here we go again : to furl or not to furl

[furkolkjaaf]

I know it's been debated already (and for some reason I wasn't unable
to put a follow up message in the relevant old thread) but now -
unexpectedly - the problem shows up again as I'm thinking of new sails
for the next season. Had a talk yesterday with the sailmaker, and
guess what ?.......he highly recommended to get rid of the roller
fuller. He says : how can you spend a bunch of money in (maybe) carbon
sails, and then leave up those 25 lbs of the furler, plus the
inefficient gap at deck level, not to mention you cant adjust the
headstay tension by the turnbuckle (instead of hassling with 4
shrouds...). And, on top of that, IRC does not give any credit for the
furler. So, he says, if you're racing seriously, then get rid of it...
I'm very, very hesitant, as John was (by the way, what was the outcome
of your trials John ?), because I love the furler and so my crew does.
For short winward-leeward courses it's a great value for manoeuvers,
not to mention sailing shorthanded. I bought this boat because it's
easy to sail. I do not like the idea of going back to the old hassle.
What do you guys think about this. Anyone has any idea of how many
seconds per mile we are giving up by using the furler...??

max
Italy

[mark m]

You are giving away alot. We took our furler off and I feel we are much faster upwind. If you are racing, the furler has to go. My wife and I sail our boat 75 times per year here on Lake Erie, and half the time it is just the two of us. It is a fractional rig, so the head sail isn't that large to begin with. When we want to cruise the boat, maybe a furler, but until then, no way --- On Sun, 10/4/09, furkolkjaaf <eliomas...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Privateer #2]

Max,
We furl
IRC does give you benefit for roller fulling about 6 sec per hour as
long as you stick to 1 head sail,not sure about PHRF. We sail 80% of
our time at 15 knots or below and due to our fleet being mainly
symmetric we do a lot of windward leeward. with a 140% head sail and
80m kite we are rated at 0.973. It will effect you boat speed but we
think the pay off is worth it. We also do quite a bit of 2 handed
racing without auto helm so it helps us there to.
Hope this helps with a tricky call. Also Sailmakers always want to
sell you 3 head sails instead of 1


Matt
Dubai

On Oct 5, 1:52 am, mark m <sailorboyus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You are giving away alot. We took our furler off and I feel we are much faster upwind. If you are racing, the furler has to go. My wife and I sail our boat 75 times per year here on Lake Erie, and half the time it is just the two of us. It is a fractional rig, so the head sail isn't that large to begin with. When we want to cruise the boat, maybe a furler, but until then, no way
>

> --- On Sun, 10/4/09, furkolkjaaf <eliomassimop...@gmail.com> wrote:

[furkolkjaaf]

Matt,

I think you are getting the credit since your "single" headsail is
exceeding 130% LP, which is not the case of my 92S, where the 105% jib
does not make it eligible for the credit under IRC. So if I decide to
keep the furler I have to live with my "multiple sails" rating.
Is your credit only 6 sec per hour ? If so, it really seems minimal
(which is somehow reassuring me on the fact that it must not be a big
deal...even though Mark seems not to agree with this). My experience
is also that on WL courses the furler helps a lot and makes up for
faster manoeuvers. Not not mention I'm lazy like my crew ;-)

Max

[Marco Cohen]

the key words are " if you want to race seriously"

if this your case no doubts without the furler is much better

but if you are sailing just for fun with a different crew of friends
every race with much more time spent in wine testing instead of
speed test the furler is a blessing

and as the famous scene of the blues brothers movie " i have seen the
light"

with the furler/jib and the ennaker when we arrive close to the buoy i
have nobody in front of me and i can choose the best strategy for the
last 200 metres to the buoy.

and this , a lot of time and in race with a lot of boats is a blessing
too.

ciao
marco

Il giorno 04/ott/09, alle ore 19:39, furkolkjaaf ha scritto:

[Trenter Ellis]

The sailmaker is putting a negative spin on the furler I think.  You could also factor in the extra time with weight on the foredeck when dropping a jib onto the deck and particularly when the boat is going fast in waves it is a big advantage to roll or unroll the jib without sending someone onto the pointy end.

IRC used to give you a credit for a roller furler if you only had a big genoa and a "heavy weather jib".  A lot of the Euro J/92 boats were delivered with a No1 and No4 headsail (100%) which qualified for the credit.  The rule has now changed so that you have to use one genoa all the time to qualify.  This credit is intended for the less serious racer who is content to sail with a furling genoa and partially roll it in windy weather.  I doubt if this is something many J/92 or 92s sailors would want to do.  Every time I see a headsail partially rolled like that it makes my blood run cold the shape of the sail is so awful!

I would never want to go back to a non furler set up but then we mainly sail short handed.  Maybe if you always sail with a full crew and never cruise or mess about then saving the weight of the furler and getting a bit more sail area at the base of the jibs is worth while.

Cheers,
Trenter



> Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 00:57:16 -0700
> Subject: [j92owners] Re: here we go again : to furl or not to furl
> From: eliomas...@gmail.com
> To: j92o...@googlegroups.com

[Marco Cohen]

hi matt
in irc they give us 2 headsail with the furler...but may be i am wrong
Il giorno 05/ott/09, alle ore 06:57, Privateer #2 ha scritto:

[Privateer #2]

Max,

The furler allowance gives you 1 head sail only or for less allowance
you can have a heavy weather jib. The explanation is in the year book
page 16 follow this link http://www.ebooksolutions.tv/irc/yearbook-2009/
to get a better wording. the 6 secs is only bar numbers so don't know
the actuals as have never been able to buy 3 head sails on our budget
so haven't seen a comparable rating.
As i said we rarely race in breeze enough to drop a head sail size so
not sure that it would benefit us to remove the furler.

Matt

>  Unknown.png
> 18KViewDownload
>
>
>
>   Indiana Production Company
>   Via San Maurilio 19, 20123   Milano
>   Tel. +39 02 8889111
>   Fax.+39 02 80581992
>   Roma-Via Augusto Conti, 57 - 00135
>   Los Angeles- 132 Swall Drive #6, C.a. 90048
>
>   CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
>   This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
>   above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
>   the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
>   is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
>   the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by
>   replyng to i...@indianaproduction.com

[Ragtime!]

I'm firmly in the roller-furler camp because of how I race (single-
handed), but I'll add my two cents:

A fast boat is one with an accumulation of small things, each adding a
bit to performance. It's really more a mind set - if winning is your
primary goal then you will do every little thing to make the boat as
fast as possible. All excess weight removed, a faired, well-prepared
and maintained bottom, each sail replaced when it loses its "edge,"
regular and focused practice with crew, etc. If you are in that mind
set then removing the furler and carefully designing full-hoist
headsails to fit is one of those many small things you should do.

