Please help me choose a sail for gusty conditions...
Tufarnorth
the conditions were avg wind 6-12 with gusts to 20 kts. I started on an 8.5
and could not handle the gusts. My next sail was a 6.6 which I could handle in
gusts but couldn't keep me going through the non gusts. I understand the new
sails have a much larger range. Could they handle this type of condition?
What would be the best no cam modern sails for handling a large wind range?
Also, what size would I use in the above conditions. I'm 150lbs using a Bic
Rock 130l. Thanks in advance. Cindy
Lois Stufflebeam
I am about your size, and sail in similar winds, although we don't often
see gusts up to 20 here. I sail a 7.0 Sailworks Retro. It is an
AWESOME sail. Light, easy to jibe, easy to rig, has a huge range. If
you are getting overpowered, just adjust the downhaul or the outhaul,
and keep sailing. The sail has an amazing amount of low end power, and
I understand that the new 2000's have even more low end. Plus, the new
design and colors look really great. (color being a most important
consideration for us gals!)
You will be amazed at how well these modern sails handle the gusts.
People will be complaining that the wind is gusty, and I will not have
even noticed, since the sail performs so well. I'm sure the other new
camberless sails perform as well, but I have read that the Sailworks
have more low end, an important consideration for those of us in low
wind places.
As far as size, I think you should consider either a 7.5 or an 8.0. I
think I would probably be spending more time planing if I was willing to
go a little bigger than the 7.0. And whatever you do, don't let some
guy convince you to get a cambered sail. The camberless are a LOT
better in the gusts, just sheet out a little. Don't try that with a
cambered sail, you'll get slammed.
BTW, I have no connection with Sailworks, I just love my sails.
Lois
JB
The RAF's work best in steady wind. I would try a NEILPRYDE V8. ITs
powerfull and stable.
If you want an RAF, try the SUPERSONIC by NP, but if it is really gusty
the cam sails give more power on the low end and are very stable when
the gusts hit. The RAF's are really great in the middle range.
Yes I do work for NP. If you are on the west coast and want to try
some gear or need advice, let me know.
NP RULES!
JB
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Runxoverruny
>What would be the best no cam modern sails for handling a large wind range?
I have older and modern sails. There is a tremendous difference in gusts. The
main difference that I notice is the top of the sail. If the tip is more
square, it seems to handle gusts better. The older sails that are a small
triangle at the top, suck in gusts from my experience.
Slope
JayR
have been HUGE! We are talking the difference between cassette tapes and
CDs!
-JayR
Kent Browning <kent...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:38015B...@flash.net...
> Some people are going to hate this, but it almost doesn't matter what
> brand of sail you chose. The new sails are so much better that what you
> are used to ANY of them are going to feel great.
>
> Good luck to you.
>
>
> Tufarnorth wrote:
> >
> > I've been sailing about a year, always on early 90's dacron sails.
Yesterday
> > the conditions were avg wind 6-12 with gusts to 20 kts. I started on an
8.5
> > and could not handle the gusts. My next sail was a 6.6 which I could
handle in
> > gusts but couldn't keep me going through the non gusts. I understand
the new
condition?
> > What would be the best no cam modern sails for handling a large wind
range?
Bic
> > Rock 130l. Thanks in advance. Cindy
>
> Kent
>
> Remove 'nospam' from my email address to reply
Itsnukin
Naish Koa 6.5 or 6.0. Had been a North fan but after trying the Koa, I'm sold.
Easy to rig, great low end to get you planning & awesome stability thru the
gusty spurts. I have a 6.5 & don't need a 6.0. I go right to my 5.3. George,
Chesapeake, VA
Kent Browning
brand of sail you chose. The new sails are so much better that what you
are used to ANY of them are going to feel great.
Good luck to you.
Tufarnorth wrote:
>
> I've been sailing about a year, always on early 90's dacron sails. Yesterday
> the conditions were avg wind 6-12 with gusts to 20 kts. I started on an 8.5
> and could not handle the gusts. My next sail was a 6.6 which I could handle in
> gusts but couldn't keep me going through the non gusts. I understand the new
> sails have a much larger range. Could they handle this type of condition?
> What would be the best no cam modern sails for handling a large wind range?
musta...@my-deja.com
experience with cams, that you have to rule them out? Nothing against
camless, really. But your interest was directed at stability in
gusts. Different sails specialize in different things, and a modern
cammed sail will definitely be the most stable and rangy over most
points of sail. That's why the racers use them. Believe it or not, it's
not just to be macho :)>. Camless will get you lighter weight and easier
depowering in transitions, but the draft will move back moreso in a
gust, particularly if you're trying to point.
May help to pick a strategy for gusts first. Lois mentions being able to
sheet out a bit to spill power. Yes, that's easier to do with a camless,
just like wave sailors have always done when barreling down a big wave
face, where no further power is desired. But such a tactic may amount to
just dumping the power, with a resulting hard-off, hard-back-on feel to
the power. Better, most think (I think) to use the twist feature in
modern cam and non-cam sails, keep sheeted in, and let the sail
automatically adjust for gusts by spilling it out of the head. And here
is where the cams have an edge. While all that twisting is going on
above. The cams keep (better) the same direction of pull (ie stays
centered in your harness) in big gusts, and going upwind. Gives
you the option of hunkering down and taking advantage of that gust
to go faster, instead of pausing while it passes. Again, nothing against
camless, unless you REALLY want to solve your gusts/stability problem.
Now if you just have to go camless, or your girlfriends won't talk to
you anymore, then lean toward something with more, and stiffer (carbon
or tube) battens. I'd say more of a Noa, than a Koa, from Naish. I think
the NP Supersonic is good, and that Sailworks one mentioned is similar,
I believe. Good luck.
Doug
In article <19991010095504...@ng-ci1.aol.com>,
tufar...@aol.com (Tufarnorth) wrote:
> I've been sailing about a year, always on early 90's dacron sails.
Yesterday
> the conditions were avg wind 6-12 with gusts to 20 kts. I started on
an 8.5
> and could not handle the gusts. My next sail was a 6.6 which I could
handle in
> gusts but couldn't keep me going through the non gusts. I understand
the new
> sails have a much larger range. Could they handle this type of
condition?
> What would be the best no cam modern sails for handling a large wind
range?
> Also, what size would I use in the above conditions. I'm 150lbs using
a Bic
> Rock 130l. Thanks in advance. Cindy
>
dubois
Kong the wind is very gusty and flucky and cambered sails help you go
through the wind holes better (as the shape of the sail remains deep)
and the sail can handle strong gust much better than a RAF design.
Hope this helps,
Francois
Glenn Woodell
>
>Some people are going to hate this, but it almost doesn't matter what
>brand of sail you chose. The new sails are so much better that what you
>are used to ANY of them are going to feel great.
Hey! I was going to say that. It's true. ANYTHING after what you have been on
will feel great. For extended range I would suggest something with 1 or 2 max
cams but only if you are going to be sailing in underpowered conditions.
Otherwise, the Koa is an ecxellent sail. When it comes to waterstarting, you
can't beat a camless.
Glenn Woodell
>
>Camless will get you lighter weight and easier
>depowering in transitions, but the draft will move back moreso in a
>gust, particularly if you're trying to point.
I strongly disagree with this! My Koa is extremely stable. I cannot speak for
all others but all my Koas have been very stable. I set my harness lines on the
shore and never change them once I'm out. My next sail size down is a 5.25 and
until then I never have to move my lines. I will never own another cammed sail
as long as the camless sail this well. I usually sail in powered up conditions
so the camless works well for me.
>But such a tactic may amount to
>just dumping the power, with a resulting hard-off, hard-back-on feel to
>the power.
True but if you really need to dump quickly it's very hard with a cammed sail.
After a few minutes you get used to the throttle on-throttle off response. I
love it.
>Now if you just have to go camless, or your girlfriends won't talk to
>you anymore, then lean toward something with more, and stiffer (carbon
>or tube) battens. I'd say more of a Noa, than a Koa, from Naish.
Other way around. I have never sailed a Noa but have owned Koas and they are a
pure joy to sail. 6 carbon tube battens, hollow leech. Very stable sail that
works great as a slalom sail or for bump and jump conditions.
Danny Steyn
The single biggest improvement that you can make to ANY sail to improve its
ability to handle gusts is to install an adjustable outhaul on the fly. I
have it on all my large race sails from 9.3m down to 6.6m sails, but I also
have it in my wave sails from 5.5m down to 4.5m. Yeah right, I hear you say!
But last year during Hurricane Georges and recently this year during
Hurricane Dennis we had winds that gusted from 11 - 35 knots. Tough to sail
in those conditions no matter what you rig.
But by rigging a sail with adjustable outhauls you can loosen the sail for
the lulls and tighten the sail as tight as a drum for those nuclear gusts.
Adjustable outhauls will take a rangy sail of any size and increase its
range by a HUGE amount - trust me on this and try it out.
Danny Steyn
ZA 52
Charles Livaudais
get away to the coast. I agree with those who say that almost any sail you
get will be better than what you're sailing now. I also agree with you, Lois
and others - camless sails are the way to go. They may not have the ultimate
gust stability of a pure race sail, but some of them are at least as stable
as most twin cam sails while having a much lighter feel and easier handling.
My wife and I own a 7.4 NP Supersonic and a 7.0 Naish Koa, and I can
recommend both of those sails highly. Easy to rig, easy to handle, stable
(more so than our twin-cam North Pyro, which now sits unused), fast, light
and just plain fun. Others to consider are the Sailworks Retro and Hot
Stealth. A 7.0, 7.5 or 8.0 sounds like the call for the wind conditions you
are describing. Check to insure that a particular sail will fit your current
mast and boom, unless they also need to be replaced. Many of the newer 7.0
to 8.0 sails will fit a 460 mast. Good luck! Charles Livaudais In
article <19991010095504...@ng-ci1.aol.com>, tufar...@aol.com
(Tufarnorth) wrote: > I've been sailing about a year, always on early 90's
dacron sails. Yesterday > the conditions were avg wind 6-12 with gusts to 20
kts. I started on an 8.5 > and could not handle the gusts. My next sail was
a 6.6 which I could handle in > gusts but couldn't keep me going through the
non gusts. I understand the new > sails have a much larger range. Could
they handle this type of condition? > What would be the best no cam modern
sails for handling a large wind range? > Also, what size would I use in the
above conditions. I'm 150lbs using a Bic > Rock 130l. Thanks in advance.
Cindy >
Lois Stufflebeam
>
> In article <7troup$4lv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, musta...@my-deja.com says...
> >
> >Camless will get you lighter weight and easier
> >depowering in transitions, but the draft will move back moreso in a
> >gust, particularly if you're trying to point.
>
> I strongly disagree with this! My Koa is extremely stable. I cannot speak for
> all others but all my Koas have been very stable.
I agree, my Retro is also extremely stable!!
> True but if you really need to dump quickly it's very hard with a cammed sail.
> After a few minutes you get used to the throttle on-throttle off response. I
> love it.
AGREE!!! And guys, sheeting in in a big gust is not always possible for
us gals, we end up launched over the top of the mast. It just isn't
possible for me to muscle through huge gusts, and I am a lot stronger
than most of the women I sail with. Sheeting out is a lot easier.
Cindy, remember what I said about some guy talking you in to a cambered
sail? They are trying to do it already. DON'T buy a cambered sail
until you have tried the camless!!
Oh, and about the gusty conditions. I have a whole quiver of Sailworks
Retros in Margarita. Some afternoons it can be gusty as hell down
there. And I am much happier with the performance of the camless in
those gusty conditions than my old cambered sails. (and I dearly loved
those Syncros) I get launched a lot less frequently.
Lois
Glenn Woodell
>
>But by rigging a sail with adjustable outhauls you can loosen the sail for
>the lulls and tighten the sail as tight as a drum for those nuclear gusts.
Sounds good if the gusts and lulls last for minutes at a time. But what I am
used to, gusts last for less than a minute and at that rate I would not want to
bother myself with making that many adjustments. I don't know many who would.
Now for occasionally changing conditions, I could understand that.
Glenn Woodell
>
>I agree, my Retro is also extremely stable!!
>Cindy, remember what I said about some guy talking you in to a
cambered
>sail? They are trying to do it already. DON'T buy a cambered sail
>until you have tried the camless!!
Some of that comes from sailing one brand or type of sail and just
not wanting to change. We are all guilty of that at one time or
anopther. I'm like that probably with the camless. I hate cammed
sails but they do have their purpose. In the conditions I sail in
however the camless works best for me.
Try out the different type of sails if possible then make your own
decision. You may end up with one twin-cam sail and the rest camless.
My quiver consists of a 6.5 Koa for the light stuff and 5.2, 4.2, 3.7
Nalu's for moderate to high wind days. I would probably benefit from
a cammed sail for the 14 knot days but I just don't sail those
anymore anyway. I can get well powered on 17 kt with my 6.5. And at
that point it's probably as efficient as a cammed sail. And even if
it's not I'm as happy as a green fly on...whatever.
musta...@my-deja.com
Don't know how far north tufarnorth is, but I hope you have a shop
where you can try before you buy, even if you have to travel a bit.
Keep in mind that one of the camless fans doesn't bother with anything
under 17 knots and that the other lives in Margarita. They don't sound
too familiar with the 6-12 kts. range that can jump to 20. You can have
a camless which is perfect in 10-15, but when it hits a real hole, it's
gonna go flat, lose a big chunk of lift, and that's another part of
what I mean by hard-off, hard-back-on sailing. A cambered sail, by
supporting its own shape through a hole will not drop you in the water
as fast. There's no argument. It's proven. It's rocket science, etc.
Also, don't let them compare a new camless to an old cammed sail. Any
sail over three years old should be out of the comparisons. The real
difference in modern sails is leach twist. I recently went from an old
cheap 3 cam sail to a 4 cammed loose leached race sail and the
difference was a revelation.
This cam vs. no-cam debate is pretty old. They've both got their pros &
cons. For your special desire for handling gusts (which I think
translates to a desire for big range and stability) in a lighter wind
range, I think the cams have it ... unless of course you just hate them
:).
Another option: Look at the Aerotech Utimate Slalom III. Extremely
light weight and durable for a cammed sail. And all three cams are
removable if conditions suit that.
Finally: In a recent article of Windtracks some guy named Bjorn said
that the (cammed) NP Z1 was good for girls! Anyone else see that?
Warm Winds,
Doug
WINDSUMIKE
I'm 155lb with a 288 Bic Veloce (120litre) and use a 7.2 Tushingham Raptor C2,
twin cam which has great range and gust handling with very good low end power
and lull coasting. I sail a 3500 acre lake, typically gusty and I cannot fault
the sail.
Having said that any good make of modern sail will be a revalation.
7.5 to 8.0 should fit a 465 mast just make sure the boom fits!
I dont work in the industry.
Mike K445
NLW TFW NM
computer-controlled? When the wind is changing by 30-50-100% from once to three
times per minute, wouldn't a sailor be too busy playing with an adjustable
outhaul to actually SAIL?
