Selden 2:1 Code Zero halyard - question

[Jud - s/v Sputnik 1,427]

Can anyone explain how a 2:1 halyard for a headsail like a Code Zero works - specifically how it’s set up to allow you to drop and entirely remove the integrated sail/furler from the halyard so that you can stow it below?  Looking at Selden’s site (picture at bottom) it isn’t totally clear to me.  
 

They show (here: https://www.seldenmast.com/products/downwind-furling-systems/ ) a halyard that I presume is exiting the mast and apparently (?) goes through a block on the top of the furler’s top swivel.  The line is then dead-ended/secured to a dead eye fitting on the mast, a little below where the halyard seems to exits the mast.  Ok, I get it - that’s the 2:1 purchase to be able to tension the luff of the sail and furler torsion rope.

But how the heck is the sail/furler actually removed *from* the halyard once the sail is furled and lowered to the deck?  (That’s the idea with these sails, right?  You lower, remove and stow integrated sail and furler shortly after you’re done using it.) The halyard passes through a block (presumably, for the 2:1 purchase: and if it’s through a block, it’s captive...) on the top swivel, and then is secured to the dead eye.  What an I missing?

 

[longy 848]

Under 'accessories' they sell a block which replaces the shackle shown in your pic. The pin which holds the torque rope has a spring detent (or some easily removeable thing) so the rolled up sail can easily be removed. The block/swivel lump stays on the halyard full time.

[Jud - s/v Sputnik 1,427]

Just now, longy said:

Under 'accessories' they sell a block which replaces the shackle shown in your pic. The pin which holds the torque rope has a spring detent (or some easily removeable thing) so the rolled up sail can easily be removed. The block/swivel lump stays on the halyard full time.

Thanks for clarifying, Longy!  Makes sense now.
 

One more question, if you don’t mind?  Since this is a 2:1 halyard, does this mean that the  load on the dead eye at mast head are roughly double what they would be if it were simple 1:1, or are they halved...or the same?!  Just trying to get an idea - obviously that 4-screw dead eye fitting Selden shows is apparently strong enough to resist/withstand the tensioning of a halyard for an upwind sail like the Code Zero.

I’m just brainstorming ways to add a removable Dyneema Solent stay to be able to run a drifter or possibly a small jib (if the stay can be tensioned sufficiently).  The other ways I’ve seen this (mast attachment) done are by using Colligo Marine Cheeky Tangs as the mast attachment point for a Dyneema stay...but installing those tangs or something like that though the mast is a bit more involved than I want.  Just trying to figure out ways that this might be done - attachment at the mast of a tensionable (at deck level) Dyneema stay.  

[mgs 211]

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

obviously that 4-screw dead eye fitting Selden shows is apparently strong enough to resist/withstand the tensioning of a halyard for an upwind sail like the Code Zero.

 

I think that fitting rests inside the mast. Drill a hole the diameter of the center and slide it in. Screws help locate it in place 

[Jud - s/v Sputnik 1,427]

Thanks.  Now I see it - I poked around a bit more on Selden’s site.

So - it seems like a dead eye fitting like this would be a very solid way to attach a removable/tensionable Dyneema Solent stay, instead of using Colligo’s Cheeky Tangs. (https://www.colligomarine.com/colligo-dux-lifelines). More complicated to install. (I’ve seen a Solent stay set up with two “arms” spliced to it, each of which runs to one of these tangs on either side of the mast.)

[toddster 922]

Of course, I can't find a good photo atm, but when I was looking at this a few weeks ago, all the examples that I found put the 2:1 purchase on the downhaul, beneath the furler drum.  It seemed like a lot less string to run and puts more of the moving parts close to the deck, where you can reach them.  I suppose you still need to be able to lead it to a winch tho.  

[Jud - s/v Sputnik 1,427]

18 minutes ago, toddster said:

Of course, I can't find a good photo atm, but when I was looking at this a few weeks ago, all the examples that I found put the 2:1 purchase on the downhaul, beneath the furler drum.  It seemed like a lot less string to run and puts more of the moving parts close to the deck, where you can reach them.  I suppose you still need to be able to lead it to a winch tho.  

