Jump to content

Rig modification: longer+higher boom and more sail area?


Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

We’re a bit cowboy over here.  (But, and this is the critical point, not too cowboy.  Plus, we’re civilized.)

A bit cowboy for sure.

t1BweKb.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 300
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Lengthening your boom is going to move the C of E aft and affect your helm balance. Consult a pro like the Maestro.

Thanks -  I built the interior light, with a Hereshoff-ish interior.  It’s our Canadian log cabin, a nice boat to winter on (if further north, one day, need a liquid fuel cook stove since propane does

Agree. When I think of the number of boats on swing moorings here at the end of the civilised world and Sydney, the jewel of the South Pacific, the swing moorings still way outnumber the marinas.

Posted Images

5 hours ago, climenuts said:

I love the ferry commute logistics.

The ferry makes everything epic :-)

To date, I’ve hand-carried on board an 80 lb outboard motor, and a 17’ long skin-on-frame kayak wood frame.  (Not at the same time :-) ). Several other odd items.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

The ferry makes everything epic :-)

 

One of the reasons I didn't buy a place on Bruny Island. The ferry cost for a vehicle is substantial even with a resident permit. I just keep a couple of moorings over there so I can move back & forth in my own boat.

20' isn't too bad really. I carried a bunch of 6m sticks of 150 x 50 lumber on my 4WD the other day, though it does have the proper carry racks so minimal overhang. I wouldn't want to do it on my Subaru.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ride2live said:

Cowboys would leave the wings on>

.......and the engine.  Then, fly the plane to the storage shed and land on the street.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2021 at 7:29 PM, Panope said:

.......and the engine.  Then, fly the plane to the storage shed and land on the street.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done!  It is a very rare (27 built) Fleet 16R Finch 1.  It came back to Canada after time in Mexico and the U.S.A.  It was classed as a homebuilt and is now being recognized by its original serial number.  We were also able to get the correct canopy for it.  A tremendous amount of research has gone into restoring it to near original condition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very cool.

The landing gear and top wing (one piece, no dihedral) screams Fleet, but the horizontal stabilizer mounting point on the fuselage threw me off.

I've got about 50 hrs behind a Kinner B5 (125hp).  Absolutely no effort to (hand) start.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Longer boom now “done” - key parts: cut down and gooseneck end on to allow for accurate mainsail measurement.

Just need to decide, in consultation with rigger, if I should go with two or three bails for mainsheet blocks on the boom (since I won’t have end-boom sheeting anymore.). I’ll re-position the three reefing line cheek blocks once the new sail arrives.  Install one internal block on gooseneck end for outhaul line, so it can run aft inside the boom and then exit, to a jam cleat. Re-paint later.

Easy-peasy.  All in, $150 on the longer boom project so far.  Extra hardware will add some more cost, of course, but my mainsheet hardware (and line) needs renewing anyway.  Keep the old one as a spare?  Or for the next boat building project, the go-fast stripped-down catamaran?

CFC63551-4385-4B61-B25E-8800F2C5BEB8.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2021 at 4:25 PM, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

Longer boom now “done” - key parts: cut down and gooseneck end on to allow for accurate mainsail measurement.

Just need to decide, in consultation with rigger, if I should go with two or three bails for mainsheet blocks on the boom (since I won’t have end-boom sheeting anymore.). I’ll re-position the three reefing line cheek blocks once the new sail arrives.  Install one internal block on gooseneck end for outhaul line, so it can run aft inside the boom and then exit, to a jam cleat. Re-paint later.

Easy-peasy.  All in, $150 on the longer boom project so far.  Extra hardware will add some more cost, of course, but my mainsheet hardware (and line) needs renewing anyway.  Keep the old one as a spare?  Or for the next boat building project, the go-fast stripped-down catamaran?

CFC63551-4385-4B61-B25E-8800F2C5BEB8.jpeg

You will love saw horses if you get some. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Kris Cringle said:

You will love saw horses if you get some. :)

Yeah, yeah, yeah.  Problem, is I’ve got nowhere to store more :-).  My fixed ones are currently doing duty holding up a work table; I keep meaning to build some folding ones...but sails, rigging, electrical, a living room window replacement are keeping me busy.  Wait a second - my other fixed pair of horses is currently supporting a radar pole... :-). I knew I had a good excuse for using tree rounds!

(Actually, under that green tarp in the pic are massive 3+ ft diameter Western Red Cedar rounds...I should use those instead !)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2021 at 8:06 AM, jamhass said:

A new main will indeed significantly improve the boat's performance, reduce weather helm and likely give him what he really wants.  I couldn't believe the improvement in our boat's performance with a new main.

So, the new main measuring/design is well underway.  Met with sailmaker today.

One thing I’m not terribly clear on is pros/cons of 2 deep vs. 3 regular reefs.  Meant to clarify in discussion - forgot. Will follow up, but discussion here is always fruitful.

Two deep reefs end up being the same amount of sail area reduced as three reefs, correct?    Or not the case?

—If it is the case (that two deep reefs typically (always?) = three regular reefs), it sort of seems to make sense to go with two deep reefs.

—If NOT necessarily always the case (that two deep reefs = three regular reefs, and that three reefs could be made to be a greater sail area reduction than two deep ones), then it would *appear* to make sense to go with three reefs instead - and the third reef is truly the “oh fuck” really need to reduce sail area type of reef (for which reefing lines would already have been installed earlier, before leaving).
 

Does this reasoning make sense? Just trying to grasp the essential differences between 2 deep vs. 3 reefs.  Number one priority offshore, is safety obviously.  Seems to be a very good idea to have the ability to reduce the main by a lot if needed, if one doesn’t have/cannot set a trysail.  Does that mean 3 reefs - or are 2 deep ones always the same?  
 

 

 

5022A168-F634-4F4D-B748-ECCB0A626193.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

So, the new main measuring/design is well underway.  Met with sailmaker today.

One thing I’m not terribly clear on is pros/cons of 2 deep vs. 3 regular reefs.  Meant to clarify in discussion - forgot. Will follow up, but discussion here is always fruitful.

Two deep reefs end up being the same amount of sail area reduced as three reefs, correct?    Or not the case?

—If it is the case (that two deep reefs typically (always?) = three regular reefs), it sort of seems to make sense to go with two deep reefs.