And, reading this thread makes me wonder how many of you realize that 1) the
Gorge is usually very gusty, 2) RAM/camless sails have been around for decades,
3) MANY Gorge sailors haven't even owned a camber inducer in their whole quiver
in years, yet get by just FINE in widely varying winds, 4) the newest bigger
camless slalom sails just keep getting better and better, and 5) some VERY
good, VERY experienced sailors here swear their big camless slalom sails are
better than cammed sails for anything less than serious course (upwind) racing?
And -- postulating a question beyond my experience range -- is it really that
much tougher for a woman to sheet in in gusts than a guy, given that the woman
would be using a proportionally (to her weight difference) smaller sail? After
all, a given gust increases sail power by the same percentage regardless of
sail size, whether the sailor is a guy on a 6.0 or a girl on a 4.0. Is the gust
tolerance difference one of technique or one of strength or skill? I suspect
the difference in ratio of strength to weight between males and females DOES
bias gust tolerance in favor of males, but wonder how many sailors, males or
female, are really taking advantange of all the rigging and sailing techniques
available to maintain control in gusts? Such things as MORE downhaul tension,
sail design (some just don't have the top-end stability others offer),
top-of-the-line battens, properly-placed harness lines (back further than many
people run them), proper reactions to gusts (e.g., butt down/back/out), and
ATTITUDE (e.g., aggression in gusts, reduced fear of extra power and speed) go
a LONG way to broaden any sail's upper wind/gust range.
I suspect many sailors use cams as a substitute for developing the necessary
skills to broaden their gust tolerance (much as I used multi-finned boards to
advance my abiltities when my learning curve lagged my aspirations). That's
borne out by the number of race and slalom sails I see on the water that are
the same size or even smaller than the RAF I'm on, when they should be on
larger, often MUCH larger, sails than I'm on. Yet I'm not getting overpowered,
so they should be UNDERpowered, because they are often my weight or even
heavier. Part of that is preference, but a big part of it is the fact (I
presume) that they just haven't developed the skills and techniques to
overcome, even enjoy, the gusts. After all, their same-sized race sails should
be producing less power (with more stability) than my RAFs in any given gust,
yet I'm doing fine. Certainly my preference for lots of power and my time spent
in Rocky Mountain gusty winds has helped my gust tolerance, but if cams alone
made THAT much difference, shouldn't every cammed sail on the water (in the
hands of similar-weight sailors) be larger, maybe even much larger, than my
RAF?
Look at it another way: If the wind(gust)-power advantage of cams were that
dramatic all by itself, why are some good sailors on 5.0 race sails while great
sailors are on 7.0s? That implies to me that skill and atttitude also matter a
GREAT deal whether cammed or camless.
There's nothing wrong with using crutches (such as cams or extra fins or
slotted fins or harnesses or foot straps or lead weights) to advance one's
ability to conquer the conditions, but none is a full solution all by itself.
As soon as I can find the skills to abandon extra fins and still do what I want
in big B&J conditions, AND when I find a disadvantage to multi-finned boards,
I'll revert to single-fin boards. Similarly, once one finds the skills to
abandon cams and still achieve a satisfactory wind range, wouldn't it be nice
to chuck the obvious, oft-mentioned major and minor drawbacks of cams?
Mike \m/
Brian Mckenzie
>
>This cam vs. no-cam debate is pretty old. They've both got their pros &
>cons. For your special desire for handling gusts (which I think
>translates to a desire for big range and stability) in a lighter wind
>range, I think the cams have it ... unless of course you just hate them
>:).
Since you don't want to debate the cam vs. no cam thing, which is good
:-) Be sure you mention that some cammed sails have huge luff
sleeves which fill up with water fast when waterstarting these larger
sails. Can ya tell I'm biased to no cams....but I do realize that
some of these sails with the small sleeves and micro cams are good
too.
Demo, demo, demo if possible, I agree with you there.. Sails that guys
like or recommend are not necessarily the right sails for women, just
ask my wife! :-)
Just for another sail suggestion, besides the Aerotech, is the
Windwing Synthesis, which also you can run in cam mode or camless.
Brian
sailquik (Roger Jackson)
and ask a couple of questions.
> Just curious Cindy, Lois' comment aside, did you have a particularly bad
> experience with cams, that you have to rule them out? Nothing against
> camless, really.
Cindy (FL) (and Lois when she's in So. Calif.) sail in fairly lite wind
conditions. So while they have gusty conditions, the need low end power
in a lightweight sail.
Sailworks Retro's fulfill the requirements both ways.
But your interest was directed at stability in
> gusts. Different sails specialize in different things, and a modern
> cammed sail will definitely be the most stable and rangy over most
> points of sail. That's why the racers use them. Believe it or not, it's
> not just to be macho :)>.
Yes, but to get equivalent, really low windspeed power, you need to run
a larger sail. So, more weight, more range, not as much low end
performance with out alot of pumping.
Retro's twist off just like your cammed race sails, so they spill the
power up top to extend their range.
And contrary to what I see written here, Retro's ( and the other camless
sails) do not "deflate" or change shape, unless you sail into an
absolute backwind, or into something that drops the apparent wind below
say 6 knots. Otherwise they stay "inflated" and look/perform as well
or better than an equivalent size cam sail.
> Camless will get you lighter weight and easier
> depowering in transitions, but the draft will move back more
>so in a gust, particularly if you're trying to point.
Huh? The draft will move back?? Have you sailed a Retro, or are
you comparing them with some other camless sail (perhaps a wave sail)
that you have experience with?
>
> May help to pick a strategy for gusts first. Lois mentions being able to
> sheet out a bit to spill power. Yes, that's easier to do with a camless,
> just like wave sailors have always done when barreling down a big wave
> face, where no further power is desired. But such a tactic may amount to
> just dumping the power, with a resulting hard-off, hard-back-on feel to
> the power. Better, most think (I think) to use the twist feature in
> modern cam and non-cam sails, keep sheeted in, and let the sail
> automatically adjust for gusts by spilling it out of the head. And here
> is where the cams have an edge. While all that twisting is going on
> above. The cams keep (better) the same direction of pull (ie stays
> centered in your harness) in big gusts, and going upwind. Gives
> you the option of hunkering down and taking advantage of that gust
> to go faster, instead of pausing while it passes. Again, nothing against
> camless, unless you REALLY want to solve your gusts/stability problem.
Now I'm totally convinced you've never sailed a Retro, or any of the
other
really powerful big (i.e. >7.0) camless designs.
They handle these gust situations in exactly the same way as a cam sail
does. They twist off at the top, they have very stiff carbon/rod
battens, they have a bit more broad seam shaping, and the panel layout
is a bit more difficult (to achieve the highest degree of stability) but
they provide nearly the same stability, better low end grunt", in a
lighter weight sail, size for size when compared with multi-cam sails.
No, they don't have the stability to be sailed 2 meters oversize
(what you HAVE to do to be competitive in <15 knots with a cam sail),
but that's why the manufacturer's make a range of sizes.
>
> Now if you just have to go camless, or your girlfriends won't talk to
> you anymore, then lean toward something with more, and stiffer (carbon
> or tube) battens. I'd say more of a Noa, than a Koa, from Naish. I think
> the NP Supersonic is good, and that Sailworks one mentioned is similar,
> I believe.
Yep, they all have some carbon and/or tube battens (in the larger
sizes).
Each designer has determined what he thinks is the optimum number and
stiffness/bend characteristics for the battens, taking the overall
weight
of the sail into careful consideration I'm sure.
If you use a simple adjustable outhaul (supplied with the Sailworks
Retro)
you can tune the camless sail, on the water so that it has the best
dynamics to deal with gusts. If you see a big gust coming, crank in the
adj. outhaul, and allow the sail to twist, and the gust will be handled.
If that's not enough, and the backhand pressure get out of hand, sheet
out a little.
Hope this helps!
Roger
JayR
sleeves. The rod battens sit on one side of the mast or the other, not
behind it. When you come about you need to "pop" them around to the other
side kind of like cams. Point being the sail doesn't deflate in the lulls
like the old RAF's did.
-JayR
Den Fox
question.
Reasons for hating a cammed sail would be that they might not rotate as
easily as a RAF, they sometimes hold a lot of water in the luff tube which
makes water starting difficult, they do not power down by sheeting out, and
they can be heavy and cumbersome.
Reasons for loving a cammed sail are that they have a fixed draught fore and
aft, yet the centre of effort is constantly moving up and down to compensate
for gusts and slicing through chop. As a gust rips through, the head of the
sail opens up and the centre of effort moves down. The sailor no longer
gets pulled up onto his / her toes as was the case a few years ago because
the CofE comes down to possibly beneath the boom. It is possible to
accelerate with the gust and enjoy it.
Reasons to love a RAF. They can be very light, easy to waterstart,
manoeuvrable and they de-power very easily simply by sheeting out. They are
ideal for smaller sail sizes (less than 5.5m). They are favoured by wave
and extreme chop conditions, and yes, they can cope with gusts very well
because they can be quickly sheeted out to align with the new apparent wind.
Reasons to hate a RAF. For the smaller sizes, there are no reasons to hate
them at all. Above 6m they have, until recently, been considered less
efficient than a cammed sail. Also a sailor on flat water hooked in the
harness and gunning for pure speed has difficulty sheeting in and out to
compensate for gusts.
There are also many compromise sails, perhaps a single cam, which may suit
many people. But they are a compromise. IMHO the single cam sails where
you can take the cam out are....Jack of all trades, good at none. But many
are happy with them.
To attempt to answer the original question.........any modern sail will be
better than the early 90's dacron sails you have experienced. They might
even be blown out of shape. Ask yourself, are you on flat water or waves?
4m sails or 6.5m? Are you a confident waterstarter? Could you uphaul it if
it were full of water? Are you always sitting heavy in the harness?
Remember, this is not a girlie issue. I met Sam Metcalf a couple of years
ago at a speed trial our club was holding at West Kirby and she beat nearly
all of us with a calm posture in gale force winds using a 4m (ish) 4 or 5
cam sail.
Den
<musta...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7ttiuc$f4u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Well Cindy,
>
> Don't know how far north tufarnorth is, but I hope you have a shop
> where you can try before you buy, even if you have to travel a bit.
> Keep in mind that one of the camless fans doesn't bother with anything
> under 17 knots and that the other lives in Margarita. They don't sound
> too familiar with the 6-12 kts. range that can jump to 20. You can have
> a camless which is perfect in 10-15, but when it hits a real hole, it's
> gonna go flat, lose a big chunk of lift, and that's another part of
> what I mean by hard-off, hard-back-on sailing. A cambered sail, by
> supporting its own shape through a hole will not drop you in the water
> as fast. There's no argument. It's proven. It's rocket science, etc.
>
> Also, don't let them compare a new camless to an old cammed sail. Any
> sail over three years old should be out of the comparisons. The real
> difference in modern sails is leach twist. I recently went from an old
> cheap 3 cam sail to a 4 cammed loose leached race sail and the
> difference was a revelation.
>
> This cam vs. no-cam debate is pretty old. They've both got their pros &
> cons. For your special desire for handling gusts (which I think
> translates to a desire for big range and stability) in a lighter wind
> range, I think the cams have it ... unless of course you just hate them
> :).
>
ma...@my-deja.com
nlwt...@aol.com (NLW TFW NM) wrote:
> How does an adjustable outhaul help oppose gusty wind, unless it is
> computer-controlled? When the wind is changing by 30-50-100% from
once to three
> times per minute, wouldn't a sailor be too busy playing with an
adjustable
> outhaul to actually SAIL?
>
outhaul does help you, however, adjust your sail to the PREVAILING wind
range. Say the wind varies by 15 knots. Say it does so between 10 and
25 knots where you launch, but then does so between 18 and 33 knots a
little bit upwind or downwind and way out in the channel, where you go
after launching to enjoy better swells and smaller crowds. In that
scenario (not at all uncommon in the Gorge, based on my limited
experience), you rig an appropriate sail with LOTS of downhaul (so you
don't get killed outside). You slack off the outhaul to get going and
stay on a plane while getting to your desired location (gusts are much
easier to take when you're planing as opposed to slogging, so you'd
rather be planing with a baggy sail when the 25knots hit you as opposed
to slogging with a flat sail). When you get to where you are going, you
crank on the outhaul for maximum flatness, having trimmed your sail to
deal with the PREVAILING conditions outside.
> And, reading this thread makes me wonder how many of you realize that
1) the
> Gorge is usually very gusty, 2) RAM/camless sails have been around
for decades,
> 3) MANY Gorge sailors haven't even owned a camber inducer in their
whole quiver
> in years, yet get by just FINE in widely varying winds,
It would only be fair to mention as well that many of those same
sailors don't ever use anything bigger than a 5.5. Which means the
relative stability and range increase they'd get out of cambers would
be much diminished compared to BIG sails.
4) the newest bigger
> camless slalom sails just keep getting better and better,
You're quite possibly understating this point. Retros and similarly
well designed and executed no-cam concepts are not just getting better,
they absolutely ROCK!
and 5) some VERY
> good, VERY experienced sailors here swear their big camless slalom
sails are
> better than cammed sails for anything less than serious course
(upwind) racing?
>
Funny how that works. Personally, I wouldn't even think about cambers
if it wasn't for racing and serious upwind work. I've gotten yelled at
for saying as much in this forum, but I stick by it. If you're not
looking for VMG and you're therefore not going upwind on huge fins and
way overpowering sail sizes, cams will probably turn out to be net
negative, at least (that's as big a camless as I've personally used) up
to 6.5. People tell me this still holds in larger sizes, with the huge
weight and handling benefit far outweighing the increasing stability
deficit. UK mag Boards not only agrees with that, they have been
preaching it ad nauseam for almost a year now, for what that's worth.
> And -- postulating a question beyond my experience range -- is it
really that
> much tougher for a woman to sheet in in gusts than a guy, given that
the woman
> would be using a proportionally (to her weight difference) smaller
sail? After
> all, a given gust increases sail power by the same percentage
regardless of
> sail size, whether the sailor is a guy on a 6.0 or a girl on a 4.0.
Is the gust
> tolerance difference one of technique or one of strength or skill? I
suspect
> the difference in ratio of strength to weight between males and
females DOES
> bias gust tolerance in favor of males,
There may be something to that on the strenth/weight ratio, as well as
the relative location of male/female center of gravity (the higher your
coe, the better you're leverage will be when all hiked out and braced
for that next gust).
but wonder how many sailors, males or
> female, are really taking advantange of all the rigging and sailing
techniques
> available to maintain control in gusts? Such things as MORE downhaul
tension,
> sail design (some just don't have the top-end stability others offer),
> top-of-the-line battens, properly-placed harness lines (back further
than many
> people run them),
Based on my experience (highly anecdotal), very few!
proper reactions to gusts (e.g., butt down/back/out), and
> ATTITUDE (e.g., aggression in gusts, reduced fear of extra power and
speed) go
> a LONG way to broaden any sail's upper wind/gust range.
>
Attitude is huge; while I'm a firm believer that aggressively
committing yourself to your maneuvers or your stance is a good thing,
I've also found that a somewhat zen-like attitude, especially in
ballistic conditions, reduces the negative stress and allows you to
just flow with it. Once people learn to relax into the mayhem, they
tend to jibe more cleanly. When learning how to jibe hyper-nervous
slalom boards on cammed race sails, a friend told me the secret was to
aggressively lay down the sail and yell/grunt through the turn. I've
found since then that humming "Take 5" will do a better job of setting
the right frame of mind :)
> I suspect many sailors use cams as a substitute for developing the
necessary
> skills to broaden their gust tolerance (much as I used multi-finned
boards to
> advance my abiltities when my learning curve lagged my aspirations).