If you race more casually then removing the furler isn't worth it in
my view. I'd still want good sails and a smooth bottom but I'd focus
more on keeping together a cohesive crew, practicing and not making
any big mistakes on the course. When your boat handling is
consistently smooth, you usually choose the correct side of the
course, etc. and see yourselves losing races by just a few seconds,
then re-evaluate the furler decision.

Even then I wouldn't throw the furler or old jibs away - you will want
them back on the boat at some point. A good compromise might be one
of the furlers you can use without the drum. The weight is still
there but you can tack a jib to the deck and make it full-hoist.

[Andy Oeftering]

I'm a recent roller furler convert for all the reason cited below. Good reasons for me are: First, the boat will be much easier to single hand. Second, I can train foredeck crew more easily giving me more flexibility.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

[jwhj92s]

Ok, we couldn't make that decision, so....
We did not go to a hanked on jib, as our sailmaker suggested. We
simply remove our feeder from the headfoil, drop the roller furler to
the drum, replace the feeder, and use the jib halyard to raise our new
light/med headsail, made by North Sails. The sail tacks to the deck,
and is maximized for sail area inside our small foretriangle. When
the wind is blowing (above 15 true), we use the older, heavier
headsail, on the rollerfurler. This setup is definately a compromise,
but it's working well. My opinion on this matter is, for the J92S,
chasing performance upwind or tight reaching with your headsail, in
light air is useless. The 92S makes it time when the chute is up. We
have started focusing on getting the chute up whenever possible; even
sailing higher on reaches to set the chute for the second half of the
leg. We have two reaching chutes (UK) and one max runner (North).
Our next sail will probably be a Code 0. Our 92S needs to fly the
chute to compete with the Evelyn 32s, Hobie33s and the blazingly fast
classic 92(with a giant overlapping headsail). The above info, is
only my opinion, to be taken with more than a grain of salt.

John
Pier Pressure
USA30

[Bruce Santerre]

We've been racing our J92, Split Decision, for 6 years on in a PHRF fleet
using primarily W/L courses. The first 2 years we went with the furler for
all the reasons already stated. We eventually removed the furler as we
began to replace our headsails. We went with a headfoil system. We
immediately saw an improvement in performance--both upwind speed and the
ability to point higher. Initially we were unable to point with well-sailed
J30s and an S2 9.1. At this time, we are as high, if not higher than our
competition with better boat speed. I agree with Ragtime's comments--many
small incremental changes, including bottom preparation, adequate weight on
the rail (and hiking hard), constant adjustment in rig-tension including a
very active use of the backstay during the race, paying attention to target
boat speeds off the wind, and a consistent crew of 7 solid racers, have all
resulted in improved boat speed and sail-handling. One of our biggest speed
and pointing improvements was finding the "sweet-spot" for mast butt
placement and correct forestay tension. It took a fair amount of
experimentation to find this. Good luck.

Bruce Santerre
Split Decision

[fair...@nauticom.net]

Hello all:

We have raced the boat for a year now. It points well. Most of the races are short, against Bene 36.7s, Schock 35s & J35s. I want to keep the furler due to crew considerations.
Where should the mast butt go? It is now almost all the way forward, another 3/4 Inch to go. How much rake is best?

Thanks,

Ed Benevent

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----

[Todd Aven]

The purpose of rake is to position the center of effort of the sail
plan relative to the center of lateral resistance of the hull and
appendages. The reason you would want to have this control is so that
you develop a small amount of weather helm when sailing close hauled.
The weather helm indicates the angle of attack of the keel. You want
this because it creates lift from the keel's movement through the
water, which effectively improves your pointing ability. You don't
want too much because then you are dragging your rudder to maintain
course.

So, how much weather helm do you have in typical conditions now?

[fair...@nauticom.net]

It is mostly light air. When the wind comes up we have neutral helm with
maybe a touch of weather helm. We tie the tack of the jib (154%) down to
the deck to bypass the furler.

Thanks for the info.

[furkolkjaaf]

FWIW : as for the rake, my sailmaker recommended 22-23" measured from
halyard kept vertical with a weight to mast at boom level ; I'm
actually more in the 25-26" range

max

On 8 Ott, 22:57, fairw...@nauticom.net wrote:
> It is mostly light air.  When the wind comes up we have neutral helm with
> maybe a touch of weather helm.  We tie the tack of the jib (154%) down to
> the deck to bypass the furler.
>
> Thanks for the info.
>
>
>
>
>
> > The purpose of rake is to position the center of effort of the sail
> > plan relative to the center of lateral resistance of the hull and
> > appendages. The reason you would want to have this control is so that
> > you develop a small amount of weather helm when sailing close hauled.
> > The weather helm indicates the angle of attack of the keel. You want
> > this because it creates lift from the keel's movement through the
> > water, which effectively improves your pointing ability. You don't
> > want too much because then you are dragging your rudder to maintain
> > course.
>
> > So, how much weather helm do you have in typical conditions now?
>

[furkolkjaaf]

so far my personal fuller-poll says fuller wins 5-3...
jokes aside, for my sailing style, I'm still in the fuller territory -
I have one-two months to decide, so we will see...
will keep you posted, of course
thanks everybody for sharing your thoughts...

[furkolkjaaf]

FWIW : as for the rake, my sailmaker recommended 22-23" measured from
halyard kept vertical with a weight to mast at boom level ; I'm
actually more in the 25-26" range

max

On 8 Ott, 22:57, fairw...@nauticom.net wrote:

> It is mostly light air.  When the wind comes up we have neutral helm with
> maybe a touch of weather helm.  We tie the tack of the jib (154%) down to
> the deck to bypass the furler.
>
> Thanks for the info.
>
>
>
>
>
> > The purpose of rake is to position the center of effort of the sail
> > plan relative to the center of lateral resistance of the hull and
> > appendages. The reason you would want to have this control is so that
> > you develop a small amount of weather helm when sailing close hauled.
> > The weather helm indicates the angle of attack of the keel. You want
> > this because it creates lift from the keel's movement through the
> > water, which effectively improves your pointing ability. You don't
> > want too much because then you are dragging your rudder to maintain
> > course.
>
> > So, how much weather helm do you have in typical conditions now?
>

[Andrew Oeftering]

If you sail shorthanded, and want to get maximum value from your boat, keep the furler

[Todd Aven]

Furler +1. :-)

The performance hit is down in the noise compared to boat handling and tactical mistakes that most of us make.