—If NOT necessarily always the case (that two deep reefs = three regular reefs, and that three reefs could be made to be a greater sail area reduction than two deep ones), then it would *appear* to make sense to go with three reefs instead - and the third reef is truly the “oh fuck” really need to reduce sail area type of reef (for which reefing lines would already have been installed earlier, before leaving).
 

Does this reasoning make sense? Just trying to grasp the essential differences between 2 deep vs. 3 reefs.  Number one priority offshore, is safety obviously.  Seems to be a very good idea to have the ability to reduce the main by a lot if needed, if one doesn’t have/cannot set a trysail.  Does that mean 3 reefs - or are 2 deep ones always the same?  
 

Obviously the reefs can be wherever you want them to be. How stiff your boat is can drive where they are.  If you have a smallish mainsail, then maybe you don't need so many? With three reefs, the first reef is often fairly shallow. How often do you find yourself putting in the first reef to be followed by the second?  If shorthanded, why not go straight to the second reef and be done with it? 

40% luff reduction is what I understand is required by offshore rules if you don't have a trysail (happy to be corrected if wrong) - so I'm assuming that's where a hypothetical third reef would go. 

In my case I decided to put two reefs at 15% and 35% luff reduction, so my two reefs almost equal three reefs.  These two reefs and a staysail take me pretty far up in wind strength.  

Before I push off, I'm tempted to add a third reef at 45%.....but how often will I use that? 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a quick video by legendary Skip Novak on the tri-sail vs 4th(!) reef as storm sail. I post it with the notion that whatever your final reef number, make the final reef count if you can't rig a stormsail speedily. The size of that final reef should probably be smaller than most recommendations if that becomes the storm sail, which it usually does.

Any of his other videos are great. He has another good one on reefing the main that can be easily found, where you can check out the location of his reef points through certain wind ranges.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, fufkin said:

Here is a quick video by legendary Skip Novak on the tri-sail vs 4th(!) reef as storm sail. I post it with the notion that whatever your final reef number, make the final reef count if you can't rig a stormsail speedily. The size of that final reef should probably be smaller than most recommendations if that becomes the storm sail, which it usually does.

Any of his other videos are great. He has another good one on reefing the main that can be easily found, where you can check out the location of his reef points through certain wind ranges.

 

These videos are really good. There are some good ideas about sail construction as well. 

Estar wrote a nice article on reefpoints. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Elegua said:

These videos are really good. There are some good ideas about sail construction as well. 

Estar wrote a nice article on reefpoints. 

Elegua - you don’t happen to know the title of that article by Evans, do you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, fufkin said:

Here is a quick video by legendary Skip Novak on the tri-sail vs 4th(!) reef as storm sail. I post it with the notion that whatever your final reef number, make the final reef count if you can't rig a stormsail speedily. The size of that final reef should probably be smaller than most recommendations if that becomes the storm sail, which it usually does.

Any of his other videos are great. He has another good one on reefing the main that can be easily found, where you can check out the location of his reef points through certain wind ranges.

Thanks for this.

Sailmaker has kinda given me options for 2 vs. 3 reefs:

2 reefs, 20%/40%

3 reefs, 2 choices

13/27/40

15/30/45 (this would put reef point above batten, so sail unsupported there, I think sailmaker said - so using that (45%) as third reef in heavy air would likely be very hard on the sail (but at that point, doesn’t matter!)
 

We honestly rarely if ever reef - heavy boat.  (There have been a few times I’ve wanted to, but it wasn’t convenient/dangerous.) That being said, we’ve also never really been over 30 kts, and not offshore in this boat.

You said, “make the final reef count if you can't rig a stormsail speedily. The size of that final reef should probably be smaller than most recommendations if that becomes the storm sail, which it usually does.”

Seems like two deep reefs —in my case with heavy boat— might be sufficient —if it’s at 40%, since going to 45% (as in three reef example above) means only slightly smaller area, and means more hardware on boom, and adding another line means added complication.  That’s my takeaway that two deep reefs seems ok.

But, if going with three reefs —by “make the final reef count” you’re suggesting that a third reef should be greater than 40-45%?  In which case, maybe trysail makes sense instead?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Jud, it's lost to the internet. I just took down some notes for when it came time for myself to build a new main. 

It seems that often people talk about a "standard" reef around 12% - 3 "standard" reefs get you to 36% luff reduction.  ORC ask for a 40% reduction without a trysail. 

I went the two reef way and the notes I have for that are: 

  • Two reefs of 15% & 30% luff reduction for high righting moment boats that have a trysail.
  • Two reefs of 20% and 40% for the average boat. 
  • Two reefs of 15% and 35% somewhere in the middle. 

I have a moderate to small sized main of 34Mand good righting moment, so I went with the middle path of 15% and 35%. 

I have the rigging for a third reef. My top 3 battens are full, so I know where I'd put the reef. Were I to add one, I'd try to get close to the "correct" percentage reduction in luff, but pay more attention to construction.  The sailcloth that's good for most sailing conditions probably would be unhappy in 3rd reef conditions. 

I'm most likely not headed to polar regions, so I might not go full Skip Novak. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

Sailmaker has kinda given me options for 2 vs. 3 reefs:

2 reefs, 20%/40%

3 reefs, 2 choices

13/27/40

15/30/45

Jud, there is also a radical option:

3 reefs, 20/40/60

That brings the third reef well into storm territory, Skip Novak style.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

just as an fyi . . . .the world sailing requirements seem to have changed to "at least 50% reduction" for offshore (cat 1 & 2) if you dont have a trysail.

"4.26.3 Sail Inventory
MoMu1,2 Either a storm trysail as defined in OSR 4.26.2 d), or mainsail reefing to reduce
the luff by at least 50% (or rotating wing mast if suitable)"

I know the prior recommendations were criticized in several reports as more 'gale sized' and too big for 'actual storm conditions'.