In an old Gaastra video, ca. 1993 or so, Robby Naish states that he
thinks many people would go way faster and smoother if they gave up on
some of the high tech bs, dropped a few cambers, and just went sailing.
I couldn't agree more. Luckily, the "freeride" trend has finally made
it cool to ride gear that makes you look good. If you've ever sailed a
Naish custom board, you know what a smooth recreational board is
supposed to feel like.
That's
> borne out by the number of race and slalom sails I see on the water
that are
> the same size or even smaller than the RAF I'm on, when they should
be on
> larger, often MUCH larger, sails than I'm on. Yet I'm not getting
overpowered,
> so they should be UNDERpowered, because they are often my weight or
even
> heavier.
This may also have to do with your preference (as stated often in this
forum) to use relatively smaller boards than most people your size.
I've found that often, at 200#, especially in gusty winds, I'm feeling
way uncomfortable on my smaller board (88 liters) than on my larger
board (103 liters). Example: Early this season, I sailed at Crissy on
my small board and a 5.4 Revo. Thought it was extremely gusty, as I
went from barely planing to getting slammed. Caught myself thinking I'd
be OK if only I had a slightly bigger sail (say a 5.8) in the lulls,
but that I'd be getting creamed in the gusts outside. Switched to my
103 liter board just for kicks. Found that I was VERY HAPPY on the 5.4.
I was never underpowered, and hardly noticed the gusts, as I was
planing into them at warp speed, so all they did was make me accelerate
towards the next ramp. Deliverance! Realized that, given the slightly
larger board, I was perfectly powered on the 5.4, which means I could
have gotten away with a slightly smaller sail, but could also have held
on to a slightly larger sail (say + or - .5 m^2).
Part of that is preference, but a big part of it is the fact (I
> presume) that they just haven't developed the skills and techniques to
> overcome, even enjoy, the gusts. After all, their same-sized race
sails should
> be producing less power (with more stability) than my RAFs in any
given gust,
> yet I'm doing fine.
They may just use race sails because they were cheap (great deals on
racers' gear from previous year). They may be using slightly larger
boards and smaller sails, expending a lot less energy than you, but
also cutting back on some of the adrenaline. Or they may simply be
victims of the "must have cambers" bs some people tend to get all
psyched out on.
Certainly my preference for lots of power and my time spent
> in Rocky Mountain gusty winds has helped my gust tolerance, but if
cams alone
> made THAT much difference, shouldn't every cammed sail on the water
(in the
> hands of similar-weight sailors) be larger, maybe even much larger,
than my
> RAF?
>
Only if these people are looking for maximum power (as you do, by
preference). One of the amazing things about today's sails is that
there's tons of range in them. For me, it tends to be almost irrelevant
what others have rigged, unless they are people whose style and
preferences I know very well.
> Look at it another way: If the wind(gust)-power advantage of cams
were that
> dramatic all by itself, why are some good sailors on 5.0 race sails
while great
> sailors are on 7.0s? That implies to me that skill and atttitude also
matter a
> GREAT deal whether cammed or camless.
>
They do, but so does intended use. When I'm out on my course gear, I'll
sail my 7.9 in conditions that would easily sustain a full-on planing
b&j session on my Screamer paired with a 5.4 Retro. Go figure!
> There's nothing wrong with using crutches (such as cams or extra fins
or
> slotted fins or harnesses or foot straps or lead weights) to advance
one's
> ability to conquer the conditions, but none is a full solution all by
itself.
That's where things get funny: I don't think cams really are crutches
or training wheels - if anything, they make sailing harder unless you
use them where they excel (going upwind overpowered).
> As soon as I can find the skills to abandon extra fins and still do
what I want
> in big B&J conditions, AND when I find a disadvantage to multi-finned
boards,
> I'll revert to single-fin boards.
Try some of the newer shapes with way more refined rocker lines -
incredibly smooth, w/o the need for extra fins to keep you grounded.
Some of the new stuff is pretty damn amazing! I do agree with you,
however, that for most of us, when things get ballistic, there's
nothing like a brick to ensure continued enjoyment.
> Similarly, once one finds the skills to
> abandon cams and still achieve a satisfactory wind range, wouldn't it
be nice
> to chuck the obvious, oft-mentioned major and minor drawbacks of
cams?
>
Once again, I think that for most sailors (i.e., those who do not get
into serious upwind sailing using large sails and big fins), cams tend
to be a net-negative, rather than a set of training wheels.
Andreas
Lois Stufflebeam
> And -- postulating a question beyond my experience range -- is it really that
> much tougher for a woman to sheet in in gusts than a guy, given that the woman
> would be using a proportionally (to her weight difference) smaller sail?
Yes, in my experience, it IS tougher. Here's the deal, I weigh the same
as my husband. (I hate to admit that in public, but he is a small guy.)
We sail on exactly the same size sail, but if the wind increases, he can
hold on to his sail longer than I can, and can definitely handle the
gusts better than I. I lift weights 3X a week, he doesn't. Yet, he has
larger muscles in his arms than I do. And if he were to lift weights, he
would be lifting much more weight on the 1st day than I do now. It's
that testosterone thing. Don't tell the womens libbers I said this, but
men and women ARE different.
Lois
Lois Stufflebeam
> Keep in mind that one of the camless fans doesn't bother with anything
> under 17 knots and that the other lives in Margarita. They don't sound
> too familiar with the 6-12 kts. range that can jump to 20. You can have
> a camless which is perfect in 10-15, but when it hits a real hole, it's
> gonna go flat, lose a big chunk of lift, and that's another part of
> what I mean by hard-off, hard-back-on sailing.
Wrong, first off this Margarita girl lives in San Diego - the light wind
capital of the world. I consider myself an expert in low wind sailing
conditions. (Why do you think I go to Margarita so often, I need the
wind fix!) If I see 15 MPH here, I think I have died and gone to heaven,
10 -12 is a typical San Diego day. Secondly, my camless sail does NOT go
flat in the holes, it maintains it's shape. We're NOT talking RAF here,
we are talking camless. There is a big difference! I hated RAF sails,
they are too twitchy and on/off for me. I, too, was very skeptical
about the camless sails, I thought nothing could be better than my 3 cam
full on race sails. But it was love at first ride, I'll never go back
unless I become a professional sailor. Not much chance of that
happening!
Lois
NLW TFW NM
tend to get all psyched out on."
That, in a skimpy nutshell, is part of what my lengthy comment was trying to
get across.
Re:"I don't think cams really are crutches
or training wheels - if anything, they make sailing harder unless you
use them where they excel (going upwind overpowered).'
And that is the rest of my message. But since people balk at that concept, I
was trying to beef up the naked statement with some logic.
Re:"Try some of the newer shapes with way more refined rocker lines -
incredibly smooth, w/o the need for extra fins "
I'm looking forward to it. The last crop I tried was the '96 crop, and it
didn't float my boat.
Mike \m/
Lois Stufflebeam
If you see a big gust coming, crank in the
> adj. outhaul, and allow the sail to twist, and the gust will be handled.
> If that's not enough, and the backhand pressure get out of hand, sheet
> out a little.
I just want to add one thing here. I did not mean to imply that I
handle all gusts by sheeting out, the sail handles most of the gusts for
me (by twisting off), or I just sheet in harder. It's those "gusts from
hell" where I don't have the strength to sheet in, that's when I sheet
out. On a cambered sail, I'd be over the bars.
Lois
PACataldo
Newer sails will definately make a big difference. Also, are you able to read
the water to see the gusts coming. Knowing you are about to get hit helps to
prepare the board and sail and makes the gusts less annoying.
Aloha
sailquik (Roger Jackson)
>
> How does an adjustable outhaul help oppose gusty wind, unless it is
> computer-controlled? When the wind is changing by 30-50-100% from once to three
> times per minute, wouldn't a sailor be too busy playing with an adjustable
> outhaul to actually SAIL?
Mike \m/:
You are correct here! I do not think anyone is advocating adjusting the
outhaul
several times per minute.
But having sailed in San Diego/at Lake Isabella (fairly gusty thermal
induced winds)
and having sailed in a number of locations in Florida (Panhandle/Tampa
Bay/JAX/
Banana River/St. Pete/Titusville/St.Augustine) I would say that an
adjustable
outhaul (one side is ok here, but adj. from both side will always be
better) would
be a very good thing at these sites.
One of these gals is from So. Fla, and one is from So.Calif.
They usually don't get lots of quick little
gusts (or big ones) but more gusts that may last for a minute or more,
some mega
gusts that can last even longer.
So, to cover the broadest range of conditions with one sail, having the
ability
to change for low end tractor power, to high end speed and stability,
while on the
water, on the move, is a very handy feature.
Being able to flatten the foil as you see a "blackwater windline"
approaching will
allow you to handle the gusts alot better.
Cindy, the original poster, has been sailing some large, heavy, deep
draft sails.
In her range of conditions, on those sails even far more experienced
sailors (even
big guys) would be getting seriously backhanded and probably slammed.
Her sails have mega draft, no twist, and are not particularly stable.
So she's looking for something with alot of range, that's light and easy
to rig/waterstart.
I think the camless (whatever manufacturer she chooses) would be the
best way
for her to enjoy the lighter air conditions she sails in, with the
adjustable
outhaul for when the wind comes up suddenly or there's a big windline
coming.
The sails will handle it without the adjustment, but having the ability
to tune the
sail for the "right now" conditions is a good idea IMHO.
later
--
sailquik (Roger Jackson) US 7011
Cert. WS Instructor (Lvl 1)
Sailworks/F2/Starboard/MPB/HPL/Chinook/Kokatat/DaKine
Phones: So. MD (301)872-9459; Avon, NC (252) 995-3204
sailquik (Roger Jackson)
>
> One quick note to add here. The new camless designs have VERY tight luff
> sleeves. The rod battens sit on one side of the mast or the other, not
> behind it. When you come about you need to "pop" them around to the other
> side kind of like cams. Point being the sail doesn't deflate in the lulls
> like the old RAF's did.
There are some tight sleeve camless sails, and some looser sleeve
camless
sails.
NP Supersonic is a very tight sleeve, the Diablo is slightly looser I
think.
The Naish Noa/Koa have a little looser sleeve.
The Hot Stealth has a fairly tight sleeve but not as tight as the SS.
The North Trans Am has a medium tight sleeve and doesn't inflate/deflate
much at all.
The Sailworks Retro and the Windwing Synthesis (w/o the T-cam in) have
fairly
loose sleeve as well.
But once you get any of them in 10 knots or higher, it really doesn't
matter as
the luffs all fill out and look alot like cam sails. And they stay
filled
out even thru serious lulls. If you run into an absolute dead spot, yes
the
luff may collapse a bit but it will fill back out, completely
transparently to
the sailor as the loading on the sail comes back up with increased
windspeed.
In my experience this can actually help you thru the lulls as you are
not
them pushing the full fronted foil thru no wind. If the wind drops this
far,
no foil will be making much power, but all foils will be making mega
drag.
If the camless flattens slightly it may actually generate less drag thru
lulls.
One of the most noticeable things (but it's changing fairly quickly) is
the
generally greater amount of overall draft low down in the camless sails
when
you compare them to the cammed race type sails.
The cam sails for Y2K all seem to have more draft/shape in the foot area
and in the lower
areas of the sail than last years fairly flat sails.
So it appears that the sail designers are putting more low end power
back into the cammed
type sails.
In another iteration or 2 of sail design there may be no performance
difference between cam/
camless as they will have very similar shapes. It will be your choice if
you want cams or not.
The main difference will be stability at windspeeds way beyond what most
recreational sailors
will ever experience. They'll be on the beach rigging down while the
racer's just keep
going faster.
later
Bruce Peterson
>How does an adjustable outhaul help oppose gusty wind, unless it is
>computer-controlled? When the wind is changing by 30-50-100% from once to three
>times per minute, wouldn't a sailor be too busy playing with an adjustable
>outhaul to actually SAIL?
>
>And, reading this thread makes me wonder how many of you realize that 1) the
>Gorge is usually very gusty, 2) RAM/camless sails have been around for decades,
>3) MANY Gorge sailors haven't even owned a camber inducer in their whole quiver
>in years, yet get by just FINE in widely varying winds, 4) the newest bigger
>camless slalom sails just keep getting better and better, and 5) some VERY
>good, VERY experienced sailors here swear their big camless slalom sails are
>better than cammed sails for anything less than serious course (upwind) racing?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adjustable outhauls (read: variable geometry) are here to stay. The
ability to alter the power and handling of a sail on the go is
indispensable for sailing in gusty or changing conditions. If you've
never tried one you're cheating your windsurfing experience with a
one-groove setup.
I'm increasingly convinced that a camless sail can be competitive
upwind. Summer of '98 I won one Gorge Cup races with a Retro and this
past summer I won two course races with them. These were all 3/4 to 1
mile windward leeward course races. The most amazing aspect is that
the camless sail was really shining in the heavy stuff when every
racer was choking their big sails (8.0+) tight with outhaul. It felt
like slalom sailing upwind with NO loss of speed or angle!
***Ask yourself where's the camber and what's it doing when the sail
is pulled flat with outhaul?***
Bruce Peterson
Sailworks R+D
Bruce Peterson
>Reasons for loving a cammed sail are that they have a fixed draught fore and
>aft, yet the centre of effort is constantly moving up and down to compensate
>for gusts and slicing through chop. As a gust rips through, the head of the
>sail opens up and the centre of effort moves down. The sailor no longer
>gets pulled up onto his / her toes as was the case a few years ago because
>the CofE comes down to possibly beneath the boom. It is possible to
>accelerate with the gust and enjoy it.
Spanwise movements in the center of effort have nothing to do with
cambers. It is all about twist, or the decreasing angle of attack of
the sail up through the head. Camber inducers have no effect upon
creating or maintaining a twist profile. The balance of tension
within the sail, derived primarily from the relationship of the bend
of the mast to the cut of the sail's luff curve, controls the twist
profile.
Bruce Peterson
Sailworks R+D
JayR
Sorry, I should have specified my comments where directed toward the NP
Diablo from my experiences. When rigged for power (light winds) I find it
just as difficult as getting cams to pop around the mast as it is to get
those rod battens to rotate to the other side. Even in backwinded lulls they
stay in place.
-JayR
P.S.: I find it is almost a 2-person operation to get the mast out of that
luff sleeve when de-rigging because it is so snug. I use the downhaul to get
it all the way in which is easy. I guess that makes the whole cam vs. no-cam
rigging time is about equal!!?? :-)
sailquik (Roger Jackson) wrote in message
news:3802C3C0...@ameritel.net...
Den Fox
dependent on camber inducers. But your first sentence, "Spanwise movements
in the centre of effort have nothing to do with cambers" completely baffles
me. A cam connects to the mast and stresses the baton into an aerofoil
shape and provides a permanent tension in the sail locking the draught in
the fore and aft direction. (Coupled with a wide luff tube it also ensures
laminar flow over the first section of the sail.) The only way a camless
sail could do this would be for the baton to butt up hard against the mast.