[Jens Bastian]

exactly and keep away from symetrical spinaker... (if you want to sail shorthanded)

[Joe Cooper]

Hello all
For what it is worth I would think about hanks,
 IF
You are sailing with only the 100% Jib
Sail short handed
Sail longer "distance" races as opposed to the windward/leeward so popular these days

A furler can be removed and stored completely intact on a spar rack in the boat yard available for re installation onto the boat when it is sold or used for class events
A simple dyform stay can be fabricated relatively cheaply,
There is no "foil" to buy
A headsail can be built with a reef in it, see all mini transat boats
IT is extremely seaworthy, drop the halyard and the sail falls down, more or less depending on the stiffness of the sail material.
IT can be operated by a solo sailor.
It can be at least the same "full size" as a jib for a foil
http://www.practicallysailing.com/blog/shorthanded-sailing-the-solent-stay-and-sail-in-practice-for-offshore-use

Cheers
Cooper

--
Joe Cooper
C: 401 965 6006

[Dick Heijdra]

To add something to the discussion: I never had a furler, allways a tuff luff. So I'm used to action on the foredeck, developed a routine and speed in handling the headsails and I don't miss a furler... What I would like to know however: has anybody experience with a snuffer for the asymmetric?

Kind regards.

Dick Heijdra

----

Pronk.

Heemraadssingel 170

3021 DL Rotterdam

0624516234

di...@pronkstudio.nl

www.pronkstudio.nl

[Ragtime!]

Yesterday I was wishing for those hanked-on jibs Coop mentions. It
was the return leg of our "Vallejo 1-2" and it started out light. I
was singlehanding and had a 155% on the furler.

As I turned the corner out into San Pablo Bay I found the forecast was
wrong (again) - the wind was quickly up to 17-18 knots and I was WAY
overpowered. Also the normal washing machine chop due to the shallow
water made me less than thrilled about a headsail change. I hung on
for awhile but saw boats overtaking - so I did the change but it was
ugly. I corraled the 155 okay and got it down the companionway hatch,
but the #3 was a bear to get up the foil. I lost a ton of time.

I still wonder how smoothly you can drag the kite around all those
hanks but hanks were sure sounding good yesterday.

Dick, I've used snuffers in the ocean but don't bother with them in
the Bay. If you practice and are quick with the douses the snuffer
isn't worth the extra spaghetti.

Bob J.

On Oct 12, 8:15 am, Dick Heijdra <d...@pronkstudio.nl> wrote:
> To add something to the discussion: I never had a furler, allways a  
> tuff luff. So I'm used to action on the foredeck, developed a routine  
> and speed in handling the headsails and I don't miss a furler... What  
> I would like to know however: has anybody experience with a snuffer  
> for the asymmetric?
>
> Kind regards.
>
> Dick Heijdra
>
> ----
>
> Pronk.
>
> Heemraadssingel 170
> 3021 DL Rotterdam
> 0624516234

> d...@pronkstudio.nl

> >> Italy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Joe Cooper]

Bob J-Hi
All
Know what you mean on the  (bronze) hanks. There are a few 21 st Cent. versions out there, equip lite Precor: light  and low friction so dragging the kite around IS Ok subject to normal Kite rules....
But they are expensive, awkward to use -require both hands and fiddly to boot  less agro then the sting version hank. I can elaborate as necessary if any one needs more info.

On Kite, the letter box has proven its value to me. Drag the lazy sheet twixt the (required loose) foot of the main, AND also use a Martin Breaker on the tack line. This is a length of line,  12" longer then the sprint length ,secured on the stem head, with the other end tied thru the trigger in the (typically Tylaska or Sparcraft) tack shackle. When the tack line is fired, the tack blows to leeward the Martin Brealer lines triggers the tack line off and so there is a LOT less possibility of shrimping with the tack of the sail if (er, when????) somethink screws up.

Then pull the foot thru the slot in ga thep between boom and sail.
Fire the halyard and dont forget to toss the halyard over the stern first...
I had done this on a Quest 33 in 25 true doing about 14 and it worked like a champ
Cheers
Coop

[Todd Aven]

What if instead of hanks for the headstay you stitch a handful of
soft, low profile loops just behind the existing bolt rope luff and
run a small line from a suitable location on the deck up the luff to
serve as a drawstring?

Not quite as automatic as hanks, but definitely less fiddly and ought
to be a simple retrofit. Has it already been invented?

[Ragtime!]

Joe, can we noodle on this a bit?

I could set up an inner stay 18-20" back from the headstay. Even
though the foredeck is cored, there is a bulkhead under there and the
tang for the inner stay could be tied into it for support. The
assymetric kites would not drag on this inner stay, only on the
headstay with roller-furling foil (as it does now), so traditional
hanks wouldn't matter.

I already have an 80% #4 Dacron jib with a short hoist (31' on the
luff with a pennant, regular jibs are 36'). I think this sail would
fit on the inner stay. I would have hanks installed on it and might
even add a reef.

The top of the inner stay would be attached with a t-ball into a
socket on the mast. Of course the stay could be detached at the tack
end and brought aft for normal sailing (so you could tack the genoa,
etc.) The 92 is already set up for a second jib halyard but here's
the rub (literally) - that halyard would be above the attachment
socket for the inner stay. Also, the inner stay's attachment point is
at the point of maximum mast bend so I wouldn't want a bigger hole
there (for a sheave box). (My J/33 was on its fourth rig because of
the pole lift's sheave box being at the mast's maximum point of bend.)

After yesterday this sounds really appealing - hook up the inner stay
and hoist the heavy air jib via hanks, then roll up the genoa and
leave it on the headstay until you get a chance to take it down.

I could even set a light staysail on that inner stay, inside the Code
Zero or reaching kite.

Any thoughts on the halyard issue (or otherwise)?

Bob J.

[mojito]

we have a 92S and after a year and a half we have changed the furler
to a 2 track foil.

it might be the new sails, but we have noticed more speed and more
height upwind for no penalty

the other key thing for us was that the jib changes in a race were a
nightmare with vertical battens. even with a 105% jib, it's a rubbish
shape as soon as you begin to furl it in increasing pressure; you have
to change down, and you certainly don't want to be reefing the main

thankfully we have a good crew who can handle the jib drops and
hoists...it's just one more job, and we've all raced before on pole
boats

we were encouraged to change by our sailmaker as we want to race
seriously with a full crew who are also good.

our bowman actually enjoys the fact that he has a proper job now as
well!!