When serious stuff was expected, we tended to like to pack the mainsail away early, so that we were not struggling with it in storm conditions and could get it all nicely and neatly and compactly flaked and tied.  Hawk  sailed and balanced very well on staysail alone in high winds and we had three sizes, including one smaller than the osr storm jib, so we were quite good right up to bare pole conditions.  We did have a try sail (OSR sized) and would use it basically in three conditions #1 if we had probability but not certainty of storm conditions, wanted to pack the mainsail away but there was not enough wind right atm (so like light gales conditions) for just staysail, or #2 there might be some strong upwind work and the trysail helped keep the boat bow up into the waves, or #3 occasionally just lazy on strongish wind day sails - just cant be bothered with the mainsail and could use just a little more than the working jib, and just pop the trysail up.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

just as a follow-up/ after thought on above 50% number for Jud's specific case . . . . . I guess WS is assuming typical modern race boat sa/displ . . . . and jud's is essentially already sailing around with 2 reefs in his main compared to those race boats . . . . so while 50% reduction would not be bad per say, 40% is probably fine (and in line with what WS is trying to accomplish) for him.

It does point out how blanket requirements like this 50% are a bit hmmm 'tricky' because there is such a wide range of boats parameters. 

Also related to Skip and his recommendations - we know him, he is an excellent seaman (high praise from me lol). . . . but you have to take his recommendations and background with a grain of salt.  He is a 'big boat' sailor (100's cats and heavy 80' monos - his 'small boat' is a very heavy 52'er, and his monos have had lifting keels which definitely effects storm handling characteristics).  And he has had (almost always) pro skippers and crew. And he usually sails to a schedule.  All that makes him somewhat 'untypical for a cruiser'.  Listen to what he has to say - it has experience behind it, but listen with an understanding of his particular bias and background.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Elegua said:

Sorry Jud, it's lost to the internet. I just took down some notes for when it came time for myself to build a new main. 

It seems that often people talk about a "standard" reef around 12% - 3 "standard" reefs get you to 36% luff reduction.  ORC ask for a 40% reduction without a trysail. 

I went the two reef way and the notes I have for that are: 

  • Two reefs of 15% & 30% luff reduction for high righting moment boats that have a trysail.
  • Two reefs of 20% and 40% for the average boat. 
  • Two reefs of 15% and 35% somewhere in the middle. 

I have a moderate to small sized main of 34Mand good righting moment, so I went with the middle path of 15% and 35%. 

I have the rigging for a third reef. My top 3 battens are full, so I know where I'd put the reef. Were I to add one, I'd try to get close to the "correct" percentage reduction in luff, but pay more attention to construction.  The sailcloth that's good for most sailing conditions probably would be unhappy in 3rd reef conditions. 

I'm most likely not headed to polar regions, so I might not go full Skip Novak. 

 

Thanks- I didn’t know about ORC...was wondering what exactly the sailmaker means by an “offshore main” - didn’t know it’s referencing a specific luff reduction amount (which, as Evans noted, have been revised)

Seems reasonable - 20% and 40%.  First reef fairly conservative, to quickly calm things down - seems a good idea for a shot handed crew (or possibly solo). And have the rigging on the boom (which I’m setting up from scratch anyway, since boom is “new”) for a third.  Then you have option to add a third reef later, depending on anticipated cruising grounds.

But I wouldn’t necessarily think that going to “polar regions” would dictate the need for a deep third reef.  (Certainly the higher N. Pacific and Gulf of Alaska, e.g., crossing from Japan, get deep lows.)  I’m guessing one is probably more likely to encounter really high winds in cyclone/hurricane-prone areas (if you’re unlucky/unwise enough to be sailing during “storm season”...but these days who really knows when exactly that is).

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, estarzinger said:

just as a follow-up/ after thought on above 50% number for Jud's specific case . . . . . I guess WS is assuming typical modern race boat sa/displ . . . . and jud's is essentially already sailing around with 2 reefs in his main compared to those race boats . . . . so while 50% reduction would not be bad per say, 40% is probably fine (and in line with what WS is trying to accomplish) for him.

It does point out how blanket requirements like this 50% are a bit hmmm 'tricky' because there is such a wide range of boats parameters. 

Also related to Skip and his recommendations - we know him, he is an excellent seaman (high praise from me lol). . . . but you have to take his recommendations and background with a grain of salt.  He is a 'big boat' sailor (100's cats and heavy 80' monos - his 'small boat' is a very heavy 52'er, and his monos have had lifting keels which definitely effects storm handling characteristics).  And he has had (almost always) pro skippers and crew. And he usually sails to a schedule.  All that makes him somewhat 'untypical for a cruiser'.  Listen to what he has to say - it has experience behind it, but listen with an understanding of his particular bias and background.  

 

Thanks for your further thoughts, Evans.  Indeed, we are most definitely not like the average modern race boat...so, 40% (second deep reef) seems like a good, fairly conservative approach.  I do see what you mean that there really can be no blanket approach - too many boat parameters.  Approach Skip Novak’s advice with an open mind, but not viewing it as gospel.  Definitely a lot of info for a “layperson” to take in and fully synthesize. 

I’m not opposed to adding a third “just in case” reef.  Would rarely if ever be used, but at least it’s there if you really get scared :-).  I’d also see the value in having a trysail set up at some point (if doing extended higher latitude crossings), as they’re small to store, and also give a sort “temporary emergency spare main” option if the main gets damaged.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

Thanks- I didn’t know about ORC...was wondering what exactly the sailmaker means by an “offshore main” - didn’t know it’s referencing those specific numbers (which, as Evans notes below, have been revised)

Seems reasonable - 20% and 40%.  And have the rigging on the boom (which I’m setting up from scratch anyway, since boom is “new”) for a third.  Then you have option to add a third reef later, depending on anticipated cruising grounds.

But I wouldn’t necessarily think that going to “polar regions” would dictate the need for a deep third reef.  (Certainly the higher N. Pacific and Gulf of Alaska, e.g., crossing from Japan, get deep lows.)  I’m guessing one is probably more likely to encounter really high winds in cyclone/hurricane-prone areas (if you’re unlucky/unwise enough to be sailing during “storm season”...but these days who really knows when exactly that is).

I don't know the context in which your sailmaker was speaking.  When I was looking for sails found that sailmakers market white triangles to most sailors under some "Cruising" cross-cut dacron and then had a, "Bluewater" or "Offshore" grade. Usually this meant bigger patches, more reinforcement, spectra webbing and name brand hardware, better cloths and sometimes triple stitching or better threads.  When I talked to them about ORC regs they knew what I was talking about, but I got the feeling they thought it strange and generally didn't speak about it in those terms. 