Yup.  This Selden mast fitting/2:1 halyard query was just part of what I’ve been looking into.  Naturally, I’ll start another thread on that. :-). But, yeah, basically, I think I’ll install a removable stay with tensioning tackle at the bottom.  Part of thinking through my entire sail inventory/needs/wind ranges, etc.  All of this precipitated by getting a quote for a drifter recently that blew me out of the water, so I’ve been thinking of creative workarounds/alternative/more flexible ideas.

[Jim in Halifax 593]

I'm a code sail newbie.

I have a Code Zero that came with the boat and neither I nor the PO have ever flown it. There is no top-down or bottom-up furler, so that's on the list, but I figure I could raise and lower it like a chute (behind the main) for now. I have sort of a wishbone bowsprit with a bit of space beyond the jib furler, so I am hoping I won't need to get the tack any further outboard. But when it comes to a halyard, I had assumed a Code Zero is flown above and outside the jib halyard, ergo the spinnaker halyard in my case. Am I on the right track?

The Selden pictures don't really show the Code Zero hoist in relation to a furled jib. Not sure why a 2:1 purchase would be required if a halyard winch is available?

[toddster 922]

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

Yup.  This Selden mast fitting/2:1 halyard query was just part of what I’ve been looking into.  Naturally, I’ll start another thread on that. :-). But, yeah, basically, I think I’ll install a removable stay with tensioning tackle at the bottom.  Part of thinking through my entire sail inventory/needs/wind ranges, etc.  All of this precipitated by getting a quote for a drifter recently that blew me out of the water, so I’ve been thinking of creative workarounds/alternative/more flexible ideas.

I suppose putting the 2:1 on the halyard would make one less control line to mess with.  And one less winch in use.

I need to get back to my sprit project.  Just too much other stuff going on and the summer is screaming past in a blink.  

[toddster 922]

6 minutes ago, Jim in Halifax said:

The Selden pictures don't really show the Code Zero hoist in relation to a furled jib. Not sure why a 2:1 purchase would be required if a halyard winch is available?

I think those pictures assume a fractional rig.  Received wisdom is that a 1:1 halyard winch can't get the luff tight enough to go upwind.  But I gather that in part it depends on what your definition of "go upwind" is.  

Just watched an episode of "RAN Sailing" where they got a brand new Selden mast that appears to be extended a meter or so to make room for cool rigging stuff like that.  I think I got a little green with envy.  

[Jud - s/v Sputnik 1,427]

Just now, Jim in Halifax said:

I'm a code sail newbie.

I have a Code Zero that came with the boat and neither I nor the PO have ever flown it. There is no top-down or bottom-up furler, so that's on the list, but I figure I could raise and lower it like a chute (behind the main) for now. I have sort of a wishbone bowsprit with a bit of space beyond the jib furler, so I am hoping I won't need to get the tack any further outboard. But when it comes to a halyard, I had assumed a Code Zero is flown above and outside the jib halyard, ergo the spinnaker halyard in my case. Am I on the right track?

The Selden pictures don't really show the Code Zero hoist in relation to a furled jib. Not sure why a 2:1 purchase would be required if a halyard winch is available?

Me, too - I’m not the person to ask anything Code sail about.

Yesterday I was poking around a bit trying to get a feel for ways that people set up drifters (inside/behind the furled Genoa), among other things, and that led me to checking out various ways to run it (inside/behind the Genoa), whether diverting downward an existing spinnaker halyard (using a halyard restrainer/diverter); or installing a drop-in sheave box (which I had been planning to do); or having a hoistable (Solent) stay - which I think will give me maximum options/flexibility, since it would work with more than just a drifter type light air sail.

Anyway - entirely different from Code sails.  But that Selden Code Zero halyard dead eye/dead end (whatever they’re called) that I posted about in the beginning was what originally got me thinking about ways to do this.  Just happens to be used for their 2:1 halyard set up to tension the C0/furler...perhaps it’s more efficient to do it that way instead of with a winch?

[toddster 922]

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

Just happens to be used for their 2:1 halyard set up to tension the C0/furler...perhaps it’s more efficient to do it that way instead of with a winch?

Pretty sure that all these arrangements are in addition to the winch.