BTW, I wouldn't use hanks. catches the kite, more weight, and again a
nightmare on a headsail change

[Joe Cooper]

Bob,
HI. I think you are a prime candidate for a Solent stay virtually exactly as I organized on the J 105:
http://www.practicallysailing.com/blog/hankon-jibs-and-the-solent-stay

It goes from the hounds (this rig is a Charleston spar NOT a Hall spar so the connecting detail is a little different) down to right behind the furler (you might be able to secure the bottom of the stay into the stem head metal fittings just aft of the furfler instead of going into composites boat building...) and the tensioning line goes aft to a winch via a 6:1 purchase. The "small" sail that sets on it is a cut down class jib with both soft hanks AND #6 tape for the foil.We use the second jib halyard and it wroks like a champ. The [primairy head sail on the furler is a 131 laminated sail
We used this rig in the Marblehead Halifax race DH and had it up in 18 true with a reef in the main and BS was a solid 7 knots in easy upwind trim, registered on Ockam meters.
The stay is Dynux Dux 8 mm dyneema with a break around 11,000 lbs. We also built a storm Jib that would set on this stay and used regular bronze hanks after testing spectra for chafe with the hanks. Peter's small jib has soft hanks though since the sail also goes on the foil but you can figure out your needs
I would NOT run the stay back to the bulkhead at the forward end of the fore cabin because this makes the subsequent head sail way too tall and skinny and so very twitchy to trim.
You could also get the Jib with a reef in it and so after rolling up the primary headsail be set almost all thetway to over 30 true close hauled with reefs in the main and the headsail, I think
Let me know if you need more info, there is lots on the site under Solents.
And yes you can set all sorts of sails on this, High clew Jib top reacher, light air drifter/reacher (same size or smaller than the primary headsail for rating purposes and so on.
All good ideas.
OK I just re read your note again.

For the halyard, you could LOOK at putting two T fittings on either side of the mast just under the hounds, and creating a V yoke and attaching the stay to the bottom of the V and using the existing halyard BUT led thru say a harken deflector block like a 944 or a 945 used for furlers where the halyard angle is too narrow....
OR f you don't like the holes you could have a tang welded in there....

Otherwise you could use a single T fitting again right under the hounds and just re-lead the second halyard trhu the lower box.
Cheers
Coop

[Joe Cooper]

HI. Agree with removing the furling jib with battens and so on PIA even with full crew.
BUT hanks are perfectly fine, can be soft so as to not damage kite and even bronze ones are lighter than a foil.
Agree you would not benefit from hanks with full crew, but short handed they are perfectly fine.
Review my response to Bob J re Solent stay. Bear in mind Bob sails solo & DH mainly so has different requirements than full crewed boats.
Cheers
Coop

[Ragtime!]

I like the idea of tacking down the Solent stay near the stem. With
this #4's high clew the change in luff angle would be an improvement.

However, there's nothing on the deck up there except the long bow tang
to which the headstay is attached - no deck plate with additional
holes, obviously no anchor roller fitting, etc. I'd still have to
penetrate the deck with a double folding pad eye or something. The
deck might be solid glass that far forward but the intent was for the
tang to transfer the headstay load into the stem, not pull directly up
on the deck. I could ask Rod or Al J. about it but doubt I'd get a
response.

Regarding the second jib halyard chafing on the Solent stay, a halyard
deflector to the side may work if it's small/smooth enough. I don't
want my genoa leeches catching on anything up there. As I'm sure you
have found, at times the cure can be worse than the disease. The 92
is a great, simple boat and I don't want to screw it up more than I
already have!

[furkolkjaaf]

Hi Simon,

do you have a new mainsail as well, or just the new longer jib ? Are
the new sail(s) lighter than before and with a different design
(depth, etc) ?
Another point we didn't mention is the design of the jib base. My
current jib (furler design) has a straight base, so there's a big gap
at deck level which is no good due to the end plate effect. Much
better would be in my view to have a round base to close the gap (J/80
style) so less end plate effect.
How was yours ?

Max

[mojito]

Hi Max

we have bought a North 3DL jib and main so cloth is lighter than the
tape drive with taffeta we had before. Hong Kong is predominantuly
light airs: lots of 6-10kts racing, so having a shape pre-formed seema
to work

the LL on the jib is now as long as possible so the gap at the foot
has been closed.

both sails are shaped to be a full luff and straight back shape, like
an aerofoil.

both have deeper draft, and more draft forward than previous ones.

with a 105% jib we are relying on power and drive from the main, much
more so than some other boats with larger proportion jibs/genoas, the
main has to be powerful and the right shape.

we have also put a wand on the top of the backstay to push the
backstay further away from the main leech as it used to catch in light
airs.

we have also changed the metal backstay to spectra to lighten it.

quite a few small tweaks plus and investment in some 3DL's

simon

[Ragtime!]

It happens that I'm about to pull the rig, so I'll probably install
the mast fittings and give this "solent stay" a try.

I took a hard look at it yesterday. I hoisted the #1 and rolled it as
loosely as possible on the furler (so it would be bulky), took some
measurements and walked up on the pier and looked at the upper end of
the furler. Then I went home and drew it all on on a scale drawing.
I'll still talk with a rigger, but it looks like the removable stay
could be about 8" aft of the furler foil and parallel to it. That
would put the t-ball (to attach the stay's upper end) 18"-24" below
the existing sheave box for the jib halyards. I would need a halyard
retainer to route the halyard around the top of the solent stay.

The #4 (or new #3?) would be flaked and secured back by the mast, with
sheets and halyard attached. When overpowered with the #1, I would go
forward and clip the bottom of the stay and the jib's tack strop into
the deck fitting. Then back in the cockpit I would tension the stay,
hoist and trim the jib and roll the #1.

Everything with the assymetrics would be happening in front of the
furler foil so the presence of the stay and even the hanks (if the jib
is still hoisted) should not cause any issues.

Am I missing anything?

I've always thought of this setup in the context of a storm jib, but
if this works it would solve the "gear change" problem we
singlehander's often face in regular racing. I'm getting pretty
jazzed about the idea.

[Joe Cooper]

Rob,
HI. NO I think you have the bigger bases covered. The challenge is in the fine details, as usual.
Thoughts:

Antal has some new, nice looking, round thimbles that are light, strong, cheap, relatively compared to a Harken Block of the same load rating. (See attached file) They, the Antal bits do not have bearings or anything, they ARE just thimbles but I submit that are perfect for the tensioning tackle for the tack end of the stay. I haev seen them i n use on a Mini out here and I intend to by a box of them for my mini for high load, little movement applications-Tack line block reeplacement fer instance.
Also review Precourt equipment from Canada, also attached, for similar application.

This link: http://www.practicallysailing.com/blog/j105-doublehanded-solent-stay-for-heavy-weather-sails
shows the set on the 105 using the Precort hardware.

This link http://www.practicallysailing.com/blog/j105offshore-sailing-modifications
IS a de-brief on the halifax race on the 105-the bottom pics are of a boat from the OSTAR

This way you can have a nice little snotty Jib, with battens in it AND a reef too if you want.
AND you can hang the storm Jib on the solent too
IF your -come to think of it-ORC back up regs... so just put soft hanks in the grommets and the SJ can now go on the solent....