The polar comment was flip. Low latitude cruising. If I were cruising in any area where there was a decent chance of me not being able to avoid a significant low I would go for the extra reef point.  I don't have room for a trysail track and and that's got me thinking about adding an ear to my mast collar for a dyneema strop for a trysail. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

just an odd thought

if the boat/sail are meant for passage making in high winds requiring a deep third reef

should the sail cloth be heavier up top and lighter in the area taken up by the first reef

as the first reef area will seldom see high winds and the top is expected to see much higher loads much longer

has anyone seen a sail made that way or is that idea too far from normal practice

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

I’m not opposed to adding a third “just in case” reef.  Would rarely if ever be used, but at least it’s there if you really get scared :-).  I’d also see the value in having a trysail set up at some point (if doing extended higher latitude crossings), as they’re small to store, and also give a sort “temporary emergency spare main” option if the main gets damaged.

That's the thinking behind my suggestion 60% third reef.  Maybe some day you will get a trysail set up, and maybe some day you will feel happy using it.   But in the meantime, here's something you can deploy easily with your existing hardware.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:

That's the thinking behind my suggestion 60% third reef.  Maybe some day you will get a trysail set up, and maybe some day you will feel happy using it.   But in the meantime, here's something you can deploy easily with your existing hardware.

True.  Realistically, I haven’t thought through heavy weather stuff.  In the meantime, seems like a good, simple, practical, affordable option that I can set up.

Medium-term, in a few years, I’d like to get north up the coast here, past Glacier Bay this time and out towards Kodiak, Alaska.  I can see wanting a dedicate trysail for the return south, across the Gulf of Alaska.  By then, I’ll be able to justify and afford it.  For now, take care of basics.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

the sail makers 'problem' with a mostly unused 3 reef . . is that it probably shortens sail life by increasing leach flutter and flogging (extra weight up there) and creates discontinuities in the cloth so probably wrecks shape after some period of time

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

if you really get scared :-). 

sea room, some nice tunes turned up high, and a sipping glass of an aged single malt :)

 

Beth always knew when I was actually worried, because I got quiet and gave very calm directions in a low clear voice.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, estarzinger said:

sea room, some nice tunes turned up high, and a sipping glass of an aged single malt :)

 

Beth always knew when I was actually worried, because I got quiet and gave very calm directions in a low clear voice.

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2021 at 10:23 AM, estarzinger said:

the sail makers 'problem' with a mostly unused 3 reef . . is that it probably shortens sail life by increasing leach flutter and flogging (extra weight up there) and creates discontinuities in the cloth so probably wrecks shape after some period of time

 

Well, I’ve bent on a trysail for the first time - free to me a year ago, from a 35’er.  (It looks in terrible shape in the pic b/c of the sun shadows, but is actually just a bit wrinkly from how it was stuffed unceremoniously in its bag, unused.)  Seems like a pretty simple affair to add a bit of track, one day, and figure out independent sheeting (i.e., independent of the boom) back to some blocks on the quarters, and sew up a simple Sunbrella bag to store it in at the base of the mast for the very rare occasion it’s ever needed.

(That is, after I double check its size relative to my P and E. ISAF says trysails must have an “area not greater than 17.5% mainsail hoist (P) x mainsail foot length (E). The storm trysail area shall be measured as (0.5 x leech length x shortest distance between tack point and leech.”)

That should suffice as a storm main if the two deep reefs (which I think I’ll go with) are ever insufficient. (i.e., to avoid having a third deeper reef installed, likely to remain unused 99.99% of the time, which you note could be problematic).

793AC57A-14DF-47DC-8057-3F62F5DCB364.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

figure out independent sheeting (i.e., independent of the boom) back to some blocks on the quarters ...... and sew up a simple Sunbrella bag to store it in at the base of the mast for the very rare occasion it’s ever needed.

two quick side comments.

(1) independent sheeting is necessary in case you are using the trysail because the boom has broken . . . .but we found the 'typical' sheeting to the quarters only worked well for upwind or close reaching.  Really sucky shape and poor boat balance if you were off the wind.  We figured a way to sheet to the boom for off the wind use and it was much better than the quarters.  My guess is that not many people have enough actual trysail experience to have played around with this.

(2) and yea, the bag was important for us.  We found if we put the try bagged on the track as we started a passage we would actually use it when it was prudent . . . while if we did not (and left it in the sail locker) when it got shitty we would not go to the effort of dragging it out and getting it on the track and instead make do with the sails already up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, estarzinger said:

two quick side comments.

(1) independent sheeting is necessary in case you are using the trysail because the boom has broken . . . .but we found the 'typical' sheeting to the quarters only worked well for upwind or close reaching.  Really sucky shape and poor boat balance if you were off the wind.  We figured a way to sheet to the boom for off the wind use and it was much better than the quarters.  My guess is that not many people have enough actual trysail experience to have played around with this.

(2) and yea, the bag was important for us.  We found if we put the try bagged on the track as we started a passage we would actually use it when it was prudent . . . while if we did not (and left it in the sail locker) when it got shitty we would not go to the effort of dragging it out and getting it on the track and instead make do with the sails already up.

Great “real world” info - thanks a ton, Evans.  It’s like improvised haul systems (3:1, and then adding on to increase mech adv) for the the climbing/mountaineering -better to learn your systems ahead of time on flat ground...will play around with different trysail sheeting options this summer (and actually try it out in stronger conditions this coming fall).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jud, I have to say that I am really enjoying your threads about Sputnik.  You are throwing out ideas, unafraid to be shot down, engaging intelligently and good-naturedly with the flood of contradictory responses ... and then choosing your own path based on your response to it all, taking what you need from the hubbub to find a good and economical solution.

This is CA at its best.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jud, have you considered putting two regular reefs in now and adding #3 when you set off for this trip? Locally & Inside Passage you won't need #3 and have the trysail just in case. When you're putting yourself into situations where it's more likely to need #3 you can add it on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TwoLegged said:

Jud, I have to say that I am really enjoying your threads about Sputnik.  You are throwing out ideas, unafraid to be shot down, engaging intelligently and good-naturedly with the flood of contradictory responses ... and then choosing your own path based on your response to it all, taking what you need from the hubbub to find a good and economical solution.

This is CA at its best.

