Did I use the wrong sail?

[Training Wheels]

I can see the advantage of the B & R rig being you can carry a big roach or square top main. However, it seems most boats that have them go with in mast furling.


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by tdoster

That is also how I understood it explained by working more in concert to tune the rake, correct? Dropping more or all headsail and sailing the main more than with a traditional stayed fractional rig? Not for the rig, but design performance and higher wind tactics? Does the rig pump more on the Bermuda under head sail alone in higher winds, or still comparable to a stayed rig? Actually a good thread for the rest of us as I have wondered a lot of this for years every time I see one.

I don't really understand the question. The rake of the mast is not adjustable -- that's the static angle of the mast versus the waterline. If you mean mast bend, that's done with backstay adjuster and is very useful on fractional rigs, but with this rig you can't do that.

Concerning mast pumping, I don't know. A properly set up rig no matter what type should not pump.

Concerning which sail you reduce first and when -- I don't think furling the jib is going to get you very far on that boat. You're going to be reefing the main early and often as that's quite a bit larger than the vestigial jib.

Sailing with main alone moves CE aft and makes the boat more prone to weather helm and broaching. I am guessing you'd probably be less likely, than more, to sail on main alone, with a rig like that.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

1. Concerning mast pumping, I don't know. A properly set up rig no matter what type should not pump.

2. Concerning which sail you reduce first and when -- I don't think furling the jib is going to get you very far on that boat. You're going to be reefing the main early and often as that's quite a bit larger than the vestigial jib.

1. YUP

2. Even with masthead rigs, too many skippers reef the jib first 'cuz they claim it's easier. Wrong. The main should be reefed first because it reduces heeling. I sail often on just the jib on our FULL masthead rig, works just fine.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

1. YUP

2. Even with masthead rigs, too many skippers reef the jib first 'cuz they claim it's easier. Wrong. The main should be reefed first because it reduces heeling. I sail often on just the jib on our FULL masthead rig, works just fine.

It took me years to learn this, so maybe this conversation will help someone else.

I was brought up on long keel boats with low rigs which were very sensitive to "sail balance". I put this phrase in " " because after many years I realized that there is almost no such thing on a tall high aspect rig. So I would reef and reef the main looking to reduce weather helm and couldn't figure out why it didn't work.

The light bulb finally went off in my head when I was sailing with jib alone and STILL had weather helm.

As it turns out, on my boat, and I suspect many modern underbodies, weather helm in a linear function of heel angle and almost nothing else influences it.

So I can sail on main alone, headsail alone, or any combination as I please.

Like you I reef the main first, but for different reasons -- I don't find the influence on heel is different between main and headsail, but I have an in-mast furling main, so the main actually gets flatter as it's furled, and this is really useful when you're struggling overpowered. The headsail, on the contrary, just goes to s**t when you start to reef it -- the roll disrupts air flow, and the draft of the sail wanders around -- so I avoid reefing the headsail as much as possible and reef mostly the main. I have a smaller, blade jib I can change to for sustained stronger weather.

Reefing the main first also keeps the CE forward which is useful for stability, especially with in-mast furling where the leech moves towards the mast as you reef.

[phydeaux]

Yes, you were using the right sail. If the boat was balanced, with little helm one way or the other it's OK. Your rig is what you have, and you were sailing well with it. At Forespar, we've experimented with a number of configurations, all the way up to and including an Aero rig, looking at loads and the various spar loads (no pun intended). While the sailors among us - that's pretty much everybody - are mostly old school, sailing with backstays for all the aforementioned reasons can also be belt and suspenders.

[tdoster]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I don't really understand the question. The rake of the mast is not adjustable -- that's the static angle of the mast versus the waterline. If you mean mast bend, that's done with backstay adjuster and is very useful on fractional rigs, but with this rig you can't do that.

Bit confused here. Rake is either natural in design, or adjustable in operation regardless of intention. Fractional is intentionally adjusted as you stated by adjusting the stays or unintentional by a poorly tuned rig creating reverse rake on the mast, correct? Bend is a bit broader and normally defining unintentional... Or raked forward or aft or bent port or starboard - or even bent in the center (reefed fractional)?

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Concerning mast pumping, I don't know. A properly set up rig no matter what type should not pump.

I agree, and that is what we are talking about. A poorly tuned fractional will pump more in weather regardless of how the sails are reefed/trimmed, correct? On the fractional, the stays create what the B&R naturally has in design. The question in this instance is still what the difference is on the mast with a B&R in an un-balanced sail configuration than a fractional?

I never prescribed to pulling the headsail in first regardless - My argument is on the other side of using the main and also reefing it including the headsail. I reef the main first, but usually because it is the hardest to do and want to get it out of the way for obvious reasons. I will also sail lazy with no main and 150 out if on the right point of sail.