Give a shout if you need any more help
Can you take pictures and notes and we can post your set up?
Thanks
Coop

[Ragtime!]

Joe,

This is very helpful. I thought I had read all your articles on this
subject but I missed a couple. Some more questions:

1) "In this case the top end of the stay had a soft eye spliced into
it and was attached to the spar on the same pin as the forestay, above
the second headsail halyard which is then used as the solent stay."

Could you explain this further? At the end of the sentence do you
mean "used as the solent halyard"?

The stay attachment at the mast is a key detail because attaching it
on the same pin as the forestay would solve some problems but create
some new ones. If it is attached that high, I could use the second
(lower sheave) jib halyard for the solent with no problem. However,
the solent stay would be crossing the primary (upper sheave) jib
halyard and with the upper furler roller right there too (the genoa is
hoisted on it), there is potential for chafe and interference. How
did this work out on the 105? Do you have any photos of the upper
(mast) end of the rigging?

2) "The bottom end is a multi-part purchase through Precort deadeye
fittings the upper portion of which is seen here."

This looks really good - simpler and stronger than blocks. My
question is about the upper fitting (just below the first jib hank).
It would be nice to be able to pull the hanked-on jibs flat down to
the deck. With a gap between the tack and the deck (say a foot) for
the purchase to be adjusted, could you avoid the upper PreCourt
fitting that appears to prevent the hanks from coming all the way
down?

3) Similar to the sail in your photos, I have a 3DL #3 (w/double-
sided taffeta) that could be modified for this use. I would have
hanks installed and the vertical battens changed to horizontals.
Since it was made for the furler the luff may even be short enough,
especially if I could attach the solent stay to the same pin as the
forestay. Was the sail in the photos modified or was it built for use
on the solent stay? Assuming the luff length works, can you think of
any problems with modifying this sail?

4) I understand it would add some shipping costs but is there a part
of this project that you would like to be involved with? Please e-
mail me with your thoughts on that point at BobsailsSF-at-yahoo-dot-
calm.

Thanks!

[Ragtime!]

Joe, regarding the deck attachment of the solent stay - how close is
the solent stay to the furled genoa? I wrote that mine would be about
8" but it appears the gap between the sails on the 105 is more than
that. Were there ever any problems furling the genoa after the solent
stay was rigged?

The genoa sheeting angles (outside the shrouds) on a 105 are much
wider than on the 92. For the benefit of a friend w/105 who is having
these same thoughts, were you able to point very high with that 131%?
It appears to me that a #2 is not a good sail on that boat.

[Joe Cooper]

Rob,
HI.. This detail has been the bane of my existence. Basic issue is that you have, I assume, a Hall spar. The 105 has a Charleston spars Sparcraft rig and their detail at the hounds is different from that used by Hall.

The main difference and the key one here is that the Sparcraft spar has, not an metal flange such as the Hall rig but a metal rod "nose" made from barstock that is inserted into the section somehow. Think of a right triangle, made from say 10 mm barstock that is inserted into the spar and you are close to that set  up. The top of the head stay attaches to this nose fitting.
So, the headstay attachment point (and there is room aft of the headstay on this bar stock nose) in the case of the 105, we shackled the solent stay directly to the nose, aft of the headstay fitting and so were able toi use the second headsail halyard which is side by side on the rig, not underneath as is on the Hall 105 spar.....still with me? I will have pictures in a couple of weeks when the 105 comes out for Key West.

So in your case, you really cannot do what the 105 did, exactly, since your details are different,

In your case You have two options:
1. is to install the stay say 12 inches down from the bottom sheave, install a small fairalead off to one side of the Gibb T fitting so as to lead the solent halyard away ffrom the tp of the stay and related chafe and then you can use the lower sheave/halyard combo. With me?
OR
2. Mount two pad eyes on the side of he mast, just aft of the side wall centerline. Orient the padeyes so they are in line with the axis of the stay, so a 60 degree down angle kinda thing. Then fabricate a yoke from spectra, attach the top of the stay to the yoke, then install a halyard deflector in the bight of the yoke so as to give a fair lead up to the lower sheave?
Much harder to write than to draw, which I will try and do tonight...

Regarding the Precort fitting on the 105, that is wrong, it was way too high up. Too many people in the install loop. Me, owner, owner partners, part time boat capt, yard rigger. ALL had their ideas of what was going on. Kinda like a camel is designed by a bunch of guys trying to make a horse....

Anyway, the Precort fitting has been lowered down to about a foot fo the deck and it is much more better.

As to recutting the Class String jib, one detail to keep in mind is that when the luff (of the whole sail) moves back, the leech can and  might and probably will press against the shrouds/spreaders. (Consider how close to the rig that the Jb is when it is on the furler.)

Especially so since you will not be recutting the sail, I think. We had a small version of this problem on the 105, but it was only a V. small issue because the sail was dramatically cut on the leech, and is about 2.5 feet short on the hoist,  so the leech only pressed into the rig a small amount. With a full sized jib with horizobnal leech battens, this will be a larger issue. You may need to have the sail reduced in LP by giving the luff a hair cut. And do not expect a fantastic shape afterwards, the string sails are not really suited to recuts.

Finally I will come oup on your other email with some ideas. Basically, Yes is the anaswer.

Cheers
Coop

[Todd Olsen]

Hi Bob-

Did you end up making this modification?  If yes, how did it work out?  I am trying to figure out a way to get to a smaller jib, while singlehanding.

Thanks,

Todd

[Ragtime!]

Yes, and it works fine - see photo.  The solent sits folded in a bag on the seahood, already attached to the soft stay and ready to hoist.  I hook up the stay, winch it snug (but not tight) and hoist the solent.  Then I roll up the #1 or jibtop on the furler, tension the stay and I just downsized without need for a bareheaded change.

BUT it turns out that the rolled headsail on the front of the boat costs me almost 1/2 knot upwind, and it's a PITA to get down and stowed.  So I don't use it for racing. 

[Joe Cooper]

Gents, Bob

How goes?

RE: Solent stays & on a 105.

There is no "defined" location for the base of the solent stay. It is one of these mods where the position it needs to land is that location where a combination of factors align.

Mainly so as to clear the furler drum, but primarily in/on the deck where the boat building for reinforcement is least,  BUT not back at the bulkhead in the cabin. That is too far aft and results in a sail that is too tall and skinny and thus a PIA to trim once not hard on the wind.

