deeper keeled, has about a foot more J, and obviously a more moderate/modern hull shape, which accounts for is 69-75 PHRF rating, but I still think an assym ought to work ok for you.
 
I raced in Solomons for a couple years on Foxtrot Corpen, and agree that the conditions there largely would favor an assym set up as the wind tends to be light and the course are random leg.  As a former J/109 owner, I concur that the crew requirements go down some with an assym, esp if teamed with a good roller furling system.  I've also raced a lot on older boats with sym chutes...both IOR types, J-24s, and MORC 30 footers. 
 
I say plan it all out with your sailmaker, talk to your PHRF rater, and then make the decision...but don't let all the "naysayers" drive you away with the lipstick on a pig stuff....
 
Crash

The problem is that you have to take the boats design era into account. The great advantage that the NY36 had in its era was waterline length against the rule and its competitors and Cook, the designer, took advantage of a whole in the IOR rule that was later plugged, designed the boat to have a lot of crew on the rail to enhance its upwind performance. Without that weight the boat was not nearly as manageable or as fast upwind. As a result even if for sail handling an assym reduces crew needs you may not want to reduce the number. I sailed my 36 either one design or under the IOR in one design configuration. Love the Boat and I am certain it could be competitive today but I am not sure that a pure assym set up is the way.

Robin

In Topic: Ior boat a sym or sym spinn

27 August 2014 - 05:15 PM

I once owned and raced a NY36. Great boat in some ways not so in others. If do a fair amount of point to point or distance racing both an assym and a high clewed reacher will help the performance of the boat. An exclusive assym conversion is more likely to result in loss of vmg as stated. If yours does not have them I highly recommend the addition of check stays to provide for greater main control even with the swept back spreaders.

Robin