[Jud - s/v Sputnik 1,427]

Just now, toddster said:

Pretty sure that all these arrangements are in addition to the winch.

Would make sense - can’t imagine 2:1 halyard without a winch would (easily) get you enough tension on luff of sail for good windward work?

[toddster 922]

Well - you could get a bigger winch.  But 2:1 puts less force on the sheaves & other rigging.  And the crew.  

[estarzinger 888]

5 hours ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

But how the heck is the sail/furler actually removed *from* the halyard once the sail is furled and lowered to the deck? 

As mentioned there is a accessory block - we when DIY and used a big harken (teardrop) block with a tylaska trigger shackle (thru the pin in the tear drop).  I find the good trigger shackles quicker/easier to use than a screw shackle (and still 100% reliable), and I liked the design of the harken blocks best (really nice low rolling friction and high strength).  We crushed a couple other blocks up there before I switched to this solution using the zero close at the top of its wind range.  You do not want blocks with swivels because then the halyard will inevitably twist around itself and cause a ton of friction hoisting/dousing (there are things you can do to minimize this but it is hard to avoid entirely.

5 hours ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

 Since this is a 2:1 halyard, does this mean that the  load on the dead eye at mast head are roughly double what they would be if it were simple 1:1, or are they halved...or the same?!    

The load on the dead end is (roughly) half the load you are putting on the stay.  Three of the reasons 2:1 halyards are used is because (1) you can use smaller/lighter line, and (2) they also cut the load by half on the halyard sheave/pin - you need to think about that load because usually they were not originally designed with 'upwind stay' loads in mind, and (3) they reduce mast compression (not an issue for a tree truck aluminum mast but is/was for an engineered carbon mast - halyard locks also do this later thing).

4 hours ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

So - it seems like a dead eye fitting like this would be a very solid way to attach a removable/tensionable Dyneema Solent stay,

Yea, that 'inside' mounting is neat and clean and strong for a dead end - better than the cheeky approach.

1 hour ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

 I think I’ll install a removable stay with tensioning tackle at the bottom. 

Yea, most of the boats I have seen with successful removable inner stays had some sort of tensioners at the bottom.  Personally for cruising use I prefer the lever/ratchet sort of tensionners rather than tackles but either can work (for a race boat the tackles are the way to go because lighter and more easily adjusted, but more parts and more string).  A 2:1 halyard is still worthwhile even if you have tensioner at the bottom (for reasons mentioned above).  On our zero we just used the 2:1 halyard for tension and it was exactly able to sail to the sail designers closest polars.  For our staysail stay - we had the stay deadened up the mast, and when not using just brought back to the mast and lashed down to padend on deck rather than dropping the stay, with a lever/ratchet tensioned at the bottom for tension.

1 hour ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

more efficient to do it that way instead of with a winch?

For a bigger boat . . you would still use a winch just to get the sail up to full hoist with a little tension and then finalize at the bottom - for your smaller boat idk you might well be able to do that by hand and then get the final tension of at the bottom - I think it would probably naturally run to be close to a winch in any case.  You will most likely want a clutch on it.

[penumbra 23]

We have the Selden setup on a Code 0. You need a wicked amount of luff tension to get them to point, which is the awesomeness of the code. A 1:1 hal puts a lot of load on the masthead sheave. Selden recommended the 2:1 hal both to get the necessary tension and to reduce load on the sheave.

However, the setup is the devil. On a 2:1 main halyard, the shackle can't twist on the way up. If it's clean when plugged in, it will stay clean on the hoist. The Code has a swivel at the top. Whether you drop the hal on the winch, it will induce twist in the line. Either due to black magic, Loki the trickster or Poseidon himself works its way up the line, causing the damnable halyard to twist on itself.

The outcome is you end up 65' up the rig 15 nm south the Maine coast with the wife fretting about the strength of the topping lift holding your 225lb self in the air. Removing the halyard  and dragging the length of the Eggemoggin Reach will resolve the problem in the short term. Net result: 3 fun trips up the mast and never seeing the damn sail fly.

I was talking to the rigger today about moving to a 2:1 tack, which seems far more civilized.