Well, gosh, thanks :-). I’ve found this a really “intellectually fertile” way to hash out ideas, often on stuff, new projects, that I have little clue about!  :-) Learning as I go. There is such a tremendous well of knowledge, opinions and experience here,  that I’m really often quite astounded.  When a good number of folks here speak, I stand up to attention and listen carefully. :-)  I’m quite amazed at this place as a resource and community - I’ve learned a great deal here (including finding out what I don’t know!).  Hopefully turning my boat into a sturdy, self-sufficient, oceangoing vessel.

I’ll find myself in the middle of a work day, wiring a house or building, or troubleshooting done electrical issue, my brain abuzz with ideas, projects I’m in the middle of, and it keeps me going to be able to brainstorm them here so that when it actually comes time to do them, I’ve gotten a significant leg up on things.  Hugely appreciative of everyone’s time and generosity.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, climenuts said:

Jud, have you considered putting two regular reefs in now and adding #3 when you set off for this trip? Locally & Inside Passage you won't need #3 and have the trysail just in case. When you're putting yourself into situations where it's more likely to need #3 you can add it on.

Well, I think the idea is that two deep reefs is simpler. 

First reef conservative because, why not, we’re short handed, I might be solo at one point and that’s, and this is how Estar and others with vastly more experience than I have done— then it seems like instead of adding a third reef, having a trysail bagged is the “third reef option” (rarely if ever used, but I’ve got the sail already, so might as well have it set up, for when we head offshore).

Ultimately it comes down to choice, it seems.  But I’m seeing the virtue of two deep reefs - de-power immediately (my wife will appreciate this option, I think, as will my teenage daughter who is happier dinghy sailing and isn’t quite comfortable with big boat forces at sea yet   :-) ).  Or me if singlehanded. Keep it mellow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2021 at 1:03 PM, TwoLegged said:

Jud, there is also a radical option:

3 reefs, 20/40/60

That brings the third reef well into storm territory, Skip Novak style.  

If I recall your rigg from the photos correctly you have a pair of running backstays. Might be a good idea to have the first reef tailored so that the head of the sail in #1 reef just clears the running backstays while tacking. You will love this.

In my experience the #1 reef should be of a considerable area. I would go more with 20% than 13%. Remember you usually decide to reef too late. I know plenty of occasions when we put in reef #1 late and some minutes went down to #2.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

Well, I think the idea is that two deep reefs is simpler. 

First reef conservative because, why not, we’re short handed, I might be solo at one point and that’s, and this is how Estar and others with vastly more experience than I have done— then it seems like instead of adding a third reef, having a trysail bagged is the “third reef option” (rarely if ever used, but I’ve got the sail already, so might as well have it set up, for when we head offshore).

Ultimately it comes down to choice, it seems.  But I’m seeing the virtue of two deep reefs - de-power immediately (my wife will appreciate this option, I think, as will my teenage daughter who is happier dinghy sailing and isn’t quite comfortable with big boat forces at sea yet   :-) ).  Or me if singlehanded. Keep it mellow.

Jud,

I went with two deep (really deep) mainsail reefs and a trysail and am happy with the choice.  There is most certainly a "gap" in performance (wind too strong for full sail/not strong enough for next reef), but if you are not in a hurry, this is no big deal.

For me, the trysail is more of a working "gale" sail than a "storm sail" (I am not crossing oceans).  Trysail is about 85sq. feet (15,000 lb. boat) and is surprisingly powerful in 30 kts.  At 40kts., I would strike the trysail and proceed under the 75sq. foot headsail.  

GbhxDGt.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jud - s/v Sputnik To make the right choices, I would try to sail the boat under staysail alone upwind in very windy conditions, you might get a good surprise. If it works it means that you might not need a trysail at all. I've never sailed a Caroff so honestly don't know how she will behave but very few French boat carry a trysail and when things get bad we just get the main down and soldier on with the storm jib! It only works with lot of wind otherwise there is too much lee helm. Some heavier boats can't tack like this but this is OK as the gybe is very uneventful (pull the helm while at the top of a wave, release half a meter of sheet and off you go!) plus it eliminates the risk of "stalling/inverting the rudder".

The purists might disagree with me but I think that this option is quite safe as you rig the staysail / storm jib while conditions are still "OK", then you go from jib/staysail + 2 reefs -> jib/staysail + 3 reefs -> jib/staysail only. It means that you never go forward of the mast in more than 35 knots of wind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Panope said:

Jud,

I went with two deep (really deep) mainsail reefs and a trysail and am happy with the choice.  There is most certainly a "gap" in performance (wind too strong for full sail/not strong enough for next reef), but if you are not in a hurry, this is no big deal.

For me, the trysail is more of a working "gale" sail than a "storm sail" (I am not crossing oceans).  Trysail is about 85sq. feet (15,000 lb. boat) and is surprisingly powerful in 30 kts.  At 40kts., I would strike the trysail and proceed under the 75sq. foot headsail.  

Panope, your boat is wonderful, but it's also has a very rare rig.  I dunno the numbers, but from the photos it looks like last stop on the way to a catboat: your upwind sail area seems to be about 85% mainsail.  That's quite a contrast to Sputnik, which is a fairly small-mained cutter.  At a very rough guess, I reckon Sputnik's full upwind rig is about 35% mainsail.

On those guesstimated figures, a 20% reef on Panope takes out 17% of total sail area ... but on Sputnik it takes out only ~7% of total sail area.

Maybe not a great comparison.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TL,

You are correct, Panope does have the "near catboat" rig that you described. 

But, I believe this bolsters my view that 2 Deep reefs (instead of multiple shallower reefs) is OK. 

In other words, with Jud's tiny main, having 2 Deep reefs should be no problem at all because (as you say) his mainsail reef will have less effect on total sail area.

All that said, I should have clarified the odd nature of my rig.  

Thanks for bringing it up.

Steve

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
1 hour ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

New, 4 foot longer boom stripped of all hardware, currently priming for paint.

14912D1B-974D-4D01-BC1E-DEA3F41566FD.jpeg

Candy apple red metallic flake?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Finally the last project in the new boom build, making spacers (from some large Delrin rod I have) to take up the gap between the new boom’s boom-end gooseneck fitting, and the existing mast gooseneck fitting.  It’s what an experienced rigger recommended, and I’ve got the Delrin rod, so I’m in luck. 

