J/111 Goes Sailing...

ragbag

Anarchist
[

If the only thing you care about is a stripped out balls to the wall handicap racer, no, the J/111 isn't a boat for you. If you're like most buyers in this size range, you foster some hope for some dual use, with racing as your primary focus, you should look at this boat.
I can relate to that sentiment. I had a stripped out balls to the wall racer. It was a J/90, loved that boat as a purist. My wife came one time, declared it not a dual use boat. I scared many on that boat with violent wipe outs and seriously hurt at least one crew. I need a boat that has a greater range of use.

 

doghouse

Super Anarchist
[

If the only thing you care about is a stripped out balls to the wall handicap racer, no, the J/111 isn't a boat for you. If you're like most buyers in this size range, you foster some hope for some dual use, with racing as your primary focus, you should look at this boat.
I can relate to that sentiment. I had a stripped out balls to the wall racer. It was a J/90, loved that boat as a purist. My wife came one time, declared it not a dual use boat. I scared many on that boat with violent wipe outs and seriously hurt at least one crew. I need a boat that has a greater range of use.
Sounds like a great boat for you then. :)

 

bshores

Member
208
0
Houston, TX
Thanks for the dockside pics, the boat looks great, but I'd still want to change the furler, mainsheet system, and the wheel. Otherwise, everything else looks good and can't wait to see her sailing in a blow. Looks like JBoats finally went with an upgraded line package so you don't have to spend the first year replacing all the generic stuff.

 

beachball

Super Anarchist
1,127
1
Anyone who's calling this a cruising boat is talking out of their ass. Across the dock when I arrived was a Hunter 35. THAT'S a cruising boat! Pretty much the same LOA and looking at the 2 of them side by side, I was laughing to myself about the cruiser comments here. Couldn't be too much further at opposite ends of the production boat spectrum.
<sigh>
Yeah. Seriously. For PRODUCTION boats. J/Boats will likely sell these by the 100's. Hunter has sold that gin palace by the 100's. It's a business folks- Product, Price, Promotion. How many Summit 35's (more racer focus) or SC 37's (comparable design brief) have sold or will sell in the next 5 years? Bigger production numbers means better resale, which means lower total cost of ownership. You have to make what people want at a price they're willing to pay, and a strong brand helps. J/Boats, Benteau, Hunter, Catalina, they get it and build a lot of boats. Not for everyone for sure, but those 4 combined probably produce 70% to 80% of the 27-45 foot sailboats sold in North America every year. And that size range is the where the sales volume and profits are.

If the only thing you care about is a stripped out balls to the wall handicap racer, no, the J/111 isn't a boat for you. If you're like most buyers in this size range, you foster some hope for some dual use, with racing as your primary focus, you should look at this boat.

But WTF do I know. I own a Viper 640 and a 30 year old 4 knot shitbox.
Everything you just wrote after the third period you typed in the above quote( the directly above one, not the top with the highlighted sentence) is 100% correct. And has absolutely NOTHING to do with how completely inaccurate the above highlighted sentence is.
Exactly what I was thinking. doghouse and I were probably sighing in unison when we read this.

 

BoomerangJ

Member
144
0
Rod J and myself took out an entire J/105 team for a test sail this past Friday night. We let them get in their normal crew positions and sail the boat. This was around 5:30 pm shortly after a summer squall blew through the bay. My impressions from what they were saying/discussing follow:

Cockpit ergonomics: Helm, main trimmer, and jib trimmer all LOVED their workstations. All sail controls were easy to work from the rail, in the cockpit, etc.

Spinn trimmer probably needs to stand and brace on the shroud turnbuckles in light air. Gets the weight forward. On this design with bigger fore triangle (Mast more aft)/cabin top it will be necessary to think about crew weight forward.

The boat feels much bigger then it is. The Cockpit, side deck all very roomy. No comparison to a J/105 and the boat is narrower then a J/105! (10.77 ft vs. 11.0 ft.). The cabin is nice and open. Nice nav table, settee cushions, two aft berths and forward v berth. Open airy feel.

Sailing impressions. The number one impression is the boat tacks easy and gets up to speed fast. The keel design must be right. The boat feels very efficient. We were in light air with a couple of nice shots that rolled down on us. Boat handled them well upwind and downwind. The chute is 130 meters square, she accelerated with authority in puffs.

Way fun boat. Smiles all around and lively discussion at dinner afterwards. Hopefully the 105 guys will jump in and comment.

 

Jambalaya

Super Anarchist
6,562
74
Hamble / Paris
In-haulers look like an afterthough. To make the ring's travel path more athwartships, I'd splice it a bit closer to the mast.
I heard from sailmaker (Doyle) that the high clew was done with an eye toward the jib getting hauled in (over the cabin house), so not an afterthought. Sailmaker does believe clew will come down in next generation of sails.The two headsails they have are an AP 106% and a #3 96%. Kites are 110 and 130 sq. meters.
Interesting - those sail sizes are very close together, I'd suggest the OD rule says 106% and a true #4 - otherwise too many sails and expense and hassle. Likewise kites 110 and 130, on the European 105's we run 95 masthead and 80 fractional and personally I'd favour 100+ for the masthead as by the time we chicken out on the masthead (around 30) it's often better to go with no kite.