Re the boat speed with the furled sail in front if it. Yup, but it is a compromise. If one considers the time spend in solo DH distance races actually hard in the wind, yes, slower when doing so, but I maintain it is on overall average then trying to swap out a genoa OR having a "Reefing" genoa. Plus, if inclined one can set other sails on it: Light air drifter reacher, high clew blast reacher, (which can be poled out as required) Holy Shit sails and so on. There are other ways to do it, one of which requires runners which is a PIA in the other direction. I will post pictures of link to a set up I did for a Quest 30 used in the Bermuda 1-2. This  boat already had the runners set up next to the (SSL) halyard at the top spreader. In this case I designed/installed the runners so they cleared the boom end thus when Mike Millard, owner, has the second reef (3rd?) in, the remaining mainsail can tack under both runners, so no tacking of the runners. Mike reports this sail method worked like a champ in the last wind Bermuda 1-2.

There was a padeye on the foredeck BUT it was at the bulkhead which as I say, a MUCH to tall and skinny sail, difficult to sheet when eased off and too small to be a good gear change. Like going from 3rd to 5th.....Hence the stay going to the bow. IT looks funky uip there because the Q30's have an anchor well space AND the furler is under deck so we had to go thru the deck to pick up the actual headstay fitting....Still with me?

This is a viable way to do it, if the runners can clear the end of the boom. Todd in this case-I can look on a sail plan in a minute, I think this is viable too.

Bob you refer to it being a PIA to lower and stow....Should not be THAT much of a hassle

What do you use for a tensioner?

From what material is the stay made?

CAVEAT:

ON the 105, this boat had a Charleston spars rig. The forestay halyards arrangement in this was such that when the stay is set, the back edge of the top of the genoa, (NOT the swivel, BUT the corner patching of the sail which never folds as tightly as the body of the sail) can fouled the stay causing "stay wrap..." Partly this is due to the guy who installed it not following my instructions for a placing the stay lower down. It attaches to the metal "nose" which is a characteristic of Charleston spars for frac. rigs, so the forestay AND the solent arrive at the same fitting. A PIA, but doable,, Just needs care in the operation, another layer of things to think about, but regardless the actual sail and related set up works well.

This is a better way to do it: A baltic 38.-You can see the stay attaches below the actual headstay. In  this case we installed a T fitting about a foot down and used a halyard deflector to get around the stay so the owners could use the already installed 2nd genoa halyard.

And this is the most recent set up. A Hood Waquiez 38. The bloke was setting up to sail to NZL with his teenage daughter.

 

This is of course a mock up. In the actual set up the plastic slides were replaced with pad eyes.

Coop out!!!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "J/92 Owners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to j92owners+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to j92o...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/j92owners.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Joe Cooper]

I knew there was more on the 105.

Sheeting angles and genoa size:

We all know the solo DH is a compromise.

One could change the sheeting angles on a 105, most readily by using a floating thimble system on the cabin top.

BUT then you will have issues with the keel chords....Could you POINT higher, yes, but the leeway would increase I reckon.  It all goes around.

Re: the genoa LP, yes 131% was the size and as a #2 generally, no it is not a good sized overlap sail. Here is where ratings come into the game. For IRC, that was the largest size we could have without going all the way to a 150%. They, IRC, do not credit/rate headsails between 131 and 150, so a 140 would = a 150. If we had a 150% or so sized sail, 

a) we would rate "faster", 

b) have to carry that rating all the time, 

c) have to roll the sail up on about 12 true or so and as in b, cary the rating.

For DH distance racing, I have found that the only time when a genoa is required is up wind light, under 10 true and in waves does not help. One Halifax race we were two sail reaching with the genoa and there was a 105 out watching the race sailing along to leeward of us and we were not faster, the same speed, but rating faster, so a net loss to us. He was NOT in the race but out  cruising with the kids mates beers etc, just watching.

If I was going to campaign a 105 in solo/DH sailing, I would remove the furler and use a hank on Jib. I might also look at a larger roach main, no not square head, just a bit to give more grunt in the light. I would not do that until I had good performance data on using the hank on Jib.

And yes I can hear everyone squawking about hanks/going to the bow etc., but it is a bigger and more effective sail, (then the furler) can take horizontal battens & can be reefed. I can set it up so it can reef from the cockpit.  Personally I have no trouble going to the bow on a boat, especially a 105 to change sails if necessary, but for almost all the DH sailing I have done on a 105, a 100% RF jib (solent) has been fine, and quite a lot of the time we have either a reef in the main or the solent up, so about about 8-10 kts. they are OK, and I wager that this would be even a lower number with a hank on Jib. For PHRF ratings you would get speed up 3 sec /a mile I reckon.

For reference there is a J-35 out here, Paladin-Todd you may know the boat, they sail DH (only I think) and they have overlapping headsails and hanks and are quite successful.

Cheers

C

On Feb 11, 2015, at 12:24 PM, Joe Cooper wrote:

Gents, Bob

How goes?

RE: Solent stays & on a 105.

There is no "defined" location for the base of the solent stay. It is one of these mods where the position it needs to land is that location where a combination of factors align.

Mainly so as to clear the furler drum, but primarily in/on the deck where the boat building for reinforcement is least,  BUT not back at the bulkhead in the cabin. That is too far aft and results in a sail that is too tall and skinny and thus a PIA to trim once not hard on the wind.

Re the boat speed with the furled sail in front if it. Yup, but it is a compromise. If one considers the time spend in solo DH distance races actually hard in the wind, yes, slower when doing so, but I maintain it is on overall average then trying to swap out a genoa OR having a "Reefing" genoa. Plus, if inclined one can set other sails on it: Light air drifter reacher, high clew blast reacher, (which can be poled out as required) Holy Shit sails and so on. There are other ways to do it, one of which requires runners which is a PIA in the other direction. I will post pictures of link to a set up I did for a Quest 30 used in the Bermuda 1-2. This  boat already had the runners set up next to the (SSL) halyard at the top spreader. In this case I designed/installed the runners so they cleared the boom end thus when Mike Millard, owner, has the second reef (3rd?) in, the remaining mainsail can tack under both runners, so no tacking of the runners. Mike reports this sail method worked like a champ in the last wind Bermuda 1-2.

There was a padeye on the foredeck BUT it was at the bulkhead which as I say, a MUCH to tall and skinny sail, difficult to sheet when eased off and too small to be a good gear change. Like going from 3rd to 5th.....Hence the stay going to the bow. IT looks funky up there because the Q30's have an anchor well space AND the furler is under deck so we had to go thru the deck to pick up the actual headstay fitting....Still with me?

This is a viable way to do it, if the runners can clear the end of the boom. Todd in this case-I can look on a sail plan in a minute, I think this is viable too.

Bob you refer to it being a PIA to lower and stow....Should not be THAT much of a hassle

What do you use for a tensioner?

From what material is the stay made?