As soon as any sail allows a gust to pull the batons away from the mast, the
sailor will sense a movement of the CofE moving back (Fore and Aft).
I'd love to believe that camless sails in large sizes can be as efficient as
a fully cammed sail. But I simply can not believe it.
Den
Bruce Peterson <sail...@gorge.net> wrote in message
news:3803358e...@news.gorge.net...
Rainer Leuschke
On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Den Fox wrote:
> OK Bruce, I've latched onto the second point in your post, that twist is not
> dependent on camber inducers. But your first sentence, "Spanwise movements
> in the centre of effort have nothing to do with cambers" completely baffles
> me. A cam connects to the mast and stresses the baton into an aerofoil
> shape and provides a permanent tension in the sail locking the draught in
> the fore and aft direction.
Spanwise means from foot to head, not fore/aft.
> (Coupled with a wide luff tube it also ensures
> laminar flow over the first section of the sail.)
See Bethwaite: High Performance Sailing. The circular leading edge of a
round mast is too blunt to allow the air flow to stay attached and
laminar. Try a wing mast with elliptical leading edge. The boundary layer
will still go turbulent after a few centimeters.
Check out Bethwaites findings on the double luffed sails in the same book.
They don't do squat.
> The only way a camless
> sail could do this would be for the baton to butt up hard against the mast.
> As soon as any sail allows a gust to pull the batons away from the mast, the
> sailor will sense a movement of the CofE moving back (Fore and Aft).
Nope. Battens can bend and sail cloth stretch in such a way that the coe
stays put.
> I'd love to believe that camless sails in large sizes can be as efficient as
> a fully cammed sail. But I simply can not believe it.
Maybe you should give'em a try.
R!
-- ,--+___.
,/ | \
___ / | \. Rainer Leuschke
__ / | \. phone: (w) 206-685-0900 ,
__ / 14 |\ \ (h) 206-547-8927 |\ __
| ~~ | \ \ | \ __
| | \ \ | o\ -
| | \ \ Weight is only of use |~U'\
| | \ | in steamrollers. |/(-'
+--o o--| \ | - Uffa Fox `------;-
.|_[]{ }_|------+======'
M|_______________|
U H
U
musta...@my-deja.com
pointing there, let's just say you live there a lot more than the rest
of us. So I had you pegged at the wrong end of the wind chart. Then let
me ask you this. In San Diego, where 12 mph is lucky, what do you rig?
8.0? Larger? Now how well would that sail do in a 20 mph gust (which you
said doesn't happen in SD)? Would that size be your first choice in
Margarita? Cindy's question pertained to a range from 6 to 20. Quite a
test for any style sail. But between cam and camless? Well, you know
what I think.
Weights 3 times a week? Awesome. Just can't believe those little cams
would add too much weight for you to handle. Have you tried a new cammed
sail lately? Sounds like the last ones you tried were a bit old, and
maybe not so twisty, rangey, and easy to control as today's. I still
have a couple of mid-90's Topsails. Used the 8.5 3-cam as my light air
sail for quite a while. I must say, it was great exercise at times. The
newer mainstream brands of cammed sail are much better, to say the
least.
In article <38027B3B...@home.com>,
Lois Stufflebeam <lasb...@home.com> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------68BC8C06A0ADF5DDC36E0F60
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> --------------68BC8C06A0ADF5DDC36E0F60
> Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Description: Card for Lois Stufflebeam
> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
>
> begin: vcard
> fn: Lois Stufflebeam
> n: Stufflebeam;Lois
> org: Las Brisas del Yaque Townhouses Margarita
Island VZ.
> email;internet: lasb...@home.com
> note: TEL: 1-(888) 2-BRISAS FAX: 1-760-632-1209 WEB
SITE: www.sailbrisas.com
> x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
> x-mozilla-html: FALSE
> version: 2.1
> end: vcard
>
> --------------68BC8C06A0ADF5DDC36E0F60--
ma...@my-deja.com
musta...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Weights 3 times a week? Awesome. Just can't believe those little cams
> would add too much weight for you to handle. Have you tried a new
cammed
> sail lately? Sounds like the last ones you tried were a bit old, and
> maybe not so twisty, rangey, and easy to control as today's. I still
> have a couple of mid-90's Topsails. Used the 8.5 3-cam as my light air
> sail for quite a while. I must say, it was great exercise at times.
The
> newer mainstream brands of cammed sail are much better, to say the
> least.
>
While the vintage may be the same as those Topsails you're referring
to, the Synchros were top-notch race sails, equal in performance and
handling characteristics to the state of the art of that time. Which is
to say they had tremendous stability on the top end and were lightning
fast overpowered, but, as all of the really full-on race sails of that
time, they were not known for tractor-like low-end torque. Drawing
conclusions on what Lois' experience with cammed sails was like based
on your mid-90's Topsails is thus probably at least somewhat misleading.
Note that since the mid-90's, Bruce Peterson's race sails have
developed a good deal of bottom end without giving up anything on the
top end (as have most state of the art race sails). I am absolutely
amazed at the power and range of my xt's - yet I wouldn't recommend
them (or NP's RX-1's, or North's IQ's) to anyone who doesn't want to
use them for course racing. And I am totally stoked on my 6.5 Retro,
and if I weren't racing, I'd probably still have gotten the same wide
board and, instead of a 7.9 and 9.1 xt, would have gone for only an
8.5ish Retro for light air performance.
Fact is, the cambers make the biggest difference when your angle of
attack becomes extreme, such as it would when going upwind in course
race fashion. If Cindy uses anything other than a (widestyle) course
race board with a huge fin, a fully cammed sail will not only be a
burden on her jibing and general sail handling, it will also be a waste
of money, as the (very specific and narrowly defined) performance
advantages will not give her enough "utils" to make up for the loss of
"utils" due to the well documented drawbacks from cambers.
Andreas
Tufarnorth
comments. I'm going to have to digest all this info, but I see that new sails
cammed or not should help the gust problem.
I will go no cam because ease of waterstarting and rigging are very
important to me. And, yes, I have had bad cam experiences. I had a 93 maybe?
Waddell 9.3 2 cam race sail that I rigged every way possible and always had cam
pop off. Finally, it popped off and broke a batten. I also broke a homemade
wood fin that day when the wind really picked up, then I fell into the sail to
cause a huge rip at the clew. I was almost happy to see the sail destroyed.
Adventures of the Novice!
I do have another question. Several people mentioned removable cam sails.
What is the story with these?
Thanks again all.
Cindy in FL
Emmanuel Pons
NLW TFW NM wrote:
> How does an adjustable outhaul help oppose gusty wind, unless it is
> computer-controlled? When the wind is changing by 30-50-100% from once to three
> times per minute, wouldn't a sailor be too busy playing with an adjustable
> outhaul to actually SAIL?
Geez, I am glad K2 is not in the windsurfing business or they would try to sell us
a "smart boom"
Den Fox
sails.
> What is the story with these?
Most sail makes had a model a few years ago where a single cam, about boom
level, could be removed to give you a true RAF feel. It was a very good
idea, but the cut of the sail was never optimised for either cam in, or cam
out. It was always a compromise. The sails I had experience with where all
rather fiddley to rig because I could never decide if I should rig it
without the cam, then try and squeeze the thing in after, or try and push
the mast up the tube with the cam in place. I ended up binning the cams
altogether, and the result was a very mediocre RAF sail.
I'm a dedicated cam man, but I've opened my mind after reading this thread.
I will try a big no cam and report back.......if I can find one.
Den
Tufarnorth <tufar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991012165824...@ng-cn1.aol.com...
sailquik (Roger Jackson)
> Roger-
> Sorry, I should have specified my comments where directed toward the NP
> Diablo from my experiences. When rigged for power (light winds) I find it
> just as difficult as getting cams to pop around the mast as it is to get
> those rod battens to rotate to the other side. Even in backwinded lulls they
> stay in place.
> -JayR
the outhaul
enough to get the front to open up for good low end performance, then
the rotation
suffers.
Try a Retro sometime. They are "perimeter loaded" so you can play
downhaul against
outhaul to get just the right combination for the conditions you have.
If it's lite, don't downhaul it so much, and when you need the foil a
little flatter,
pull on the adj. outhaul, and you will increase both the speed and range
(+ gust handling
ability).
If your conditions are more top end oriented, add more downhaul, and
slack the outhaul for
better bottom end performance ( with effortless batten rotation even in
< 6 knots. If you have
one batten (usually the foot batten) that hangs in < 10 knots, you can
back the batten tension
off slightly and it will rotate smooth as silk. The bottom batten
rotation is not a problem with
the sail, bu most often from an incorrect lead angle on the downhaul
pulleys due to different
base configs. If this is a problem, don't downhaul until the base pulls
the tack pulley in tight
against the mast. Setting your extension up one notch higher will
correct for this.
> P.S.: I find it is almost a 2-person operation to get the mast out of that
> luff sleeve when de-rigging because it is so snug. I use the downhaul to get
> it all the way in which is easy. I guess that makes the whole cam vs. no-cam
> rigging time is about equal!!?? :-)
Not so with a Sailworks Retro! You can almost throw the mast up the
sleeve.
I'm glad you mentioned this, as I don't want to appear negative toward
NP SS/Diablo,
but I've always wondered why I see two people rigging them/derigging
them most often.
One holds the mast, the other slides the tight luff sleeve on/off.
It does support the buddy system though. I just wasn't aware the buddy
system applied to rigging.8-)
later
--
William Braden
an RAF sail? I thought RAF was just a fancy term for "fully battened."
Bill
Lois Stufflebeam wrote:
> When was the last time YOU tried a camless (NOT RAF!!) sail? You might
> be surprised! In fact, I would bet that you will be blown away by their
> performance.
Lois Stufflebeam
> Sorry Lois, but with a quiver of sails down there, and the email address
> pointing there, let's just say you live there a lot more than the rest
> of us.
Actually, I'm only down there a couple of months a year, but I hope to
increase that in the very near future.
> In San Diego, where 12 mph is lucky, what do you rig?
> 8.0? Larger? Now how well would that sail do in a 20 mph gust (which you
> said doesn't happen in SD)?
My biggest sail is a 7.0 Retro. And I think a 20MPH gust could be
pushing it, but I routinely sail that sail in up to 18MPH. Just give it
a little more downhaul or outhaul, beats rigging down. The range on the
sail is incredible. Realistically, if we have some wind, it is 10 - 15,
with some gusts up to 18. But then again, I'm not walking around with a
wind meter. I would probably get in a few more days on the water if I
bought an 8.0, but I just can't bring myself to do it. If the wind is
that light, I'll do something else. (Although, I did just buy an AVS
board, that should increase my planing time)
Would that size be your first choice in
> Margarita?
I don't know what you are asking me here. My biggest sail in Margarita
is a 5.5, I don't go out if there is not enough wind for that sail.
Cindy's question pertained to a range from 6 to 20. Quite a
> test for any style sail. But between cam and camless? Well, you know
> what I think.
Did I mention that my previous sail was a 7.5 Sailworks BRAVO, and the
one before that was a 6.9 Sailworks Syncro Pro. (Both with plenty of
cambers, and hardly old style cambered sails) I was not crazy about
either one, because they had no low end. I ended up using my old 6.5
Syncro, it had as much low end as either of those other sails, and was
smaller. But I must admit, the Bravo and the Syncro Pro had incredible
top end. But who needs that in San Diego? And I am convinced that my
7.0 Retro has MORE low end that my 7.5 Bravo had. So I am now using a
smaller sail, and getting MORE performance from it.
> Just can't believe those little cams would add too much weight for you to handle.
You're missing the point. Here's something else for you to mull over.
My husband insisted on buying a 7.2 Sailworks S-X race sail. I wanted
him to try a big Retro. (We already had the small Retros, this was
before I bought my 7.0.) He was a die hard, "have to have cambers in a
big sail" kind of a guy. The S-X is a nice sail I can handle it easily,
and it does have great top end. BUT, now that we have the 7.0 Retro, my
husband would much rather sail my Retro than his cambered race sail.
Talk about a convert, he will never buy cambers again either. Better low
end, easier rigging, easier to jibe, easier to waterstart, etc, etc,
etc......
Have you tried a new cammed
> sail lately? Sounds like the last ones you tried were a bit old, and
> maybe not so twisty, rangey, and easy to control as today's. The
> newer mainstream brands of cammed sail are much better, to say the
> least.
See above. And remember, I was in love with my cambered syncros, they
were extremely rangey, twisty, and easy to control. I just like the
camless better. And the camless definitely have a better range, now we
buy sails in 1 meter increments, instead of .5 meter.
Oh, and one more thing. Most of the guys I sail with have been using
Aeroforce Double luff sails for years. (Talk about a cambered sail, it
is the mother of cambered sails) In the past, that has been the best
sail for getting heavyweights planing in our light wind. In the past
year, I have seen these same guys replacing their double luff sails with
CAMLESS SAILS. Not cammed race sails, CAMLESS. What could this mean -
that they actually do work in the light wind here??!!!
When was the last time YOU tried a camless (NOT RAF!!) sail? You might
be surprised! In fact, I would bet that you will be blown away by their
performance.
Best regards,
Lois
sailquik (Roger Jackson)
No such thing as a stupid question. 8-)
What is the difference between a camless and an RAF sail?
I will make an attempt to answer your question, but I hope that Bruce
Peterson or Bill Hansen will provide a more precise answer.
An RAF (Rotating Asymetrical Foil) is a term coined by Neil Pryde way
back in the
1970's to describe their new (back then) sails which had a tight luff
sleeve, and
used alot of downhaul to bend the mast to a specific curve.
The luff sleeve is "shaped" so that the leading edge of the sail on the
lee
side is tangent to the mast diameter so the foil shape actually starts
right at the
mast and leads back over the luff sleeve and onto the sail panels.
These early RAF designs were the first to feature full length battens
which were
required to support the panel layout.
(Prior to this innovation, windsurfer sails were simply sewn onto a luff
sleeve which
was simply wrapped around the mast and sewn to the sail panels on the
centerline.
Masts were pretty much straight until the sail was loaded up by the
wind.)
So we have a shaped sleeve which is foil shaped leading off the mast on
the lee
side and wraps around past the center on the windward side. The battens
ended at the
junction between the sail panels and the luff sleeve in most cases. If
you look at a
wave specific sail, they still look and work pretty much this way
because the result is
a sail that can be powered/depowered rapidly (depowering quickly is very
important in
wave sailing), has very good power in a specific wind range, and can be
reinforced where
required to handle the tremendous stresses of breaking waves.
These sails essentially rig very flat, and depend on wind pressure to
develop their foil
shape. The luff sleeve collapses in tightly to the mast when the sail is
unpowered.
A camless sail may have a very tight luff sleeve but it can also have a
much looser sleeve.
Through the use of very carefully designed panel layout, lots of
broadseam shaping, carefully
designed high tension battens and a multi segmented luff sleeve
"assembly" you get a sail that
has lots of downhaul induced shape even when unloaded.
Some of the camless sails (NP Supersonic is the best example) use a very
tight luff sleeve to
control the position of the front of the battens relative to the mast.