Big question is whether the B&R rig is more susceptible to being unbalanced. Not in reefing the main, which obviously moves the force of the sail to the mid-point in the mast to counter the jib, which would actually make it a better option to reef than a fractional non-cutter rig or fractional w/o a baby fore-stay to counteract the force of the main that would cause the fractional to "bend" in the middle at that point.

Obviously with a cutter rig, in weather, the main is reefed in line with the staysail stay, the jib comes in and the staysail goes out, if not already. The mast is supported fore and aft by the mainsail position and the staysail. I would probably forgo running with just a staysail as there is no counter aft of the head of the staysail.

I also believe mast failures are the same as any metal. The more you bend it, the weaker it becomes over time. Do it in the same place (like bending a paperclip), then that will be the point of failure.

Didn't mean to get this deep into this. I was just curious how important sail balance really is as it was described to me by the Hunter rep years ago at the boat show.

[tdoster]

Originally Posted by phydeaux

Yes, you were using the right sail. If the boat was balanced, with little helm one way or the other it's OK. Your rig is what you have, and you were sailing well with it. At Forespar, we've experimented with a number of configurations, all the way up to and including an Aero rig, looking at loads and the various spar loads (no pun intended). While the sailors among us - that's pretty much everybody - are mostly old school, sailing with backstays for all the aforementioned reasons can also be belt and suspenders.

That is what fascinates me with old school thought and this design. And what you are saying is we throw the rule book out just based upon the graduated design of the mast and how it supports loads?

With that being said, what is the failure point in the testing that was done?

If the design is better than why did it never truly catch on?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by tdoster

Bit confused here. Rake is either natural in design, or adjustable in operation regardless of intention. Fractional is intentionally adjusted as you stated by adjusting the stays or unintentional by a poorly tuned rig creating reverse rake on the mast, correct? Bend is a bit broader and normally defining unintentional... Or raked forward or aft or bent port or starboard - or even bent in the center (reefed fractional)?



I agree, and that is what we are talking about. A poorly tuned fractional will pump more in weather regardless of how the sails are reefed/trimmed, correct? On the fractional, the stays create what the B&R naturally has in design. The question in this instance is still what the difference is on the mast with a B&R in an un-balanced sail configuration than a fractional?

I never prescribed to pulling the headsail in first regardless - My argument is on the other side of using the main and also reefing it including the headsail. I reef the main first, but usually because it is the hardest to do and want to get it out of the way for obvious reasons. I will also sail lazy with no main and 150 out if on the right point of sail.

Big question is whether the B&R rig is more susceptible to being unbalanced. Not in reefing the main, which obviously moves the force of the sail to the mid-point in the mast to counter the jib, which would actually make it a better option to reef than a fractional non-cutter rig or fractional w/o a baby fore-stay to counteract the force of the main that would cause the fractional to "bend" in the middle at that point.

Obviously with a cutter rig, in weather, the main is reefed in line with the staysail stay, the jib comes in and the staysail goes out, if not already. The mast is supported fore and aft by the mainsail position and the staysail. I would probably forgo running with just a staysail as there is no counter aft of the head of the staysail.

I also believe mast failures are the same as any metal. The more you bend it, the weaker it becomes over time. Do it in the same place (like bending a paperclip), then that will be the point of failure.

Didn't mean to get this deep into this. I was just curious how important sail balance really is as it was described to me by the Hunter rep years ago at the boat show.

I think there's a lot of confusion about terminology.

Rake is not adjustable. It's the static angle of the mast. On modern Bermuda rigs typically 0 degrees. I think you must be talking about mast bend.


As to staysails, they need running backstays to maintain tension on the inner forestay (not "staysail stay") and prevent the mast from bending from the forces on the inner forestay. Wherever the mainsail is reefed, does not support the mast or help here in any way, so it doesn't matter whether you're using the main or not. It's possible to simulate the effect of running backs with jumper stays, but I don't quite believe in them myself. Jumper stays stiffen the mast.

[Sailor Doug]

Dockhead you seem to have strong opinion on b&r rigs where did it come from. I'am a little bias since I own one. What has not been talked about is how the hull was designed to tack the stay loads. If you have a single back stay the load is designed to tack it. Splitting the back stay moves the load to some where it was not stressed for. B&R moves outer stays to the rail and back creating to me very efficient force vectors. Design also reduces the bowing force on the hull. Yes you can't use a overlapping jib but unless it's light air you don't need it. Good time for a symmetrical spinnaker or a code 0.
I have never seen any pumping the diamond shrouds likely stop that. I think a lot of engineering and Seldan experience went into it. No cautions in manual, no suggestion of using running back stays. I trim to make the boat sail.


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[TrentePieds]

Good discussion, that :-)!

TrentePieds' PO spent about five and thirty grand on new standing rigging. Give 'im the benefit of the doubt - the old rig might have been at the end of its life, but unless that was the case, the bux coulda been better spent on a whack of things to make living aboard more convenient. Updated electrics, for instance.