CAVEAT:

ON the 105, this boat had a Charleston spars rig. The forestay halyards arrangement in this was such that when the stay is set, the back edge of the top of the genoa, (NOT the swivel, BUT the corner patching of the sail which never folds as tightly as the body of the sail) can fouled the stay causing "stay wrap..." Partly this is due to the guy who installed it not following my instructions for a placing the stay lower down. It attaches to the metal "nose" which is a characteristic of Charleston spars for frac. rigs, so the forestay AND the solent arrive at the same fitting. A PIA, but doable,, Just needs care in the operation, another layer of things to think about, but regardless the actual sail and related set up works well.

<Millard staysail set-2.jpg>

<Millard solent tensioning arrangememt-3.jpg><Millard halyard space to two block-1.jpg><Millard solent tensioning arrangement-4.jpg>

This is a better way to do it: A baltic 38.-You can see the stay attaches below the actual headstay. In  this case we installed a T fitting about a foot down and used a halyard deflector to get around the stay so the owners could use the already installed 2nd genoa halyard.

And this is the most recent set up. A Hood Waquiez 38. The bloke was setting up to sail to NZL with his teenage daughter.

<Solent to mast angle wide.jpg> 

<IMG_1503.jpg>

This is of course a mock up. In the actual set up the plastic slides were replaced with pad eyes.

Coop out!!!

On Feb 11, 2015, at 12:45 AM, 'Ragtime!' via J/92 Owners wrote:

Yes, and it works fine - see photo.  The solent sits folded in a bag on the seahood, already attached to the soft stay and ready to hoist.  I hook up the stay, winch it snug (but not tight) and hoist the solent.  Then I roll up the #1 or jibtop on the furler, tension the stay and I just downsized without need for a bareheaded change.

BUT it turns out that the rolled headsail on the front of the boat costs me almost 1/2 knot upwind, and it's a PITA to get down and stowed.  So I don't use it for racing. 

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 5:43:37 PM UTC-8, Todd Olsen wrote:

Hi Bob-

Did you end up making this modification?  If yes, how did it work out?  I am trying to figure out a way to get to a smaller jib, while singlehanding.

Thanks,

Todd

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "J/92 Owners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to j92owners+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to j92o...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/j92owners.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Todd Olsen]

Coop & Bob-

Thanks for the photos and information.  

Bob-

For the stay, did you put a t-ball fitting in the mast?  Also, is there another halyard exit sheave below the stay, or did you use the halyard deflector plus 2nd spinnaker halyard?

Thanks again,

Todd

[Ragtime!]

Hi Todd,

Yes, a t-ball fitting on the top end, and I use the second jib halyard for the solent halyard.  I don't know if the 92S has the same sheave box for the jib halyards - maybe you have only one jib halyard sheave.  Then you surmise correctly that the halyard has to pass the stay near the t-ball fitting.  I do not have a deflector there but I watch it for chafe.  If I start seeing any I'll install a deflector (which will add chafe of its own).  But I really don't use this second stay setup much.  For around here (SSS races, etc.) I approach this differently because the solent stay adds too much windage and complexity.

The problem of course is that the SSS races (and others) are long random leg races and the wind conditions vary.  I have lost more of them due to the wrong headsail selection than any other reason (autopilot drive problems is the second reason but it looks like Brian Boschma may have the answer for that).  In this regard you have an advantage with the 92S since you have non-overlapping jibs (mitigated by a taller rig).  Elsewhere and with crew that's a disadvantage but singlehanding on SF Bay it's an advantage.

You still have the option of a #1 vs. #3 jib but it's about shape and cut.  Your boat probably came with a #1.  This would be a fuller and slightly larger (105%-108%) sail that is powerful in light air.  For around here in season you need a smaller jib (95%-100%) that's cut flatter.  You will give up less when flying that flatter jib than I give up switching from my 145% to my 100%.

The key is handling your main.  It may also be a fuller, East Coast cut that you can't get flat enough.  Using its controls and judicious use of the backstay you should be able to get it really flat.  If you can't that's going to be a problem.  For what we do you also need a substantial first reef (more than 10%) and a reefing system that runs smoothly so you can reef and unreef quickly.  Even with my flat sails I have to reef at 12-14 knots if I'm singlehanded and your main is bigger than mine.  While racing, you reef the main while sailing on the jib - I can do it in less than 30 seconds.  On the final leg into the windward mark (unless the next leg is a reach) I take the reef back out.  This is much faster than trying to change headsails (with or without solent stay).  Reefing the main also balances the rig better, helping to keep the bow down without crew on the rail.

I know you know most of this and are used to being overpowered from singlehanding your Express 27 - but it's good review.

A few years ago I bought a J/33 from the East Coast that had won everything back there.  Its upwind sails were useless here on SF Bay.

[jwhj92s]

Sorry for taking so long to reply, but:  Since we removed our roller furler, which we took a 3 second hit in PHRF; we have finished our racing season with our best results to date.  It's nice to blow the halyard and not worry about the sail leaving the boat.  One downfall is haedsail changes, we try not to.  We went with soft hanks in the middle and brass hanks up top and down low.  As you are experiencing, our sailmaker exerted strong pressure to make this change for all the benefits you have mentioned, in hindsight, he was right.  My vote is to lose the furler.

[Ragtime!]

Over five years in fact!

On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 8:40:58 AM UTC-8, jwhj92s wrote:

Sorry for taking so long to reply . . .

 

On Sunday, October 4, 2009 at 12:39:04 PM UTC-5, furkolkjaaf wrote:

I know it's been debated already . . .

[Ragtime!]

Hey Coop - not ignoring you; just trying to address the bigger issue.

The solent stay goes around a large ferrule that also holds the tack, back to a 2:1 on the cabin top and is tensioned on a cabintop winch (through a clutch).  The trick in tensioning it (as written above) is to keep enough tension on the headstay so the furler will work.  Then grind on the stay after the genoa is rolled up.  The stay is Dynex Dux.  

More photos are attached.  This was a fun project but I haven't ended up using it much.  Maybe if I get the solo Tahiti race together . . .

Bob J.

[Joe Cooper]

No worries,

When do you deploy the solent/stay, when, or ideally prior to, being required? You do not leave it up "all" the time do you? That is not the intention, you know-I am sure.

Oh of course you do, mentioned the sail is in a bag on the cabin top.

Ever timed how long it takes from go to whoa pulling the stay forward tensioning setting and rolling up the furler?

With everything marked and set up, should not take more than 5 minutes and ideally only a couple.

And how do you secure the tack to the pad eye? Soft shackle I hope other wise chafe will chase you...

Nice job on the under-deck BTW but you do need to cut those bolts of ya know, all that weight up forward, Geeze I dunno mate....

On Feb 12, 2015, at 12:22 PM, 'Ragtime!' via J/92 Owners wrote:

Hey Coop - not ignoring you; just trying to address the bigger issue.

The solent stay goes around a large ferrule that also holds the tack, back to a 2:1 on the cabin top and is tensioned on a cabintop winch (through a clutch).  The trick in tensioning it (as written above) is to keep enough tension on the headstay so the furler will work.  Then grind on the stay after the genoa is rolled up.  The stay is Dynex Dux.  

More photos are attached.  This was a fun project but I haven't ended up using it much.  Maybe if I get the solo Tahiti race together . . .

Bob J.

On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 9:25:02 AM UTC-8, bushra...@gmail.com wrote:

What do you use for a tensioner?

From what material is the stay made?

[Ragtime!]

Coop, the setup takes quite a bit of time but the deployment is quick (definitely less than five minutes).  Synthia (Santa Cruz Sails) made the cabintop bag for me.  BTW, she won the Three Bridge Fiasco singlehanded overall on 1/31, sailing her Hawkfarm.  The higher rated boats like hers had a big advantage because the wind was dying by the time the faster-rated boats started.  But Syn is also a heckuva sailor!  We had 368 entries (tied 2011 for the record) and I think 355 starters (a record).  Only 58 finishers though!

I added a third photo of the tack area - you'll have to look at the group forum to see it.

On the bolts yeah I know - sloppy, sloppy.

[Joe Cooper]

Just coz it is a slow day....

I have often contemplated the idea of, keeping the furler, (at 100%) BUT making an oversized main. No not square head (did I write this recently, that phrase rings a bell) But at some girth number, especially up high, that has an impact on the sailing, that is "better" than the rating penalty (PHRF) would assess. 

For instance according the the PHRF of Narra. Bay you can add what amounts to 20% of the sail's (triangle area) area, over and above the "regular" (IMS, IRC or the rating rule du jour) girth sail area for a 5 second increase in rating. So for a classic 92, the triangle area of the main is 256 sq. ft. Plus 20% (roughly what the max girths provide if measured as per the IRC formulae) you get to 307. Another 20% (of the base triangle) on top of that is another 53 sq. ft. for total of 360 sq. ft. 

All this costs 5 seconds a mile. Who amongst you can hazard a guess what the difference in performance such an increase in area might have in the boats performance. Leave aside the backstay issue for now.

For me the benefit, (for my preferred poison, DH distance racing--NOT W/L), is light air in any apparent wind angle, two sail reaching and down wind any air, assuming no reefs. Plus you get to have a smaller headsail, well the 100% Jib anyway.

Oh, and while I am on sails, I keep seeing folks refer to 105, 108% etc. Jibs. Bob J did yesterday I think--- I would really like to see a measurement cert. for a Jib for a J-92 classic at these LP numbers. With the sail up on the furler, or even with out the furler, having on the deck, (on the furlers just makes it even less likely), with a stamp certifying that the sail is in fact 108% of J. 

Now I know you guys have all been around for a while and esp. on the 92's  and I am most assuredly not trying to be (anymore of) a Richard Cranium than normal but, and maybe it is me, I cannot get a jib, with an LP grater that 101 or 2% THAT will sheet, on the 92. To do that,even if the clew was on the deck, there would have to be a LOT of leech hollow up to the first spreader.

But maybe the spreaders ARE swept enough, but I would really like to see that cert. Anaya takers, or at least anyone who can say they have it...? Thoughts? Thanks

Coop

[Ragtime!]

To clarify, Todd has a J92S which has outboard chainplates and lots more spreader sweep.  92S's can handle more LP in their #3 than the "classic" 92.

That said, (being an accountant) I measure my "classic" 92's new sails when they arrive.  The 105% actually measured at about 103% and the 103% measured right at 100%.  I think an honest 105% would work but that would be the max.  Also, the laminated sails shrink a bit over time (at least mine do) so if it brushes the shroud initially it won't for long.  Another consideration is inhaulers.  The clew needs to be higher for them and that limits the LP.

My current #3 has some positive roach supported by horizontal battens, so even though the LP isn't much over 100% it's a big sail:

On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 11:51:51 AM UTC-8, bushra...@gmail.com wrote:

 

. . . I cannot get a jib, with an LP grater that 101 or 2% THAT will sheet, on the 92. To do that,even if the clew was on the deck, there would have to be a LOT of leech hollow up to the first spreader.

[Joe Cooper]

Hi Bob,

Yes I as thinking that when I specified the Classics. The rigging being set outboard helps as does spreader rake. At least you do not have reverse bow spreaders, ones with a negative bend away from the bow to get the leech aft even more. And other not readily obvious details like "is the cabin the same width" as the classics. Any one  know if they really did a new design/mold for the deck?

And on the positive roach with the battens.... Is that jib measured and stamped? With a description like that, one might be curious as to wether or not the mid girths are less than 50% of the foot length. Any sailmakers worthy of hanging out the "Sailmakers" sign ought to know this, so perhaps the luff has lots of hollow.

Cheers

C

On Feb 13, 2015, at 6:51 PM, 'Ragtime!' via J/92 Owners wrote:

To clarify, Todd has a J92S which has outboard chainplates and lots more spreader sweep.  92S's can handle more LP in their #3 than the "classic" 92.

That said, (being an accountant) I measure my "classic" 92's new sails when they arrive.  The 105% actually measured at about 103% and the 103% measured right at 100%.  I think an honest 105% would work but that would be the max.  Also, the laminated sails shrink a bit over time (at least mine do) so if it brushes the shroud initially it won't for long.  Another consideration is inhaulers.  The clew needs to fall in the right place for them to work well.

My current #3 has a lot of positive roach supported by horizontal battens, so even though the LP isn't much over 100% it's a big sail.  There's a photo of it at the end of the Pacific Cup thread.

On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 11:51:51 AM UTC-8, bushra...@gmail.com wrote:

 

. . . I cannot get a jib, with an LP grater that 101 or 2% THAT will sheet, on the 92. To do that,even if the clew was on the deck, there would have to be a LOT of leech hollow up to the first spreader.

But maybe the spreaders ARE swept enough, but I would really like to see that cert. Anaya takers, or at least anyone who can say they have it...? Thoughts? Thanks

[furkolkjaaf]

no worries...I've still to decide - and still messing with the furler   :-)

thanks john

[Massimo Graziano]

Hi Max

that's our solution...

You know....

Ciao

Massimo

[furkolkjaaf]

great jib top Massimo...it's a must for y'all "lakers"...

...but I happen to be still lazy enough to love my furler...and by the way have a look at this one..."the best of both worlds" ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLoQcrERZyU

ciao !

max