 

[longy 848]

You have to pay attention to how you coil & store the halyard tail. Wrapping the halyard around the winch puts full twists into the line. These travel up the halyard & end up twisting just above the swivel, making drops hard. Take the figure 8 coiled halyard & put in 3-4 reverse twists to counter this just before dropping the sail

[longy 848]

Just now, longy said:

You have to pay attention to how you coil & store the halyard tail. Wrapping the halyard around the winch puts full twists into the line. These travel up the halyard & end up twisting just above the swivel, making drops hard. Take the figure 8 coiled halyard & put in 3-4 reverse twists to counter this just before dropping the sail

Whether you have a 2:1 halyard or not, a 2:1 tack purchase keeps the drum from rotating, which prevents a lot of problems

 

[Jud - s/v Sputnik 1,427]

17 hours ago, estarzinger said:

As mentioned there is a accessory block - we when DIY and used a big harken (teardrop) block with a tylaska trigger shackle (thru the pin in the tear drop).  I find the good trigger shackles quicker/easier to use than a screw shackle (and still 100% reliable), and I liked the design of the harken blocks best (really nice low rolling friction and high strength).  We crushed a couple other blocks up there before I switched to this solution using the zero close at the top of its wind range.  You do not want blocks with swivels because then the halyard will inevitably twist around itself and cause a ton of friction hoisting/dousing (there are things you can do to minimize this but it is hard to avoid entirely.

The load on the dead end is (roughly) half the load you are putting on the stay.  Three of the reasons 2:1 halyards are used is because (1) you can use smaller/lighter line, and (2) they also cut the load by half on the halyard sheave/pin - you need to think about that load because usually they were not originally designed with 'upwind stay' loads in mind, and (3) they reduce mast compression (not an issue for a tree truck aluminum mast but is/was for an engineered carbon mast - halyard locks also do this later thing).

Yea, that 'inside' mounting is neat and clean and strong for a dead end - better than the cheeky approach.

Yea, most of the boats I have seen with successful removable inner stays had some sort of tensioners at the bottom.  Personally for cruising use I prefer the lever/ratchet sort of tensionners rather than tackles but either can work (for a race boat the tackles are the way to go because lighter and more easily adjusted, but more parts and more string).  A 2:1 halyard is still worthwhile even if you have tensioner at the bottom (for reasons mentioned above).  On our zero we just used the 2:1 halyard for tension and it was exactly able to sail to the sail designers closest polars.  For our staysail stay - we had the stay deadened up the mast, and when not using just brought back to the mast and lashed down to padend on deck rather than dropping the stay, with a lever/ratchet tensioned at the bottom for tension.

For a bigger boat . . you would still use a winch just to get the sail up to full hoist with a little tension and then finalize at the bottom - for your smaller boat idk you might well be able to do that by hand and then get the final tension of at the bottom - I think it would probably naturally run to be close to a winch in any case.  You will most likely want a clutch on it.

Thanks for all this.

My latest plan - after getting a quote for a furling drifter that I found too pricey - is to install a Dyneema/synthetic Solent stay (attached at the top with one of those nice Selden dead ends) l, and with a 4:1 on the bottom (Colligo makes a tensioning tackle).

Seems like that would give me two headsail options:  hank on drifter and smaller Dacron headsail (like a hank-on #2-ish), for times that I need a smaller jib to go to wind (I’m thinking close-reaching after leaving Honolulu heading north), without having to pull down the Genoa and change it out.

Any thoughts on this?  This is another hole in my offshore sail inventory I’m trying to understand and fill.  Or maybe, instead of that option for a small, better windward jib, I just get a smaller furling Genoa made that can reef well at least a bit?  (It’s big now, like 140% maybe?  It’s a very old sail, just being used for local easy until it’s replaced, as planned - the question being, replace with same size large Genoa, or get a smaller one [115%-ish?), that would reef down and keep good shape, obviating the need for a smaller #2-ish on a Solent).  But it seems like my heavy boat should have a big Genoa...hence my thinking of keeping a big Genoa, and having a dual-purpose Solent (for drifter-type sail and smaller jib, for when needed).  Fortunately, I already have several progressively small-ish hank-on jibs, in good shape, from when the boat didn’t have roller furling).