Well, TP is SERIOUSLY under-canvassed. SA/D = 12.4. No matter. MyBeloved LOVES being aboard 'er, and that's what matters :-)!

But that said, we have a mast of humongous section - far greater than required for a 30 foot stick carrying so little sail. About 230 feet, or so, up forrard. 195 in the main. Mast-furled. Facnor retrofit. Literally. Fitted on the back side of the mast so I can rip it off without having to get a whole new mast. Why would anyone want a MAST-furling main on a thirty footer in this 'ere glorified bathtub we call the Salish Sea???

The upper shrouds are taken aft of the maststep by about a foot, and the lowers to points directly abeam the mast. 1/4" 7x19 SS. Standing backstay, as I mentioned. All of it set up so hard that when TP came to us, the door to the heads wouldn't close :-) Things have come back to normal after I backed it all off and the hull gave out little squeals of relief. Backed it all off except the back stay whose screw is leaning so hard against the coaming that I can't turn it! Forestay, of course, has been buggered about by that infernal roller reefing gear for the jib :-)

So since I'll be going alongside the mast tower soon to fit a decent running topping lift, I thot I'd split the back stay, maybe go hog wild and put a squeezie type backstay tensioner in the bridle. But why bother on a motor sailer :-) ?

Anyway, a split backstay would require new chain plates on the transom corners. The only reason for messing with the backstay, really, is to double the usable length of the back porch. So once you are into new chain plates and a bunch of new 7x19, why not go for a B&R and make the porch even more free of obstruction?

Well, pencil and drafting vellum are cheap. I still have my old slipstick, so maybe I'll leave it this season, and crunch the numbers next winter :-)

TrentePieds

[Don C L]

I always thought that B&R rigs assumed that any boat with it would always be going so fast that the apparent wind would be such that the main would never have to be let out even when running! Ok, I am joking, a little. But really, for those with B&R, how is the main while running? I've never sailed one but I see others that are dragging the main on the spreaders. BTW I agree with Dockhead, rake is not adjustable, it's designed in (mine is 8".) Headstay tension is adjustable by pulling on the backstay, different ballgame.

[TrentePieds]

Yes, Don - I'm with you on that. However, rigs are SYSTEMS. Hate the jargon, but there you are :-) And for that matter, hull, rig, and crew may be conceived as a "system" that needs optimizing in its totality.

So on poor old TP we have a plethora of deficiencies that stem from the PO being singularly weak on the fundamental concepts and having put poor old TP's fate in the hands of "professional" riggers. That is why I consistently conceal her true identity. And mine. No need to aggravate the PO :-)

Pushing five tons downwind on a 195 Foot mast furling main doesn't seem particularly profitable. Despite, or because of, the misspent five and thirty grand there is no spinnaker gear. Well, okay - after all she IS a motorsailer.

Given that I'm rather over the hill, and given that MyBeloved is not a sailor so I'm forever condemned to single-handing, spinnaker gear is more than I care to mess with in any event. So the answer to that is a square sail on a yard. Given that the rig is a masthead rig I have room to play in as far as the height of yard is concerned. Actually the "square sail" would be a triangular sail, apex downward. There is precedent for what I propose. A B&R is just the ticket for such a rig. My viking forebears say so :-) The details are what I am gonna work out next winter. The swing of the yard and the bracing of it will need looking at carefully. This season, we'll use 'er "as is".

I reckon, without having actually drawn a sail&rigging plan for what I propose, that the B&R would work with the wind anywhere forrard of 2 points abaft the beam.

TrentePieds

[DivingOtter]

I have a Santana which has no backstay but rather, swept shrouds and I have a genniker and an asym that I use in decent winds.

[s/v Jedi]

Well, we have two B&R rigs on Jedi and if in doubt about downwind performance, I'm always ready for bets )

A couple of things:

- Our spreaders are at 25 degrees, not 30.
- We have masthead runners.

These two come together, i.e. you can't really have 25 degrees without the runners. Well, you could, but it eats the margins for safety so you shouldn't.

Having the runners takes care of the two problems of B&R: control over mast bend and control over headstay sag.

About rake: cats have rake. We do and we can adjust it. The more upwind sailing we do, the more rake in the mizzen we want.

The arguments about higher forces on the rigging etc. are questionable. The capshrouds are dimensioned for 90 degree heel + margins just like for designs with backstays. The pre-tension may be a bit higher, at 20% of breaking load, but that can still only just prevent the leeward shroud from loosing tension underway. Not extreme at all The chainplates are, like the rig, designed to heel the boat to 90 degrees plus margin so same as designs with backstays.

The picture below shows the main with port masthead runner set. The blue line is the runner control line, to retracts it. The other line paralleling it is a forestay of the mizzen.