This weekend I plan to assemble all the hardware —outhaul, outhaul exit/cleat, and bails l (main sheet and vang attachments)— and install on the boat, finally.  Can’t install reefing line cheek blocks until I have the new sail (and see where the reefs are).

0C8A2489-F8DE-4E1F-9169-516D427A25E8.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks nice and robust - I’m a little jealous.  

I’ve got half a dozen of those same plastic calipers, one in each of my tool stashes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, toddster said:

Looks nice and robust - I’m a little jealous.  

I’ve got half a dozen of those same plastic calipers, one in each of my tool stashes.

I had one pair, they pissed me off with their all round shit quality so I bought another 3 sets of Mitutoyo stainless verniers for the boat.

Those plastic ones are OK I suppose if you get the ones graduated in fractions of an inch - I hear they make special runs of those for the USA.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

I had one pair, they pissed me off with their all round shit quality so I bought another 3 sets of Mitutoyo stainless verniers for the boat.

Those plastic ones are OK I suppose if you get the ones graduated in fractions of an inch - I hear they make special runs of those for the USA.

FKT

For what I’m doing, the plastic ones are accurate enough - in 32nds and mms.  KISS.  (Good pair for the boat for checking basic stuff.)

When it comes to actual machining, I’ve got a friend who owns all the good tools - saves me lots of money and space :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

For what I’m doing, the plastic ones are accurate enough - in 32nds and mms.  KISS.  (Good pair for the boat for checking basic stuff.)

When it comes to actual machining, I’ve got a friend who owns all the good tools - saves me lots of money and space :-)

I'm rebuilding my drive system ATM - the builder was an idiot and an optimist WRT water sealing. Sadly he was wrong.

Anyway making a new setup that has to fit into the same space means measuring to better than tenths of a millimeter in confined spaces then double-checking for tolerance stacking to keep total lengths the same. Think dry assembly on a surface plate using a vernier height gauge. I don't feel like machining a new prop shaft ATM which is the alternative.

Verniers calibrated in fractions of an inch are funny.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Over 8 weeks in (was told it would be 6 weeks) after finalizing the sail order, still waiting for new mainsail. (Hemming and hawing over 2 big reefs vs. 3, and batten lengths, all full or not, delayed me finalizing the order, adding a few weeks to the whole thing.)

Can I blame the delay on Covid/global shipping/supply chain issues?  Maybe.

Anyway, I’m currently making 4 knots in the right direction with what now looks like a heavily reefed main (the old one, on the new longer boom), so life is good. 

A question occurs to me- as I look up at my old main, where it rubs in the aft intermediate stay...when you have a new sail made, are these chafe points something you sort out after you raise the sail and see where potential problem areas are/will be?  It doesn’t look like this has damaged the old sail, really, but with an expensive new one soon to be on the boat, and never having had a new sail before, I can seen wing paranoid about stuff like this.

72F5F6B8-4E23-4FB9-A7B9-B0AC8A93B252.jpeg

73356AF4-59FE-4E65-816D-4FFE239494E4.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, longy said:

Get rid of the aft inters and use running backs when you fly the stsl. No chafe, better mast support.

I can't see any way in which runners would offer better support.   And all runners offer no support at all when a fallible human screws up engaging them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Permanent 'aft inters' are so far forward & inboard that their angle to the spar is very low - they add a lot of compression while doing very little to actually support the inner headstay loads. A 'runner' lead as far aft as possible has a large angle to the spar & requires much less load to straighten the inner headstay. I have yet to see a cruising spar that would suffer from not setting the runners quickly. And if runners led far aft, a well reefed main will cross underneath them - so the runner can be left on during the maneuver.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, longy said:

Permanent 'aft inters' are so far forward & inboard that their angle to the spar is very low - they add a lot of compression while doing very little to actually support the inner headstay loads. A 'runner' lead as far aft as possible has a large angle to the spar & requires much less load to straighten the inner headstay. I have yet to see a cruising spar that would suffer from not setting the runners quickly. And if runners led far aft, a well reefed main will cross underneath them - so the runner can be left on during the maneuver.

Sorry, I thought you were referring to a replacement for the backstay.  And after a re-read, I see you clearly weren't.  Duh.   I guess i was thrown by the mention of runners rather than checkstays.

I still wouldn't fancy checkstays, though.  That sort of boat isn't well-suited to more string.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, longy said:

Get rid of the aft inters and use running backs when you fly the stsl. No chafe, better mast support.

Not sure that's quite what the OPs rig looks like.

I think he has one of those cruiser telegraph poles, with inline spreaders and a pair of D1s, one forward and one aft. The aft one rubs on the main. I don't think it's anything to do with supporting the rig at inner forestay level, just stopping it pumping at the lower spreaders.

I'd probably just accept it. You could replace it with an in-line D1. Rig wouldn't be quite as bullet proof. Probably not worth the faff 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

A question occurs to me- as I look up at my old main, where it rubs in the aft intermediate stay...when you have a new sail made, are these chafe points something you sort out after you raise the sail and see where potential problem areas are/will be?

I was able to send my old sail to the sailmaker, but you are getting one that is very different is size?  Other than that, you'll have a very good idea of what you missed after a season. 

14 minutes ago, European Bloke said:

I think he has one of those cruiser telegraph poles, with inline spreaders and a pair of D1

It's a fairly short and stout single spreader rig I think?  Runner's aren't need to keep the mast up, but they do help a lot with tensioning the staysail and eliminating any mast movement. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

when you have a new sail made, are these chafe points something you sort out after you raise the sail and see where potential problem areas are/will be?

Yes. You can ask the sailmaker for some sticky back when you get the sail. And cut some 2-3" wide strips to protect the fabric of the sail after it has rubbed enough to leave some marks. Cut the corners with a gentle radius to prevent peel. If you tell her what it for and explain that stick back scraps will work you might get some scraps + buy a couple of yards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Zonker said:

sticky back 

our experience ( for long blue work) was that sticky back was not sufficient protection - we a combination of (a) thin uhmw tape (eg million dollar tape) as the first layer in the very highest contact points, (b) dyneema webbing especially where battens contacted stays, and (c) dyneema cloth.

unless you are making an absolutely identical one to the prior one (where you can copy the patch/chafe locations to the new sail) - then it is best to wait to hoist the new sail and mark chafe spots and put on the patches.  For some reason it is hard for the sail makers to figure out where the new chafe spots will be even when they have the old sail.  We were replacing a north main sail for a north main sail in Hawaii and they said they could place the chafe patches accurately - but by the time we got to Vancouver we knew all the patches were enough out that they had to all be moved.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Evans,

Did you typically lock the boom down with a preventer? I found that this really helped reduced chafe because the boom wasn't rotating up and down at the gooseneck. The fabric would be pressed against a shroud but because the boom didn't move, the sail was quite static against the lower aft shroud.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, longy said:

Get rid of the aft inters and use running backs when you fly the stsl. No chafe, better mast support.