 

azoria

Member
321
0
Newport NC
Got to test sail #1 last Friday with Rod Johnstone. It's a really sweet boat. Jib trimmer will love the foot brace for grinding, with car adjuster and inhauler in easy reach. The cockpit has a nice layout.....backstay adjuster on the wheel pedistal so the main trimmer can make adjustments....

I thought the cabin top was a little high and the pole will definately get the sewer guys attention! Sails very nice and should be a good seller for J boats. Down stairs was nice enough to easily do some distance racing and overnight. The boat actually has a stern shower. It will be interesting to see what the class rules will look like once several boats are built.

 

Jambalaya

Super Anarchist
6,562
74
Hamble / Paris
ULDBGuy said:
Interesting - those sail sizes are very close together, I'd suggest the OD rule says 106% and a true #4 - otherwise too many sails and expense and hassle.
If they are like the jibs on the 92S, they are very different sails. The "#1" is 106-108%, lighter and fuller, and really powers up the boat. The "#3" is 100% but is a flat, heavy air sail.

I doubt a #4 would get used much - I'd rather have a heavy-air #3 for racing OD. The ocean races (which probably wouldn't be raced OD) will require a #4 or storm jib anyway.
What would be your estimate of the range for the #3 quoted above ?

FYI for a Cat 2 offshore race you'd need a proper storm jib which is smaller than a #4.

 

Jambalaya

Super Anarchist
6,562
74
Hamble / Paris
ULDB - thanks, both really 92S and 111 - if you'd go for the 3 in 15 then I'd prefer to have just the larger jib and cut it to be more of an AP as we did on the 105's, we put the 4 up in about 20-22, less if two handed. When I sailed the original 2 I did so with just a #3 (ie no #1) - I am a fan of simple (and cost effective)

 

Blur

Super Anarchist
1,226
223
Sweden
ULDB - thanks, both really 92S and 111 - if you'd go for the 3 in 15 then I'd prefer to have just the larger jib and cut it to be more of an AP as we did on the 105's, we put the 4 up in about 20-22, less if two handed. When I sailed the original 2 I did so with just a #3 (ie no #1) - I am a fan of simple (and cost effective)
It's always a trade off between simplicity and performance :unsure:

For fully crewed with 6 guys, I would guess #1 would be full size/full shape, aimed at 2-12 knots, sweetspot at 6? #3 would be full size but with much less shape, aimed at 12-24 knots, sweetspot at 16?

For shorthanded we'll often just go with the #3 which would work ok from 8-20 knots. Not optimal, but with the 109 we find that we regularly beat the guys going through their sail inventory. In some aspects less is more...

In addition you'll need a true #4/hard wind jib in Cat 2-3.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

treef

Member
138
0
Blur: I think your approach is generally correct. For what it's worth, on the SC37 I have a Light #1 (105%) with a range of 0 to 12. Heavy #1 (105% - same area but flatter cut) with a range of 10 to 20. Then a "#3+", range 18 to 28, which is slightly smaller than a "standard" 3 but larger than a #4 -- it is sized to make it comply as the ORC "Heavy Weather Jib" (and has grommets). Finally a storm jib for the 30's and above. I think you will find that the headsails are so small that downshifting from the H1 to 3 is more for control/balance than for power; to truly reduce power you will need to reef the main. Having two reef points will be important.

I'd suggest you reconsider using only a #3 for shorthanding. Yes it simplifies things, but shorthanded races are generally distance affairs, and there's few things more painful than trying to get upwind in light air with a #3 for hours on end. I've tried it shorthanding, and in anything less than 15 knots the boat simply cannot point, and if there's any chop, on a boat as light as this, it will struggle even more. (It may have worked on your 109 with its higher D/L ratio as that boat can carry its momentum further; with the lighter boat you will need the sail area to get it to accelerate after it is slowed by waves.)

Good luck with the boat; it looks very nice.

Treef

 

ragbag

Anarchist
I'd suggest you reconsider using only a #3 for shorthanding. Yes it simplifies things, but shorthanded races are generally distance affairs, and there's few things more painful than trying to get upwind in light air with a #3 for hours on end. I've tried it shorthanding, and in anything less than 15 knots the boat simply cannot point, and if there's any chop, on a boat as light as this, it will struggle even more. (It may have worked on your 109 with its higher D/L ratio as that boat can carry its momentum further; with the lighter boat you will need the sail area to get it to accelerate after it is slowed by waves.)

Treef
Why would you go with a smaller head sail- just because you're short handed - when the conditions are right for the larger head sail? We had a large head sail on the j/90 and in light airs with sloppy wave action we'd kill boats with their little fore triangles as you said. Antrim 27s had this problem as I recall, they only had one size jib.

 

ragbag

Anarchist
ragbag - depends on how much the boat needs the crew weight of a full crew for the righting moment to balance the larger headsail.
Exactly. The J/90 was a narrow boat with a very low center of gravity. It was hard to make crew ballast count. The 111 not as extreme, but similar in concept. It is a J Boat hallmark: narrow with deep ballast, limited weight aloft.

 
ragbag - depends on how much the boat needs the crew weight of a full crew for the righting moment to balance the larger headsail.
J Boat hallmark: narrow with deep ballast, limited weight aloft.
It's all relative but how is that different from any racer-cruiser? (besides exceptions like Archambault which are wide with deep ballast) Maybe you over-generalized or over-distinguished at the very least...

 
Top