Others (Sailworks Retro) use a perimeter loading technique to load all
of the sides of the sail
with a combination of downhaul and outhaul tension. This perimeter
tension, combined with carefully
designed battens, allow the designer to position the draft in a
particular place, control the
fore/aft position of the battens relative to the mast.
The result is a sail that has lots of initial shape (unlike the RAF or
wave sail) and a luff sleeve
that allows a wide range of tuning using different downhaul and outhaul
settings to change the
perimeter loading slightly.
So with something like the Retro, you have lots of static "power"
designed into the lower parts
of the sail, and as the sail loads up, an increase in the perimeter
tension out to the limits the
designer has sewn into the sail, panel by panel. When fully "inflated"
the camless sail will have
all the same luff shape characteristics that you find in a cammed sail,
but the shape is derived
by perimeter tension rather than tension developed thru the battens and
onto the mast in the cambered
designs.
The camless designs twist off at the top the same way a cammed sail
does, have nearly identical draft
stability when sailed in their design wind range.
So, a "camless" sail does all the same things that a cammed sail does,
has very nearly the same shape,
generally has more static draft to develop low wind power (mostly in the
lower portion of the sail).
This is very different from a Wave or RAF design which depends on wind
loading for most of it's shape.
Hope this helps!
Roger
I thought RAF was just a fancy term for "fully battened."
> Bill
>
> Lois Stufflebeam wrote:
> > When was the last time YOU tried a camless (NOT RAF!!) sail? You might
> > be surprised! In fact, I would bet that you will be blown away by their
> > performance.
Lois Stufflebeam
Great explanation, I really had no idea what the technical difference
was. In my mind an RAF was an old type of sail that I never liked, or a
wave sail which I don't need since I don't sail in the waves. A camless
is an entirely different sail, that's why I love 'em!
Lois
Lois Stufflebeam
One more thing for you to consider, then I'll shut up about camless
sails. If you are going to use a new widetail or AVS board with your
big new sail, waterstarting a cambered sail will be much more difficult.
The design of these new boards is such that you cannot rest the boom on
the tail of the board (at least this is true for the ones I've tried).
With a camless sail I never even bother to use the tail of the board, it
is easy to get it out of the water. Different story with a cammed sail,
they are not that easy to clear in light wind without the use of the
board. Sure the guys will say it is not problem, but I personally find
it difficult to clear a cammed sail (even the samll ones) if the wind is
marginal. I need to use the tail of the board to help me. You could
uphaul, but again, a big cambered sail is going to be a LOT harder to
uphaul than camless.
Happy sail shopping!
Lois
musta...@my-deja.com
> My biggest sail is a 7.0 Retro. And I think a 20MPH gust could be
> pushing it, but I routinely sail that sail in up to 18MPH. Just give
it
> a little more downhaul or outhaul, beats rigging down. The range on
the
> sail is incredible. Realistically, if we have some wind, it is 10 -
15,
> with some gusts up to 18. But then again, I'm not walking around with
a
> wind meter. I would probably get in a few more days on the water if I
> bought an 8.0, but I just can't bring myself to do it. If the wind is
> that light, I'll do something else. (Although, I did just buy an AVS
> board, that should increase my planing time)
>
> Would that size be your first choice in
> > Margarita?
>
> I don't know what you are asking me here. My biggest sail in
Margarita
> is a 5.5, I don't go out if there is not enough wind for that sail.
>
> Cindy's question pertained to a range from 6 to 20. Quite a
> > test for any style sail. But between cam and camless? Well, you know
> > what I think.
Getting academic at this point, but my point there was: Your very very
happy with your 10 - 18 range. Great. Don't change. But if someone else
was unhappy, and really really wanted something closer to a 6 - 20
range, (and didn't care about rigging and waterstarts) then they could
get more of that (maybe not all) with a cammed sail.
> Did I mention that my previous sail was a 7.5 Sailworks BRAVO, and the
> one before that was a 6.9 Sailworks Syncro Pro. (Both with plenty of
> cambers, and hardly old style cambered sails) I was not crazy about
> either one, because they had no low end. I ended up using my old 6.5
> Syncro, it had as much low end as either of those other sails, and was
> smaller. But I must admit, the Bravo and the Syncro Pro had
incredible
> top end. But who needs that in San Diego? And I am convinced that my
> 7.0 Retro has MORE low end that my 7.5 Bravo had. So I am now using a
> smaller sail, and getting MORE performance from it.
Yes, I find it rather ironic that the max cammed race sails actually
give up bottom end. Admission time: I'm a big guy and my two biggest
sails are race sails. Sizing them big enough for the bottom end is not
the problem for me, as for others. And when the wind picks up,
zoom-with-comfort! Really ironic is the fact that I chose them over the
"recreational race" styles because they cost me less. One was a brand
new North IQ for $350. (And let me pause here to thank most of you here
for making that possible.) But nowhere here have I advocated Cindy or
anyone getting a race sail. Don't know about Sailworks, but the other
major brands have cammed sails that are lighter, with narrower luff
sleaves, and shape that emphasizes the bottom end.
>And the camless definitely have a better range, now
>we
> buy sails in 1 meter increments, instead of .5 meter.
>
> Oh, and one more thing. Most of the guys I sail with have been using
> Aeroforce Double luff sails for years. (Talk about a cambered sail,
it
> is the mother of cambered sails) In the past, that has been the best
> sail for getting heavyweights planing in our light wind. In the past
> year, I have seen these same guys replacing their double luff sails
with
> CAMLESS SAILS. Not cammed race sails, CAMLESS. What could this mean
-
> that they actually do work in the light wind here??!!!
>
Again, these sound like old vs. new comparisons, that is if you're
comparing Aeroforce (?) sails to modern camless. But, that the guys are
replacing them with camless over new cams does say something.
> When was the last time YOU tried a camless (NOT RAF!!) sail? You
might
> be surprised! In fact, I would bet that you will be blown away by
their
> performance.
>
About a year and a half ago I rented a 6.0 retro with a 288 board out of
Coyote with a steady 20 mph or so. Had a blast. It was light, and easier
to whip around than what I was used to (a 2 cam in that size). When full
of wind it was powerful and comfortable. I wasn't quite blown away
though. While it was light to handle when waterstarting, I kind of
missed being able to pop the cams upward where they would more
automatically draw wind under and support the rig while flying it. And
while sailing, the power felt more sensitive to sheeting angle. Not a
huge amount, but definitely more of that off-on mentioned. Subjective
here. Some will regard that as a responsive, high degree of control.
While to others, the feeling will be twitchy and less stable. Finally,
it was a pretty steady wind, so it wasn't much of a test for range and
draft stability.
If I had a chance, I would be interested in trying a big size camless.
But the renters around here aren't into much over 6.0. I am actually
considering buying an Aerotech 9.6 vmg. Yeah, my 8.3 just doesn't do it
anymore. At 10mph I still want to sail. Any recommendations?
Gotta go for now. Should get SOME work done today. I haven't conceded
range and stability yet though. Think cams still have it there and can
add more if the thread doesn't get too tired.
> Best regards,
Doug
PS Overdue thanking you for feedback on sailing in Cancun (remember?).
Had a nice time. Would've had fun sailing if anyone there rented 12
meter sails with lots of cams.
Charles Livaudais
sail...@ameritel.net wrote:
> > OK, stupid question time.
> No such thing as a stupid question. 8-)
>
> What is the difference between a camless and an RAF sail?
>
> I will make an attempt to answer your question, but I hope that Bruce
> Peterson or Bill Hansen will provide a more precise answer.
I hope they'll answer too, because now I'm confused. From my
old magazine archive I've gleaned that RAF simply stands for
Rotating Asymmetrical Foil. All that meant initially was that the
battens, and thus the foil of the sail, extended slightly past the
back of the mast on the leeward side (hence the "assymetrical"
foil). This may not seem groundbreaking today, but previously
sails were cut so that the battens met the mast squarely in the
middle - like a catamaran or other full-batten sailboat sail -
thereby creating what Neil Pryde suggested were
inefficient wind "eddies" on either side of the mast. NP even
has a nice little illustration of this in some of their old ads. By this
definition every no-cam sail marketed today is technically an RAF.
And BTW, some of those old RAFs had plenty of shape to them;
a NP RAF Slalom from the late '80s has way more shape than
anything sold today. Plenty of perimeter loading also; too much,
in fact (and no twist). But even then the pros extolled the virtues
of their camless RAF sails when not racing. Just check out the
old "Fast Forward" video.
Charles Livaudais
PACataldo
The technology of cam and camless sails has evolved quite a bit since your 93
sail. I would try them both. Stay away from Race and mock race sails. But a two
cambered sail is easy to sail and very stable.
There is a trick to rigging cambered sails. First, when putting the mast in the
sail sleeve hold onto the cambers as they slide on the mast. Second, if, as you
downhaul the sail the cambers pop off the mast continue to downhaul to about
90% of total. Then put on the boom and outhaul. Then go to the camber that has
poped off, pressing on the sail at the point where the camber meets the batten,
press down so the sleeve stretches away from the mast. This will pull the
camber close to the mast, then with the heel of your opposite hand give the
camber a lite sharp smack. The cam should pop on the mast. Then go back to
finishing the downhaul and outhaul ajustments.
A pro taught me that trick and it works every time.
Aloha
Bill Hansen
tufar...@aol.com (Tufarnorth) wrote:
> I do have another question. Several people mentioned removable cam sails.
> What is the story with these?
Cindy:
Cams stabilize the leading edge and give structure to the foil which
ultimately improves performance and stability - that is why every race sail
has them...
Windwing has been making a 'removable cam' sail for three years called the
Synthesis and there is absolutely no evidence that it is a compromise on
performance as a 'no-cam.' It is a recreational slalom/freeride type sail as
are most of the popular 'no-cams' and has the option of being run with 0,1,2
or 3 cams. The cams weigh less than 2 oz each.
The Synthesis was tested as a 'no-cam' against the other 'no cams' in '98 by
Ken Winner and the Windsurfing magazine testers and was the only 'no-cam'
sail to get an 8 out of ten or higher in every performance/handling
category. It also was tested as a 'cammed' sail and did extremely well. In
'99 the results were similar at Windsurfing and American Windsurfer and in
addition, Windsport in Canada also tested the sail and rated it first in
power and stability (as a 'no-cam.') These tests were against the other
popular 'no-cams' including the Retro, Noa, Supersonic, etc. As a 'cammed'
sail, it also rates very well but since it has a tight sleeve like a
'no-cam,' will not perform as well as a dedicated Race sail with more
battens and a wider sleeve. Running it with the cams does improve upwind
performance and add stability. For '00 the sail is much lighter and has been
further refined and improved as have most sails in this category.
There are plenty of proponents for both types of sails but the fact is
almost any sail in this category (recreational slalom or freeride) 'cammed'
or not, is far superior in gust handling than those of even 2-3 years ago.
Comparing them with older sails is simply a mistake.
The more interesting comparison is cost. While cams significantly increases
costs in terms of tooling, materials and added complexity to the sail's
construction, the popular 'no-cams' are comparably priced...
Good luck!
- Bill
------------------------
William D. Hansen
Sail Design/R&D
Maui Test Center
http://www.windwing.com
------------------------
sailquik (Roger Jackson)
Mustangdog:
> happy with your 10 - 18 range. Great. Don't change. But if someone else
> was unhappy, and really really wanted something closer to a 6 - 20
> range, (and didn't care about rigging and waterstarts) then they could
> get more of that (maybe not all) with a cammed sail.
Gotta disagree here!
I think we are missing a "HUGE" point that I have mentioned several
times
but not emphasized.
In order to get your North IQ going (i.e. the board from displacement
mode
up onto a plane) you will have to pump it, alot, as the IQ/IQ3D/IQ3+
race sails (when properly rigged for overall range (i.e. downhauled at
least to the med dot, but best at between the med & max dots this varies
a bit with the year of the sail) have about the poorest low end power
of any sail on the market.
I own 3 of them, and have sailed a few from each year since they were
introduced.
But, once you pump them up onto a plane, and get some apparent wind
moving
by them they become very fast, very rangy, and extremely stable.
If I were to tell you you could take a camless sail, one square meter
smaller than your IQ, and that this sail would pull you up onto a plane
with little or no pumping in the minimum windpeed you are able to
maintain
a plane on you IQ, would that interest you?
My point is that smaller sailors like myself, and women, don't want to
have to pump just to get going.
The camless sails, with more static draft designed in, do not require
the sailor to generate the initial apparent wind by pumping.
The just use the additional draft to pull the sailor and board up onto
a plane.
I sailed the 1999 9.7 IQ race sail at a demo. No one was planing, at
all.
So I put the 9.7 on a Thommen 280 CR XL course board, with the 56 cm
fin and was able to pump my 150# up onto a plane.
While I was doing this all I could think of was my 9.5 Retro.
I could have just leaned back, pumped once, (or maybe not at all) and
been instantly on a plane, and the Retro would have sustained that plane
in less wind than the big IQ.
>
> Yes, I find it rather ironic that the max cammed race sails actually
> give up bottom end. Admission time: I'm a big guy and my two biggest
> sails are race sails. Sizing them big enough for the bottom end is not
> the problem for me, as for others. And when the wind picks up,
> zoom-with-comfort! Really ironic is the fact that I chose them over the
> "recreational race" styles because they cost me less. One was a brand
> new North IQ for $350. (And let me pause here to thank most of you here
> for making that possible.) But nowhere here have I advocated Cindy or
> anyone getting a race sail. Don't know about Sailworks, but the other
> major brands have cammed sails that are lighter, with narrower luff
> sleaves, and shape that emphasizes the bottom end.
Yep, the North Pyro/Zoom, NP V8 etc., but even these sails do not have
quite as good bottom end, and no more top end stability than an
equivalent
size camless sail, both being properly rigged.
> Again, these sound like old vs. new comparisons, that is if you're
> comparing Aeroforce (?) sails to modern camless. But, that the guys are
> replacing them with camless over new cams does say something.
Yes, because until the camless designs came onto the market, if you
wanted
to get going in "San Diego Conditions" you needed an Aeroforce Double
Luff.
A very efficient sail, but heavy and complicated. I owned (and wore out
at least 3 of them).
> About a year and a half ago I rented a 6.0 retro with a 288 board out of
> Coyote with a steady 20 mph or so. Had a blast. It was light, and easier
> to whip around than what I was used to (a 2 cam in that size). When full
> of wind it was powerful and comfortable.
Hmmm? I thought we were discussing "BIG" sails here in this thread
(i.e. 6 knots-20 knots).
I now use a 6.5 Y2K Retro, in 20 mph G 30 mph.
a 6.0 Y2K Retro should be really good in about 18-28 knots.
These sails are so tuneable you would not believe it.
> If I had a chance, I would be interested in trying a big size camless.
> But the renters around here aren't into much over 6.0. I am actually
> considering buying an Aerotech 9.6 vmg. Yeah, my 8.3 just doesn't do it
> anymore. At 10mph I still want to sail. Any recommendations?
Yep! Wait a couple of months and get a Y2K Retro in 9.0 or 9.5.
For a guy your size, it'll be good up to 20 knots if you use an adj.
outhaul. It will also get you planing on one of the new wide course
boards in <10 knots!