 

22 hours ago, European Bloke said:

Not sure that's quite what the OPs rig looks like.

I think he has one of those cruiser telegraph poles, with inline spreaders and a pair of D1s, one forward and one aft. The aft one rubs on the main. I don't think it's anything to do with supporting the rig at inner forestay level, just stopping it pumping at the lower spreaders.

I'd probably just accept it. You could replace it with an in-line D1. Rig wouldn't be quite as bullet proof. Probably not worth the faff 

Thanks.  I’m not entirely sure I’m understanding the terminology you’re both using - well, I used it first! :-) - aft inters - only b/c I heard a rigger use that to describe them (but he used that term based on talking to me, hearing my description on the phone, not actually seeing the boat.) So, let me try to describe better what I have.

(1) Cutter rig (true cutter; inner forestay isn’t at masthead, like a “slutter”). Single spreader. Two uppers (obviously).

(2) At the mast at spreader level and in line with the mast and uppers are stays port/starboard. 

(3) There are two stays just above (maybe 1 ft/30 cms or less) spreader level that go aft.  They attach to the deck about 2 ft/60 cms aft of the chainplates for (2) and (1) [uppers] noted above.

There are no stays at spreader level that are forward of the mast.

(pic below describes all this, I think)

A rigger suggested that for local/weekend gentle weather/season sailing (vs. going offshore/open west coast here/longer distance) I simply remove the inner forestay and those two aft stays described in (3) above.  Leave them at home.  (Would make it easier to tack the big Genoa too.) And, he also said, more modern rigs with swept back spreaders/stays there have basically the same issue with mainsail - just part of the deal. So it is.

My inclination is to not fuck with it...and just put some kind of chafe patches on the new mainsail (thanks for the details, @Zonker)...but part of me also sort of wants to “modernize” the rig...what can I do to allow boom to go more forward off the wind/not chafe at all...but - is some sort of removable/soft aft stays really even a possibility if you don’t, at the same time, have a removable inner forestay?  (Presumably, if you don’t have the aft inters —or what ever they’re called— on/tensioned, then the inner forestay shouldn’t be on/tensioned either...which means a Hyfield lever type of set up?  It all starts to sound a bit more complicated than I want....so maybe just chafe patches and forget it??

 

E27E54AA-D9CB-4DB4-82BA-F08878D7D7BC.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Zonker said:

Did you typically lock the boom down with a preventer? 

yes, we did, and agreed it helps a lot.  We had preventer set a lot of the time - almost always in light airs any angle and in deep stuff any strength.

We has swept back spreaders and dyform wire (which is perhaps more aggressive than either 1x19 or rod) and 'high tech' sails so it was probably a near worst case for chafe.

On Silk we had rod and dacron sails, and it was better, but still on long downwind crossings 'more than sticky back' seemed to be the right answer for us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jud - just to clarify: you have in-line spreaders, a single lower shroud also in-line. The 'aft inters' attach just above (12"?) the spreaders.  

Where does the inner headstay attach?

Basic mast tuning: spar is a tube in compression,  (depending on wall thickness & tube shape) it will want to bow out of straight line in any direction. The shrouds prevent this and allow for some amount of controlled bend to shape sails. Ideal 'tune' is perfectly straight athwartships, and a slight forward bow in the middle of the spar. (because forward is better than aft for main shape).

If spar is perfectly straight, it can bend in any direction. To lock it down to where it does not bend you have to support it in both directions. A spar that 'pumps' (bends back & forth) is weak/damaging itself.

So with your spar, the single in-line lowers support the spar sideways, but do not do anything for fore/aft support. The inner forestay pulls the mast forward where it attaches, and when you set a sail on it the tension increases a bunch. So there must be something pulling aft close to that point to resist that loading. Usually there is something at that same height pulling aft - either runners (temporary stays) or 'aft inters" that are permanent. You have a oddball set up, I've never seen a spar rigged the way you report. Doesn't mean it's wrong, we don't know the tube shape or the tube strengths. But from your description, those stays need to remain, and you'll have to deal with chafe by adding to the sail.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2021 at 11:44 AM, longy said:

Jud - just to clarify: you have in-line spreaders, a single lower shroud also in-line. The 'aft inters' attach just above (12"?) the spreaders.  

Where does the inner headstay attach?

Basic mast tuning: spar is a tube in compression,  (depending on wall thickness & tube shape) it will want to bow out of straight line in any direction. The shrouds prevent this and allow for some amount of controlled bend to shape sails. Ideal 'tune' is perfectly straight athwartships, and a slight forward bow in the middle of the spar. (because forward is better than aft for main shape).

If spar is perfectly straight, it can bend in any direction. To lock it down to where it does not bend you have to support it in both directions. A spar that 'pumps' (bends back & forth) is weak/damaging itself.

So with your spar, the single in-line lowers support the spar sideways, but do not do anything for fore/aft support. The inner forestay pulls the mast forward where it attaches, and when you set a sail on it the tension increases a bunch. So there must be something pulling aft close to that point to resist that loading. Usually there is something at that same height pulling aft - either runners (temporary stays) or 'aft inters" that are permanent. You have a oddball set up, I've never seen a spar rigged the way you report. Doesn't mean it's wrong, we don't know the tube shape or the tube strengths. But from your description, those stays need to remain, and you'll have to deal with chafe by adding to the sail.