Basically, I’m trying to figure out my headsail inventory for offshore, and I’m aware there are various options, trying to sort through them.  The Solent stay idea seems like a versatile one.  (And could function as an emergency head stay?)

[estarzinger 888]

2 hours ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

without having sailed your boat, I dont feel like I can offer much value on the jib sizing question. In my experience cruisers tend over time to shift to smaller than 140's on their furlers, but that is a very general observation and there are loads of exceptions and I have no idea where your boat would fall.

a 4:1 on the bottom

I would think you would need to lead that back to a winch to get enough tension for an upwind #2, and then a good way to hold the tension (good clutch). If that's easy to accomplish then all good - but if it is not the something like a straightforward turnbuckle might be better.  

 

[Ishmael 10,553]

When I was considering going for a smaller genoa on our boat, the sailmaker advised us to stay above 130% because anything smaller wouldn't give us the same upwind ability due to the sail being constrained by the shrouds. Something to discuss with your sailmaker, at least. For our needs, we would have to go to a 105 or smaller to sheet inside the shrouds.

[Jud - s/v Sputnik 1,427]

3 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

When I was considering going for a smaller genoa on our boat, the sailmaker advised us to stay above 130% because anything smaller wouldn't give us the same upwind ability due to the sail being constrained by the shrouds. Something to discuss with your sailmaker, at least. For our needs, we would have to go to a 105 or smaller to sheet inside the shrouds.

Thanks - I will look into that.  Yeah, I figure I need to go over all these things will sailmaker (and rigger).  Here, CA, is a great sounding board to help me with the preliminary thinking, since I have little to no experience doing this sort of thing (figuring out a sail inventory, let alone for offshore).  There is tons of knowledge and opinions here, so it’s a great place to start. 
 

Meeting both next week re: new main, staysail new sheeting arrangement (since I went from boomed to unboomed), trysail size and track, drifter —and now sizing for eventual new Genoa (and possibly smaller jib —for on Genoa furler, or a hank-on on a Solent).  Lots to think about!

[Elegua 1,841]

Just went through a similar exercise with a similar conversation as Ish and ended up staying with 135%. There is a dead-zone of sheeting angles between 130% and a non-overlapping genoa and since I have a staysail, why not keep the 135%? It works well for most moderate conditions. 

[Jud - s/v Sputnik 1,427]

Just now, Elegua said:

Just went through a similar exercise with a similar conversation as Ish and ended up staying with 135%. There is a dead-zone of sheeting angles between 130% and a non-overlapping genoa and since I have a staysail, why not keep the 135%? It works well for most moderate conditions. 

By, “since I have a staysail”, you mean there’s no point in going smaller with your Genoa (since you’ve got a staysail as a heavier air headsail)?

[SimonGH 73]

on my 40' the code 0 halyard tension on a 1:1 was enormous and really made me uncomfortable with the loads at the base turning block, deck organizer, and cleat (since all my lines run to the cockpit).

A 2:1 at the mast head is neat (like the one shown), but as others have mentioned you have to be careful about twisting the halyard.  And my yard wouldn't install with the mast in place - it would require stepping the mast (as far as they are concerned), since you have to put that thing inside.

A 2:1 or 4:1 at the tack is another option, but you have to then run yet another line down the length of the boat via fairleads and anchor it somewhere.

I did a mcgyver:  A 4:1 (actually using climbing pulleys) at the base of the mast, pulling on the body of a constrictor clutch, through which the 1:1 halyard runs.  So you still end up with pretty big sheave loads, but you drop the loads on the turning block, organizer, and clutch by 75%...  then I ran a small dyneema line for the clutch release back so I could drop the halyard if needed in an emergency.  Now I can get plenty of tension, I can fine tune and add slack gradually when I'm running, and I'm not worried about ripping my clutch off the deck...

 

[SimonGH 73]

This was before I got the constrictor clutch, so the halyard is shackled to one of the 4:1 pulleys.  This works, but you can't drop the sail in a hurry...

[Elegua 1,841]

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

By, “since I have a staysail”, you mean there’s no point in going smaller with your Genoa (since you’ve got a staysail as a heavier air headsail)?

Yes. The staysail is a bit on the small side, so there is a gap in the sail plan between minimum furled genoa with good shape and staysail.