Later
William Braden
But, I am going to quibble about terminology. Since I posted my
question, I realized that the NP Supersonic is actually called
the NP RAF Supersonic (see np's website if you don't believe me
at www.neilpryde.com). We all agree the Supersonic is a good
example of a modern camless sail. Maybe Neil Pryde takes pryde
in the term RAF and can't bear to give it up, despite its negative
connotations to Lois and others.
So, you are describing how the camless (new improved RAF to some people)
is a completely different animal from the old RAF.
Bill
Lois Stufflebeam
>
Admission time: I'm a big guy and my two biggest
> sails are race sails.
I find it interesting that an admittedly BIG guy is giving advice on
sails to a 150lb. woman. What works for you is probably not going to
work for Cindy or me.
> About a year and a half ago I rented a 6.0 Retro.
A 6.0 for a big guy? This means that you have no idea how well a BIG
camless sail will work. Not a fair test of the performance of the
camless in the wind range we're discussing.
> I am actually
> considering buying an Aerotech 9.6 vmg. Yeah, my 8.3 just doesn't do it
> anymore. At 10mph I still want to sail. Any recommendations?
Of course I have a recommendation, but you won't like it. Try the 9.5
Retro with an AVS or wide tail board. Guaranteed to get you planing and
put a smile on your face.
Lois
ma...@my-deja.com
sail...@gorge.net (Bruce Peterson) wrote:
>
> I'm increasingly convinced that a camless sail can be competitive
> upwind. Summer of '98 I won one Gorge Cup races with a Retro and this
> past summer I won two course races with them. These were all 3/4 to 1
> mile windward leeward course races. The most amazing aspect is that
> the camless sail was really shining in the heavy stuff when every
> racer was choking their big sails (8.0+) tight with outhaul. It felt
> like slalom sailing upwind with NO loss of speed or angle!
>
> ***Ask yourself where's the camber and what's it doing when the sail
> is pulled flat with outhaul?***
>
help me understand this. When you're talking about the other racers
"choking their big sails (8.0+) tight with outhaul" in the heavy stuff,
are you implying that you were on a smaller sail? If so, isn't this
really more an issue of "racer mentality" that causes many people to
hold on to needlessly large sails? In that case, you would have
benefitted from using an appropriately sized sail, no matter whether
cammed or not. The no-cam sail would have created obvious handling
advantages, but other than that, I don't see an advantage specific to
whether or not the sail was cammed.
I was under the impression that cams in (upwind) course racing
applications had one major thing going for them, which is that they
give that little bit of extra range allowing people to sail seriously
oversized sails. That would be an advantage to me here in the Bay Area,
as wind can vary dramatically on different parts of the course. In that
scenario, I don't care if I slightly choke my sail at the upwind mark,
as long as that huge sail keeps me powered at the bottom end of the
mark (as sitting down there slogging seems awfully slow in the grand
scheme of things). I am under the impression that sail choice for
racing is a matter of tradeoffs, with the extremes (getting slammed and
swimming a lot on one side of the spectrum, slogging on the other side)
to be avoided at all cost.
So did I interpret you correctly, or are you actually saying that when
things are getting crazy overpowered, the no-cam will give you the same
upwind performance as the cammed sail OF THE SAME SIZE due to the fact
that they are both choked with outhaul, making the camber inducers
irrelevant?
Cheers,
Andreas
Roger Nightingale
diffence between modern wave sails and RAF slalom sails as you've
implied (I'll call 'em RAFs). Wave sails use less seam shape (or
static draft) and fewer battens - both of which make them a little
less rangy, but improve weight and handling. But they have alot more
in common then they have differences.
A modern RAF (wave or slalom) is better than an older RAF for 3
reasons that I can think of: 1) they are cut to twist, 2) battens are
way, way, way better, and 3) they use comparitively massive amount of
downhaul. Tons of sail tension, combined with super stiff battens,
keeps the draft in place and this characteristics are common to all
modern sails - race, slalom, and wave.
All the major tech advances in cambered sails were simultaneously
being employed in wave sails. As a result, the wave sails just kept
getting more stable and rangy. My guess is that the sail designers
(Peterson, Naish, or whoever) were happily sailing on their stable and
rangy *wave* sails when it occurred to them that they could start
making RAF slalom sails again (Bruce, fell free to tell me I'm full of
sh*t). If that's the case, then camless is the wrong term.
And I hope we can stick with "RAF" as a desciptor. Camless just sounds
so "disempowered".
Camless 1. without cam. 2. something less than cammed. 3.
emasculated. :)
Roger (not sailquick)
"sailquik (Roger Jackson)" wrote:
>
> What is the difference between a camless and an RAF sail?
>
snip
> The camless designs twist off at the top the same way a cammed sail
> does, have nearly identical draft
> stability when sailed in their design wind range.
> So, a "camless" sail does all the same things that a cammed sail does,
> has very nearly the same shape,
> generally has more static draft to develop low wind power (mostly in the
> lower portion of the sail).
> This is very different from a Wave or RAF design which depends on wind
> loading for most of it's shape.
> Hope this helps!
> Roger
>
--
Roger Nightingale
Duke University
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Bruce Peterson
<r...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>
>All the major tech advances in cambered sails were simultaneously
>being employed in wave sails. As a result, the wave sails just kept
>getting more stable and rangy. My guess is that the sail designers
>(Peterson, Naish, or whoever) were happily sailing on their stable and
>rangy *wave* sails when it occurred to them that they could start
>making RAF slalom sails again.
This is exactly what occurred nearly three years ago. The success of
our Revolution wave sails led us to re-evaluate what was possible in
the slalom sail format. I think everyone, myself definitely included,
was/is astounded at just how successful the reinvention of camless
sails has become. The major contributing factors are the improvements
in masts, carbon booms, and the knowledge learned about twist and
shape/tension profiles from race sails.
There have been a lot of significant advancements to windsurfing sails
in the last ten years. The vast majority of which have nothing to do
with a small plastic hinging mechanism called a camber inducer.
Bruce Peterson
Sailworks R+D
Bruce Peterson
>Help me understand this. When you're talking about the other racers
>"choking their big sails (8.0+) tight with outhaul" in the heavy stuff,
>are you implying that you were on a smaller sail?
No, we were all on the similar size sails. Often when the wind in
the Gorge has a slight southerly component the Event Site where we
race will have gusty, slightly offshore 15-20 knots, while the
windward mark a mile to west sits more exposed to the true wind flow
and has 25-30 knots. You need the 8.0 to stay powered around the
bottom of the course, but the only way to survive the top of the
course is lots of outhual.
>So did I interpret you correctly, or are you actually saying that when
>things are getting crazy overpowered, the no-cam will give you the same
>upwind performance as the cammed sail OF THE SAME SIZE due to the fact
>that they are both choked with outhaul, making the camber inducers
>irrelevant?
Yes, absolutely.
Bruce Peterson
Sailworks R+D
ma...@my-deja.com
How about when things are lighter (at the bottom end of the course). Do
you find significant differences in pointing between the camber induced
and no-cam sails? That seems to have been the other argument for
cambers, as it seems that pinching while underpowered would be harder
to achieve with a perimeter-loaded sail compared to a camber-induced
one, especially in marginal conditions and lots of dirty air at the
start.
musta...@my-deja.com
> > happy with your 10 - 18 range. Great. Don't change. But if someone
else
> > was unhappy, and really really wanted something closer to a 6 - 20
> > range, (and didn't care about rigging and waterstarts) then they
could get more of that (maybe not all) with a cammed sail.
>
> Gotta disagree here!
> I think we are missing a "HUGE" point that I have mentioned several
> times
> but not emphasized.
> In order to get your North IQ going (i.e. the board from displacement
> mode
> up onto a plane) you will have to pump it, alot, as the IQ/IQ3D/IQ3+
> ...
And I think you missed my point that I did emphasize that camless vs.
cam doesn't equate with camless vs. race. But I will try pumping a bit
more. Haven't really tried that with my Norths. They must have more
range than I thought.
> > But nowhere here have I advocated Cindy
or
> > anyone getting a race sail. Don't know about Sailworks, but the
other
> > major brands have cammed sails that are lighter, with narrower luff
> > sleaves, and shape that emphasizes the bottom end.
> Yep, the North Pyro/Zoom, NP V8 etc., but even these sails do not have
> quite as good bottom end, and no more top end stability than an
> equivalent
> size camless sail, both being properly rigged.
>
See below.
> > About a year and a half ago I rented a 6.0 retro with a 288 board
out of
> > Coyote with a steady 20 mph or so. ...
> Hmmm? I thought we were discussing "BIG" sails here in this thread
> (i.e. 6 knots-20 knots).
Just answering those who implied that I had no experience here. As I
described, my experience was consistent with objective reviews that list
pros and cons with cams and camless, subject only to the users
preferences.
> > At 10mph I still want to sail. Any recommendations?
>
> Yep! Wait a couple of months and get a Y2K Retro in 9.0 or 9.5.
Be great if someone around here could demo or rent one. Doubt I'll buy
one for a while, based just on the testemony I've heard.
I keep coming back to this thread because while I've followed the
objective reviews and developments over the years which offer balanced
comparisons, there are a couple voices here claiming simply that
"Camless are all good, and cams are all bad.". I don't buy it and hope
others won't. They both have pros and cons.
This thread got into the debate due to an interest in gusty conditions.
Optimizing a sail choice for gusty conditions implies optimized range;
power at the low end, and stability at the high end. Straight so far? I
could give my technical understanding of the tradeoffs, but it so
happens that recently there were a couple reviews on the subject which
updated the tradeoffs well. They both claim a balanced list of pros and
cons for each, and allegiance to neither. But on the subject of range:
Ken Winner, American Windsurfer, Vol6, '99
"POWER When it comes to powering a board on a broad reach or through
a lull, the cambered sail has the advantage. Its fuller leading edge
promotes attachment of wind flow for good power at high angles of
attack. The draft-forward shope that it takes on when underpowered has
shifted back by the time it's powered, so when the time comes for
gliding through a lull, the cambered sail has the advantage of a deep
draft without the disadvantage of the draft being distributed too far
forward. The fact that a cambered sail doesn't have to be outhauled flat
for good stability also gives it the draft it needs to power well
through a lull.
STABILITY & RANGE The cambered sail is inherently more stable because
the fronts of the battens aren't free to move fore and aft as the wind
changes. However when outhauled flat a no-cam sail easily has the
stability to equal that of a cambered sail. It won't have quite the
range, though, because when rigged for stability it won't have the depth
of draft of a cambered sail. To increase the range of a no-cam sail to
the absolute maximum possible, you simply rig it flat and sail it in a
bunch of wind. ..."
Hmmm, sounds a lot like a race sail.
Here's what Alf Imperato says. Windsurfing, Oct '99
" ... The first downfall I encountered (with camless) was a slight lack
of stability, and without an adjustable outhaul, a lack of range ...
It's difficult to lock the draft in one position. It'll wander fore and
aft. That's not too bad ... (if you) ... like some backhand pressure.
The second pitfall is handling through puffs and lulls. RAF sails don't
have any shape unless they're filled with wind. Sailing into a hole or
light spot on the course will cause a camless sail to lose shape. It may
not necessarily go flat (it may), but instantly, you can feel a lack of
power, speed and efficiency. ... Then, when you sail back into true wind
or a puff, the sail will immediately take full shape. This means you
have a feeling of no power for one second, and a split second later, you
can get a jolt of full power. It can affect your boat speed, but mostly
it affects your balance and the attitude af your board. It's not the
fastest and most efficient way to sail. (Doesn't sound too comfortable
either, does it Cindy?) Lastly, camless sails have a tendency to
collapse while sailing upwind and through transitions. (moreso in gusty
shifty conditions)..."
Well said. Again, they have plenty of nice things to say about camless,
other than range and stability issues. Camless all good? Be skeptical.
I sincerely wish Cindy happiness with her new camless sail. But I think,
for her, rigging and waterstarting are higher priorities than sailing in
gusty conditions.
Best regards to all,
Doug
Roger Nightingale
manufacturer that is legally allowed to use it.
Roger
Anton wrote:
>
> "Roger Nightingale" <r...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
> news:3805F521...@acpub.duke.edu...
> > Nice informative post, Roger. But I don't think there is as much
> > diffence between modern wave sails and RAF slalom sails as you've
> > implied (I'll call 'em RAFs). Wave sails use less seam shape (or
> > static draft) and fewer battens - both of which make them a little
> > less rangy, but improve weight and handling. But they have alot more
> > in common then they have differences.
> >
>
> I tend to agree with you, I never saw any distiction between a camless
> and a RAF, I thought a camless sail was a RAF. And as someone else
> pointed out, NP still use the term RAF for their new camless sails
> (and they coined it).
>
> Cheers
> Anton
sailquik (Roger Jackson)
>
> Roger, thank you for your informative post. I learned a lot.
> But, I am going to quibble about terminology. Since I posted my
> question, I realized that the NP Supersonic is actually called
> the NP RAF Supersonic (see np's website if you don't believe me
> at www.neilpryde.com). We all agree the Supersonic is a good
> example of a modern camless sail.
camless sail, yes, but it doesn't share some of the best features
of some of the other modern camless sails.
The luff sleeve is so tight, and so curved it takes 2 people to
rig one easily, unlike the Retro/Synthesis without cams, and
at least one of the Naish's.
Maybe Neil Pryde takes pryde
> in the term RAF and can't bear to give it up, despite its negative
> connotations to Lois and others.
I don't think Lois was terribly negative about the term "RAF"
as she was about the older "RAF" designs.
The modern cambered and camless sails are very nearly equal in
performance, size for size, mostly because of the other design
innovations (See Bruce Peterson's posts to this group on this
subject).
> So, you are describing how the camless (new improved RAF to some people)
> is a completely different animal from the old RAF.
Yes, it's a completely different animal, in terms of range/lite wind
power, top end stability, and speed. But none of these criteria are
specific only to camless sails.
The newer sails, whether camless; 1 cam, 2 cam, 3 or more cam;
be they freeride/slalom/lite wind race/ or race, and to some
degree even wave sails have all been improved tremendously by
new materials/more user friendly designs/lighter weight.
If you wish to call them RAF's go ahead.
But if you want a real treat, find someone with a Retro/Noa/Koa/
Stealth/Trans-Am/Synthesis, who knows how to rig it, and then the two of
you rig each others sails, and go out and trade sails back and forth
on the water. Be sure the sails are > 7.0 and that the conditions
include some < 12 knot windspeeds.
THEN, and only then, will you really understand what I'm saying
here.
Go on, give it a try! You might just see and feel some
real differences.
The SS is a good design, but it may lack a few features found in
some of the others. The Diablo is a bit looser in the sleeve and
therefore easier to rig, so someone at NP seems to have noticed
something.
Regards
Roger
sailquik (Roger Jackson)
> And I think you missed my point that I did emphasize that camless vs.
> cam doesn't equate with camless vs. race. But I will try pumping a bit
> more. Haven't really tried that with my Norths. They must have more
> range than I thought.
> Just answering those who implied that I had no experience here. As I
> described, my experience was consistent with objective reviews that list
> pros and cons with cams and camless, subject only to the users
> preferences.
Well, experience with a 6.0 Retro 2 years ago in the windy Bay area
is not the conditions that Cindy/Lois/or Roger get very often.
Try sailing for a weekend when the highest gust is about 12 knots.
I do it all the time and still spend about 80% of the time planing!
> I keep coming back to this thread because while I've followed the
> objective reviews and developments over the years which offer balanced
> comparisons, there are a couple voices here claiming simply that
> "Camless are all good, and cams are all bad.". I don't buy it and hope
> others won't. They both have pros and cons.
>
> This thread got into the debate due to an interest in gusty conditions.
> Optimizing a sail choice for gusty conditions implies optimized range;
> power at the low end, and stability at the high end. Straight so far? I
> could give my technical understanding of the tradeoffs, but it so
> happens that recently there were a couple reviews on the subject which
> updated the tradeoffs well. They both claim a balanced list of pros and
> cons for each, and allegiance to neither. But on the subject of range:
>
> Ken Winner, American Windsurfer, Vol6, '99
<big snip of KW's technical analysis>
> Hmmm, sounds a lot like a race sail.
Yes, and that was the year that they "tested" all of these sails
in Maui. Where does one find <10 knots of reasonably consistent
wind in Maui??
> Here's what Alf Imperato says. Windsurfing, Oct '99
<Big snip of Alf's 2nd page test report in WS Mag>
Please go back and read the first page of this article, where Alf and
two pro riders sailed race sails against camless and couldn't find any
differences.
I'm still trying to figure out which one of these is the "objective"
page, and which is the "editorialized" page.
> Well said. Again, they have plenty of nice things to say about camless,
> other than range and stability issues. Camless all good? Be skeptical.
On the modern camless sails, for recreational sailing, there are no
range and stability issues that I'm aware of.
>
> I sincerely wish Cindy happiness with her new camless sail. But I think,
> for her, rigging and waterstarting are higher priorities than sailing in
> gusty conditions.
Cindy will be delighted I'm sure and her ability to handle gusts will
not be a problem anymore at all, if she rigs the sails right on the
right mast and tries the simple one side adj. outhaul.
later
Roger
Anton
Bruce Peterson
>How about when things are lighter (at the bottom end of the course). Do
>you find significant differences in pointing between the camber induced
>and no-cam sails? That seems to have been the other argument for
>cambers, as it seems that pinching while underpowered would be harder
>to achieve with a perimeter-loaded sail compared to a camber-induced
>one, especially in marginal conditions and lots of dirty air at the
>start.
Perimeter loaded sails (read: positive outhaul tension) develop
pressure very quickly as the initial wind loading is transfered
directly to the rider and board. Many cambered sail designs rig with
neutral or negative outhaul which "wastes" the initial wind loading in
the process of loading the perimeter of the sail. Further, the tight
lower leech of our camless Retro gives excellent pumping response for
quick acceleration out of transitions or puffs.
I haven't course raced the Retro in really big fleets yet so I'll
reserve some judgement there. However I am very motivated to explore
the potential further. See you on the start line ......
Bruce Peterson
Sailworks R+D
sailquik (Roger Jackson)
Perhaps this explains my experiences yesterday in the short figure
8 races at the HIWC.
At the start, I was able to pump a few times, and accelerate very
quickly
with the 5.5 Retro. I had pro sailors (on 6.7's) and a whole fleet of
cam sails right behind me, many of whom were already up and running,
hoping to
blow by the slowpokes nearer the line.
But I found the little Retro would accelerate so quickly that I
immediately had the boat speed to stay with them.
Same thing out of the jibes. I was doing tight jibes and some of them
would go around the outside, but a couple quick pumps to unstick the
board and I was able to easily out accelerate them an either stay with
or pass them in the first 50 yds away from the buoys.
That's what originally attracted me to Retro's, and it still has to be
among their best features.
Roger
ma...@my-deja.com
sail...@ameritel.net wrote:
> Bruce Peterson wrote:
> >
So, so I see the following:
In really big air, no-cams may be able to hang with the cambered sails
even upwind, as those cambered sails are choked flat with outhaul to
make them controllable (as is the no-cam at that point), negating the
effect of the camber, as it's now pulled flat behind the mast (per
Bruce's previous post).
In light air slalom racing, and probably downwind as well, no-cams may
be able to out-accelerate cambered sails due to "not wasting" the
initial load by taking up slack from negative outhaul first (per
Bruce's most recent post). This seems to be supported by Roger's
experience, and it seems consistent with the less than confidence-
inspiring experience many of us have had when trying to pump their
course gear onto a plane downwind in marginal breeze with very slack
outhaul (sail touching booms to about the harness lines.
So we've covered downwind (not much of an issue), upwind in really big
air (that one was a little more surprising), leaving only one
theoretical domain where cambered race sails might be of serious
advantage, which is pinching upwind underpowered, especially in dirty
air at the start. This is where we need some data.
Unfortunately, having Bruce go out in local racing at the event site on
his Retros might not be conclusive, as he has a reputation for getting
off the line into clean air from the get go, meaning this would not be
a very controlled experiment.
What would be conclusive, however, is to have a bunch of pro- or near-
pro level racers line up on nearly identical boards, divide the fleet
in two (cam vs. no-cam), make sure they are all rigged not to be way
over-powered, run a weekend series with lots of sausage-style
up/downwind courses with the start in a marginal wind zone (such as the
Event Site scenario described earlier by Bruce), and make them rotate
through the sails every three races.
You do that with enough people to simulate real racing for a sufficient
number of short races, and your records of relative positions at the
windward mark should give you a pretty clear pattern of whether no-cams
can compete in that specific scenario. If they can, I for one may never
buy another camber :)
Sounds like wishful thinking, but it would be a much faster way of
settling this debate than waiting for results from a whole season of
racing (where not much experimentation may happen, as few racers are
willing to risk committing to a quiver of no-cams for a season). If I
were a sailmaker trying to establish the viability of no cam's for
course racing (and thus be able to do away with the need for my high
cost/high R&D effort/low margin line of cambered race sails, I might
spend some serious thought on how I could get a group of high-caliber
sailors together to do this... ;)
Andreas
Anthony Boesen
that second. Now, that I sail the Gorge when people talk about how gusty it is, I
laugh inside too.
Emmanuel Pons wrote:
> I sail in Utah and could not stop laughing when I read "gorge gusty".. Some guys
> are just spoiled...
>
> RJ Associates wrote:
>
> > Just to add a few comments:
> >
> > The Gorge gusty... I laughed when I read this... maybe so compared to
> > Aruba / San Diego, but not compared to what we experience in Colorado.
> > The problem is the speed of change of the wind speed that people are not
> > talking about. Seems to me that in many places, the gusts build more
> > steadily and then drop off. In such a place camless sails will probably
> > work fine. In the Rocky Mountains, the gusts come in with such
> > variability and strength that one can hear the gusts hit the wall of
> > one's house like a door slamming. Imagine the center of effort in the
> > sail handling this change.
> >
> > I have considerd switching my 9.0 Supersonic to a cam sail because IMHO
> > it's weakness is strong gusts. I have to have major outhaul in this
> > sail to keep the center of effort in place, but this defeats some of the
> > low end of the sail. If I have less outhaul, the effort moves around
> > significantly, so I have to move harness lines back, but the gusts are
> > too variable to get that set up dialed in. Cams would help more I
> > believe. In easier to sail places, I would go with a camless sail
> > however.
> >
> > Rich
> >
> > NLW TFW NM wrote:
> > >
> > > RE:"Or they may simply be victims of the "must have cambers" bs some people
> > > tend to get all psyched out on."
> > >
> > > That, in a skimpy nutshell, is part of what my lengthy comment was trying to
> > > get across.
> > >
> > > Re:"I don't think cams really are crutches
> > > or training wheels - if anything, they make sailing harder unless you
> > > use them where they excel (going upwind overpowered).'
> > >
> > > And that is the rest of my message. But since people balk at that concept, I
> > > was trying to beef up the naked statement with some logic.
> > >
> > > Re:"Try some of the newer shapes with way more refined rocker lines -
> > > incredibly smooth, w/o the need for extra fins "
> > >
> > > I'm looking forward to it. The last crop I tried was the '96 crop, and it
> > > didn't float my boat.
> > >
> > > Mike \m/
--
Anthony
Board Building Links Page
http://www.viser.net/~anthwind/
sailquik (Roger Jackson)
Thanks for responding here!
It seems in my obviously failed attempt at brevity and objectivity in
the
previous post, I left out something of primary importance.
> >Below that wind speed yes, there will be a reduced loading and the luff
> will tend to collapse slightly!
> >In my experience, sailing at the minimum planing threshold, this ability to
> >"inflate" is a good thing. As I go into a lull the front of the battens
> move in closer and more up beside the mast, which reduces the overall drag
> as the front of the sail is no longer as "fat"!
Here is what I need to ass to have this make a little more sense to you!
But the tremendous draft designed in to the lower part of the sail,
combined with
limited top twist (Yes, both my 8.5 Retro Raceboard Prototype and the
9.5 extra drafty
sail Bruce designed actually have positive draft in the top batten, if
you can imagine that
in this era of floppy top/floppy leech sails) keeps the sail pulling
like a locomotive, even
through the lulls, and even with the luff sleeve deflated to it's
unloaded shape.
> Is this really what you want Roger?
You bet! I will put the 9.5 Retro up against any other similar size sail
(modern designs here),
and I think nearly anyone will be able to tell how well this sail goes
thru a lull. The windspeed
we are talking about here is <10 knots (more like 4-6 knots).
> The slimmer profile to the aerofoil has
> not only reduced its drag, but proportionally reduced its lift.
Only in the very front of the sail.
I have a very nice digital photo of this sail laying on the ground with
a 42 cm North
Race extension as a measuring stick.
The mast has been inserted, and the sail downhauled for super lite air
conditions.
The clew of the sail is about >40 cm up off the ground. This sail has a
tremendous amount of draft.
I will send you the photo if you like.
> In a lull you want to increase lift..........or are you suggesting that you prefer to
> glide through the lull with no drive.
I have far more drive than any other sail I've ever been on. Including
the Aeroforce Double luff.
>
> Taking this point further, as a gust hits I assume that the foil deepens?
> That increases lift and drag proportionally, which suggests to me that such
> a sail would not be very good in gusty conditions.
If it does this, then it does so completely transparently.
Remember we are talking < 10 knots of wind here!
On this particular sail one of the people who demo'd it up at Lake
George NY, actually said
the following:
"The landlocked sailor can have a long wait between adrenaline shots,
and I know that I was not alone in wanting to try the new wide board and
large sail combinations that we have been reading so much about. Sunday
6/27/99 provided the perfect conditions to see if anything that I had
read was true. With ~10-12 knots of wind, Roger showed me how I can sail
full-on to overpowered in the conditions so prevalent in this area. I
kept looking over my shoulder for the whitecaps, but it was the
equipment doing it-not more wind. This introduction convinced me to
spend the money to invest in more planing time. I would not have made
the decision to buy into this equipment without this introduction."
If I had rigged the adjustable outhaul, a slight pull on the outhaul
would have flattened the sail
and allowed him to sail it up to about 16 knots.
>
> Den
> Playing the Devils Advocate :-)
I will send you the picture, if you request it.
You are welcome to come by Hatteras and try this sail against whatever
you are currently sailing.
later
Roger
Bruce Peterson
wrote:
>Questions:
>1) Do you think cammed sails have a more mechanically stable leading edge or
>not?
Camber inducers can make the leading edge more stable. As can
increased luff curve, stiffer masts & battens, increased seam shaping
and higher leading edge tension.
>2) If you think they are more mechanically stable, are you suggesting this
>doesn't matter?
Sail stability matters, that's for certain, however mechanical
stability derived from camber inducers is not a freebie. Camber
inducers introduce quite a range of design and performance
compromises.
- They add weight.
- They increase the complexity of sail construction.
- They increase the cost of the sail.
- They make the insertion and removal of the mast more difficult
- They complicate and lengthen the rigging process.
- They make mast diameter a compatibility issue in the case of
passive, low tension cambers with fixed mast sleeve geometry.
- The force the user to tension and de-tension cambered battens for
every use in the case of active, high pressure cambers that are driven
by batten pressure from the leech.
- They hold the batten tip in an aerodynamically inefficient profile
relative to the mast in the case of "T" style cambers which cause a
double-entry leading edge profile by not allowing the batten tip to
fully articulate to either side of the mast.
- They rotate harder during transitions.
- They may not fully rotate at low speed or low rotational loads.
- They require a wider mast sleeve which increases the volume of water
the sail takes on when immersed making waterstarting or uphauling more
difficult.
- They do not de-power well at high speed.
>3) If not, then why do you have cams in your Race sails?
Sailworks makes cambered sails for racers and other advanced "power"
sailors who are willing to accept these compromises for a top end
orientated sail. With a mid to high end bias, the low-end performance
is usually recovered by taking a larger sail. The racing mentality
of being fully powered at all times typically dictates that one rig
for the lulls and "deal with it" in the puffs. We have mitigated some
of the above noted camber compromises with a fully articulating,
pressure and mast diameter adjustable, passive tension camber that
does not require constant batten tension adjustments.
Should anyone be thinking otherwise, I still believe camber inducers
still have a place in windsurfing sails, but their significance is
markedly diminished in consideration of the advancements that ALL
windsurfing sails (camber or not) have benefited from in the last
decade.
Bruce Peterson
Sailworks R+D
Den Fox
sent to Bruce.
> As a non sail maker, I marvel at your technical abilities to create from
> flat pieces of fabric, glue and thread, with a mast and boom being your
> only concessions, a semi rigid structure (aerofoil). Your conviction in
> your own argument has convinced me that with clever distribution of
tension,
> especially leading edge tension, the camber inducer can *almost* become
> redundant. This thread is providing a good education for all interested.
I
> hope you're going to issue certificates!?
>
> I would however like to add my comments to your bullet points, because in
> some areas I considered your arguments weak or irrelevant to the punter
> (Me).
>
> > - They add weight. TRUE.
>
> > - They increase the complexity of sail construction. NOT MY CONCERN.
>
> > - They increase the cost of the sail. OK, PERHAPS IT IS.
>
> > - They make the insertion and removal of the mast more difficult. I CAN
> SHOOT THE MAST UP THE LUFF TUBE LIKE A JAVELIN.
>
> > - They complicate and lengthen the rigging process. 3 - 5 MINS, AND A
> LITTLE GRUNT.
>
> > - They make mast diameter a compatibility issue in the case of passive,
> low tension cambers with fixed mast sleeve geometry. BUT THERE ARE CAMBER
> DESIGNS (NORTH'S TUNING FORK) WHERE THIS ISN'T AN ISSUE.
>
> > - They force the user to tension and de-tension cambered battens for
every
> use in the case of active, high pressure cambers that are driven by batten
> pressure from the leech. I NEVER DE-TENSION MINE. THAT'S DONE WITH THE
> DOWNHAUL.
>
> > - They hold the batten tip in an aerodynamically inefficient profile
> relative to the mast in the case of "T" style cambers which cause a
> double-entry leading edge profile by not allowing the batten tip to fully
> articulate to either side of the mast. NORTH'S TUNING FORK.
>
> > - They rotate harder during transitions. TRUE, BUT ISN'T THIS ALSO THE
> CASE WITH A SAIL WHICH HAS ITS CAMBER INDUCED BY SOME OTHER MEANS. IE:
> CAMLESS.
>
> > - They may not fully rotate at low speed or low rotational loads. AS
> ABOVE.
>
> > - They require a wider mast sleeve which increases the volume of water
the
> sail takes on when immersed making waterstarting or uphauling more
> difficult. VERY VERY TRUE.
>
> > - They do not de-power well at high speed. AS THREE ABOVE
>
> Den
>
> PS, I did not intend to make reference to any brands. North are over
> priced, but I'm happy.
Bill Hansen
Peterson) wrote:
>Camber inducers can make the leading edge more stable.
Agreed! Excepting the word 'can.' All else being equal they DO!
>As can increased luff curve, stiffer masts & battens, increased seam
>shaping and higher leading edge tension.
Agreed! IMHO, these design attributes are necessary for any well-designed
contemporary sail.
>Sail stability matters, that's for certain,
Agreed! 100%! That is why no sail designer including yourself is ready to
throw them into the dumpster for their highest performing sails!
>however mechanical stability derived from camber inducers is not a freebie.
Agreed! To my knowledge no one has said it was...
>Camber inducers introduce quite a range of design and performance compromises.
Agreed! In all sails, there are many compromises: weight vs durability,
quality vs cost, complexity and performance vs user friendliness. Cammed
sails have them. Camless have them.
>- They add weight.
>- They increase the complexity of sail construction.
>- They increase the cost of the sail.
>- They make the insertion and removal of the mast more difficult..
>- They complicate and lengthen the rigging process.
As does increased luff curve, stiffer masts & battens, increased seam
shaping and higher leading edge tension. In each case, the real performance
gained from these design attributes comes with increased weight, complexity,
cost, rigging difficulty and time. A straight-sleeved sail with no shape,
minimal mast/batten stiffness and no downhaul tension would certainly be
light, simple, cheap and easy to rig...
>- They make mast diameter a compatibility issue in the case of
>passive, low tension cambers with fixed mast sleeve geometry.
Yes, this is true! I have never considered this system accordingly but
others designers have made it perform well while alienating many
'recreational' sailors with their mast-diameter compromise. Too bad those
designers (many working for the leaders in the industry) didn't solve this
problem better...
>- They force the user to tension and de-tension cambered battens for
>every use in the case of active, high pressure cambers that are driven
>by batten pressure from the leech.
Absolutely untrue!
There are many cambered sails with active high pressure cams that require no
regular tensioning/de-tensioning of battens from the leech. The tensioning
takes place automatically while downhauling in a quick and easy rigging
process approaching the simplicity and time consumption of a no-cam.
>- They hold the batten tip in an aerodynamically inefficient profile
>relative to the mast in the case of "T" style cambers which cause a
>double-entry leading edge profile by not allowing the batten tip to
>fully articulate to either side of the mast.
Bruce, the advantages of the 'T' cam are well established:
Very light.
Durable.
Inexpensive.
Easy to rig.
Positive Rotation.
Fit into a tight 'RAF' sleeve.
Are easily 'converted' in a cam/no-cam sail.
Form a VERY mechanically stable arch between the mast, batten and leech.
In a wide-sleeved sail, their performance has repeatedly proven to be equal
to or better than any other cam system beause of their excellent mechanical
stability under load.
ALL 'tight-sleeved' sails suffer aerodynamically from an obvious leading
edge compromise called the MAST. IMHO, from years of experience with this
system, the gains of mechanical foil stability and ultimately stability of
handling in a tight-sleeved sail utilizing 'T' cams far outweigh the
aerodynamic compromise of the mast - especially since all sails, camless or
not, must have a mast!
In EVERY photograph of CAMLESS sails giving a clear, properly lighted
tangental view of the leading edge during normal use, the 'double entry'
phenomena you often mention as a deficiency (which it is) is clearly
evident. While this isn't often shown in brochure and magazine article
diagrams of the camless 'RAF' leading edge, in practice it is a REALITY.
Especially when the aerodynamic loads are insufficient to overcome the luff
tension of a deep, full-cut, perimeter-loaded design in the lower sections
where the shape is greatest. Since the cams are generally in the same area,
there is little actual on-the-water difference in the mast/sail geometry.
>- They rotate harder during transitions.
Agreed! As do sails with increased luff curve, stiffer masts & battens,
increased seam shaping and higher leading edge tension. It is a COMPROMISE
made for STABILITY and a matter of degree. ANY sail with increased leading
edge stability will rotate harder.
>- They may not fully rotate at low speed or low rotational loads.
Agreed for many cam systems, not so for properly designed 'T' cams in
anything but a no wind situation where a slight pump accomplishes the
rotation. Of course, a camless sail does not rotate or 'inflate' under these
circumstances either - particularly if it has increased luff curve, stiffer
masts & battens, increased seam shaping and higher leading edge tension.
>- They require a wider mast sleeve which increases the volume of water
>the sail takes on when immersed making waterstarting or uphauling more
>difficult.
True for some cams, obviously untrue for others - particularly 'T' cams.
>- They do not de-power well at high speed.
What???
If the sail is operating at high speed and has good mechanical stability,
why 'de-power' unless TOO FAST is a negative when discussing performance? If
it is OVERPOWERED causing control problems and a scared sailor at high
speed, is stability a negative attribute or is a lack of it the cause? I'd
personally rather use a more stable and efficient sail to comfortably go
faster. The act of 'de-powering' implies a lack of sufficient range for the
conditions and an immediate decision to go slower - certainly no one has
ever claimed a properly designed modern cammed sail lacks range. I agree
that many of the new 'camless' designs are very 'rangy' as well...
>>3) If not, then why do you have cams in your Race sails?
>
>Sailworks makes cambered sails for racers and other advanced "power"
>sailors who are willing to accept these compromises for a top end
>orientated sail. With a mid to high end bias, the low-end performance
>is usually recovered by taking a larger sail. The racing mentality
>of being fully powered at all times typically dictates that one rig
>for the lulls and "deal with it" in the puffs. We have mitigated some
>of the above noted camber compromises with a fully articulating,
>pressure and mast diameter adjustable, passive tension camber that
>does not require constant batten tension adjustments.
Great! From what I have seen, it is a very contemporary truncated tip design
which functions well.
>Should anyone be thinking otherwise, I still believe camber inducers
>still have a place in windsurfing sails, but their significance is
>markedly diminished in consideration of the advancements that ALL
>windsurfing sails (camber or not) have benefited from in the last
>decade.
FINALLY!
Thanks, Bruce for making this clear to all!
I deplored the 'hype' given cams by several companies in the mid-eighties as
the 'must-have' solution to every sail design problem. I have equally
deplored the 'hype' associated with 'camless' sails as the 'new' solution.
There have been both good and bad 'camless' sails since the beginning of
windsurfing. There have also been both good and bad 'cammed' sails. To me
(and I'm agreeing with you here) cams have their place as one of MANY design
elements which when properly used, contribute to performance, range and
stability.
Hopefully, this long discussion has been informative to all. Now, I for one
can return to the pursuit of designing the best sails possible of both
types. Perhaps one day they will merge into one, fully integrated, high
performance and user-friendly design.
Best regards and hope to see you on the water!
Emmanuel Pons
>rigging, easy waterstarting, light weight, easy jibing, easy to uphaul,
>good low end power.
Sounds like I am a girl too :-)
Lois Stufflebeam wrote:
> Bill Hansen wrote:
>
> > Hopefully, this long discussion has been informative to all. Now, I for one
> > can return to the pursuit of designing the best sails possible of both
> > types. Perhaps one day they will merge into one, fully integrated, high
> > performance and user-friendly design.
> >
>
> And hopefully, you guys have not totally confused and discouraged poor
> Cindy (the original poster of this thread) in her search for a new sail.
>
> Aren't there any other women out there who have an opinion on large
> sails? This is what I think most women want in a big sail: easy
> rigging, easy waterstarting, light weight, easy jibing, easy to uphaul,
> good low end power. We don't want to struggle with equipment. Camless
> fits the bill for me.
>
> Lois
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Lois Stufflebeam <lasb...@home.com>
> Las Brisas del Yaque Townhouses Margarita Island VZ.
>
> Lois Stufflebeam
> Las Brisas del Yaque Townhouses Margarita Island VZ. <lasb...@home.com>
> Netscape Conference Address
> Netscape Conference DLS Server
> TEL: 1-(888) 2-BRISAS FAX: 1-760-632-1209 WEB SITE: www.sailbrisas.com
> Additional Information:
> Last Name Stufflebeam
> First Name Lois
> Version 2.1
Lois Stufflebeam
> Hopefully, this long discussion has been informative to all. Now, I for one
> can return to the pursuit of designing the best sails possible of both
> types. Perhaps one day they will merge into one, fully integrated, high
> performance and user-friendly design.
>
And hopefully, you guys have not totally confused and discouraged poor
Den Fox
>This is what I think most women want in a big sail: easy
>rigging, easy waterstarting, light weight, easy jibing, easy to uphaul,
>good low end power. We don't want to struggle with equipment. Camless
>fits the bill for me.
Lois, With the specification you have just detailed I believe the group will
unanimously agree that a Camless Sail (Modern RAF if you like) would be a
very good recommendation. To be fair, Cindy obviously knew the essential
differences between No Cam and Cam, because she asks for a *No Cam*
recommendation in her Post. Unfortunately for Cindy, we all answered her
Subject Line: Please help me choose a sail for gusty conditions... The
truth is, sailing in gusts is a real......not much fun at all. Especially
since gusts are nearly always accompanied by a wind shift. If my only
specification for choice of sail was Cindy's subject line, then without a
doubt in *My* mind, I would choose a sail where the draught and C of E is
positively locked in the fore and aft direction, and the top twisted off to
allow the gusts to blow through without pulling me up onto my toes. I
believe this is *best* done with a mechanical link, ie; a cam. In this
argument I don't care if the luff holds 8 gallons of water and it takes me
an hour to rig.
I believe we all learned a lot with this thread, but I don't think anyone
answered Cindy's question!
Den
Cindy's original post:
>I've been sailing about a year, always on early 90's dacron sails.
Yesterday
>the conditions were avg wind 6-12 with gusts to 20 kts. I started on an
8.5
>and could not handle the gusts. My next sail was a 6.6 which I could
handle in
>gusts but couldn't keep me going through the non gusts. I understand the
new
>sails have a much larger range. Could they handle this type of condition?
>What would be the best no cam modern sails for handling a large wind range?
>Also, what size would I use in the above conditions. I'm 150lbs using a
Bic
>Rock 130l. Thanks in advance. Cindy
Lois Stufflebeam
> specification for choice of sail was Cindy's subject line, then without a
> doubt in *My* mind, I would choose a sail where the draught and C of E is
> positively locked in the fore and aft direction, and the top twisted off to
> allow the gusts to blow through without pulling me up onto my toes. I
> believe this is *best* done with a mechanical link, ie; a cam.
I still disagree, but you are free to choose whatever sail you want.
Sunday I was sailing my 5.0 Retro at Lake Morena. I hate sailing this
lake, as during a Santa Ana wind, it is gusty as heck. You know, the
0 - 40 MPH type of wind, with lots of wind shifts. I actually had a
decent day, and I'm sure it was because of my camless sail. Every other
time I have sailed there has been on a cambered sail, and I have been
launched, slammed, etc, etc. The Retro made it easier for me to handle
all those gusts, and I never got slammed or even wet. Go figure!
Lois
Anton
"Emmanuel Pons" <ep...@radiuseng.com> wrote in message
news:380BD1A9...@radiuseng.com...
> >This is what I think most women want in a big sail: easy
> >rigging, easy waterstarting, light weight, easy jibing, easy to
uphaul,
> >good low end power.
>
>
Me too! Where do I sign up?
Ellen Faller
Yes, I have been wondering what Cindy must be thinking by now!
Probably looking for an aspirin along about today, but she sure asked a
big question which has generated one of the longest threads ever. Next
question is which sail to rig for a long and gusty thread on rec.ws!
I totally agree with you on choice of sails. I have used everything
from multi-cambered race sails (old and new) thru camless (old and new)
and I am totally hooked on camless. I'll go one further and agree on the
Retros, having now decided they do more for me (just me, I'm not making
claims for anyone else here guys!) than the Supersonics I was on. Don't
know why, and don't care, I just *know* what works better for me. For
the record, I have tried a few Naish sails, a North Sting, but no
Windwings (no one has any around here).
I'd have jumped in on this thread last week but you all seem to have
had the bases pretty well covered without my contributions.
Ellen
Lois Stufflebeam wrote:
>
> Bill Hansen wrote:
>
> > Hopefully, this long discussion has been informative to all. Now, I for one
> > can return to the pursuit of designing the best sails possible of both
> > types. Perhaps one day they will merge into one, fully integrated, high
> > performance and user-friendly design.
> >
>
> And hopefully, you guys have not totally confused and discouraged poor
> Cindy (the original poster of this thread) in her search for a new sail.
>
> Aren't there any other women out there who have an opinion on large
> sails? This is what I think most women want in a big sail: easy
> rigging, easy waterstarting, light weight, easy jibing, easy to uphaul,
Ellen Faller
speculative question. Maybe it's just a "girl" thing, but it seems to
work for Lois and for me, hence my wild generalization that follows
(flame suit is on).
For those wonderful 1-25 or 30 or 40 days, I used to rig a cammed sail
that was a little bigger perhaps, to keep me powered in the lows/lulls,
and which would twist off in the gusts. but I still had to fight the
launch/slam situations. With the camless sails, I can take a bit smaller
sail and still have the power at the low end, but less "thrill" at the
upper end of the range. I rarely feel overpowered on the camless sail
(Retro). Please feel free to tell me why I am all wet (or, more
accurately, dry...) with this observation.
Looking forward to further testing of this idea,
Ellen
Anton
"Ellen Faller" <eleanor...@yale.edu> wrote in message
news:380E2F64...@yale.edu...
> Oh gosh, I guess I will jump into the pool here with a little
> speculative question. Maybe it's just a "girl" thing, but it seems
to
> work for Lois and for me, hence my wild generalization that follows
> (flame suit is on).
> For those wonderful 1-25 or 30 or 40 days, I used to rig a cammed
sail
> that was a little bigger perhaps, to keep me powered in the
lows/lulls,
> and which would twist off in the gusts. but I still had to fight the
> launch/slam situations. With the camless sails, I can take a bit
smaller
> sail and still have the power at the low end, but less "thrill" at
the
> upper end of the range. I rarely feel overpowered on the camless
sail
> (Retro). Please feel free to tell me why I am all wet (or, more
> accurately, dry...) with this observation.
> Looking forward to further testing of this idea,
> Ellen
I don't think it's just a "girl" thing - I would prefer to do the same
(I'm a heavyweight as well), and would guess that a few other guys
would too. Except for the serious race sailors (or wannabe race
sailors - no disrespect intended) of course.
Anton
J
Island or near New York City, 20th,21th, and 22th of november?
i'll there 'bcause i love surf.
thank to all
by
f.
MTVNewsGuy
of surfing events. I don't have their number handy, but they're in area code
516, and the town is Wainscott.
Michael
US5613