@longy Thanks a lot for all the info. I’m not familiar at all with/never seen running backstays before.   But looking at the vid below, it seems like I need running backstays to eliminate those aft-directed stays (called aft intermediates?) that attach to my mast exactly at the level of the inner forestay (about 1 ft above my spreaders, which are in-line, and, on deck, are attached about 2 ft aft of the chain plates for my uppers and lowers). (Pics of my rig below)

Although the boat in the vid is quite different from mine (to say the least: it’s a Halberg-Rassy 46), it is cutter rigged too - so it seems like this same solution would work on my cutter-rigger boat.  Does this make sense? I’ve never had any experience whatsoever with running backstays, but it looks straightforward.

 

4C55A36A-F4C7-4520-9A5B-0ECF578FB515.jpeg

046EF775-258C-4955-9427-C2143F26CFE7.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

That H/R has quite a different spar geometry from yours. Inner headstay is proportionately much higher on the mast. Your I/F is quite low, so the aft stays are helping to keep the middle of the spar from moving forwards, and the I/H is locking the mast from moving aft. I would not change your rigging.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

I’m not familiar at all with/never seen running backstays before.   

I have not been following this discussion - but I might just comment on a technical distinction: between running backstays and check stays.

Running backstays typically go to the masthead (or wherever the head stay attaches) and are used to create headstay tension and to bend the mast.

Checkstays typically connect lower down, often go to where ever the innerstay (staysail stay) attaches to the mast and are used to help create/hold innerstay tension and to limit mast bend/pumping.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, estarzinger said:

I have not been following this discussion - but I might just comment on a technical distinction: between running backstays and check stays.

Running backstays typically go to the masthead (or wherever the head stay attaches) and are used to create headstay tension and to bend the mast.

Checkstays typically connect lower down, often go to where ever the innerstay (staysail stay) attaches to the mast and are used to help create/hold innerstay tension and to limit mast bend/pumping.

 

 

7 hours ago, longy said:

That H/R has quite a different spar geometry from yours. Inner headstay is proportionately much higher on the mast. Your I/F is quite low, so the aft stays are helping to keep the middle of the spar from moving forwards, and the I/H is locking the mast from moving aft. I would not change your rigging.


Evans - re: not following the discussion, it’s because this thread I initiated started off on general thoughts on making my heavy boat move faster...migrated into making a new boom and then getting a new main built (sorely needed anyway), amd then just a few days ago about how to deal with potential chafe on new main by the aft intermediate stays when the boom is forward/off the wind.  So, the thread has been all over the place as I keep learning new stuff, understand more stuff, etc. Thread drift by me :-)

I realize the danger of doing this on the web - like getting marital or financial advice here :-)  Terminology is everything, sometimes.

But thanks a lot to both of you for your advice.

So, in the vid I posted just above, what he refers to (incorrectly, it seems) as running backstays are to counteract the forces on the inner forestay/cutter stay, he says.  But sounds like what Longy is saying is, yeah, but your rig, while a cutter too, has a different geometry - so running/check/removable/tensionable stays (whatever they’re called) aren’t advised.

I’m not understanding this, as articles on adding an inner forestay (to be able to hank on a staysail for offshore passage making sail options) say to add running backstays (or whatever they’re called) to counteract the loads created by the inner forestay.  But since “cutter rigs” are not necessarily all the same, setting up runners/checks isn’t necessarily a “cookie cutter” solution for all cutter  rigs?

What I’m wondering is, if the geometry of my existing aft intermediates isn’t providing much support to the aft part of the inner forestay area of the mast (because they’re not set aft very far, and are more vertical than aft-running), why wouldn’t a more aft-running runner-type stay (like in article/pic below) work, tensioning it only when the staysail is being used?

Anyway, I’ll have a rigger look at my boat in August to help sort out staysail rigging set up (converting from the former boomed staysail to a non-boomed one) and drifter set up hardware, so I’ll look into the aft intermediates/runners/check stays  (or whatever they’re called! :-) ) then as well.

How to set up running backstays  [article link, Alvah Simon]

 

1E2DFD00-3528-4347-9B8B-8C505C5D8291.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

What I’m wondering is, if the geometry of my existing aft intermediates isn’t providing much support to the aft part of the inner forestay area of the mast (because they’re not set aft very far, and are more vertical than aft-running), why wouldn’t a more aft-running runner-type stay (like in article/pic below) work, tensioning it only when the staysail is being used?

Silk had the same sort of aft intermediates as you have, with no runners or checks, and she was perfectly fine with innerstay tension. So, I would guess that you don't especially 'need' checks. I think it is perhaps more correct to say that aft intermediates are not the most efficient way to provide support (they waste a lot of effort creating mast compression), but they do the job especially if you have a stout mast section.

On the flip side, adding check stays for when the staysail is set is a perfectly fine thing to do with or without the aft intermediates. It is not hard mechanically (can either use t-ball fittings which are easy to retro fit, or tang/eyes connected to the innerstay masthead fitting).  In addition to helping provide stay tension and controlling mast bend, they also provide nice extra handholds when moving about in rough weather at a place on deck where handholds are often sparse.  We would often set Hawk's just for that purpose.  It is just a bit of added complication, clutter and cost.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

why wouldn’t a more aft-running runner-type stay (like in article/pic below) work, tensioning it only when the staysail is being used?

You could. Our Fortune 30 cutter had fixed aft intermediate stays just like Silk. Big chunky mast section. It was fine.

Our 40' cat had a cutter rig that was very IOR influenced. So sort of spindly and noodly mast.  We used running backstays for that boat and it worked fine, but more hassle when tacking.

Because your staysail stay attaches quite low down, just above the spreaders I think keeping what you have is perfectly fine. 

Bob Perry drew a lot of cutters with fixed intermediates. He recognizes that this isn't the most efficient and it is a bit harder to get enough stay tension but they work OK.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zonker said:

Bob Perry drew a lot of cutters with fixed intermediates. He recognizes that this isn't the most efficient and it is a bit harder to get enough stay tension but they work OK.

Our Valiant 40 had Bob's aft intermediates.  In his book, he noted that they were of relatively little value, as they did not extend far enough aft.  On the other hand, the mast was rather stout.  We never used runners and flew the stays'l frequently.  Never an issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Elegua said:

Replacing our wire runners with 10MM SK90 made them much easier to work with much less chafe.  

yea that is an application place with unambiguous benefits for textile over wire.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, estarzinger said:

yea that is an application place with unambiguous (edit hmmm, that word is sort of a double negative, I guess I could have just said 'clear') benefits for textile over wire.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites