What Jim said!
One more thought (for boats which behave nicely running square off): When setting up a pole for running DDW, I always try to look ahead and make a guess at the next course change or wind
change which might require gybing to a broad reach.
I set up the pole to what will be the leeward side for that broad reach. Provided the pole is good and long, broad reaching with the pole out the same side as the main boom is a dream (never caught on much, because the racing
rules didn't permit
it ... don't know if this has changed....)
It's more efficient, easier to steer, more stable (especially when you're sailing deep and on the verge of blanketing), and looks satisfying (I hate seeing a genoa
deflecting wholesale quantities of wind
onto the backside of the main)
Reasoning: It's much easier to gybe the main than the poled out headsail.
Especially inshore, if my destination
dictates the annoying point of sail where the genoa
is blanketed by the main, I avoid this by sailing equal times lower and higher.
This means setting up the pole, running DDW for a while, then gybing the main and sailing high enough on the other gybe for the genoa to pull like a Clydesdale. Rinse and repeat.
, unless in the trades, I generally just pick either DDW or the other-gybe reach and stay there until the wind direction changes enough to favour gybing the main.
(I've sailed on three boats (and owned on) with a telescopic reaching/running pole. This is the cat's miaow. Apart from suiting all sail sizes and points of sail, even a beam reach [easier to shorten pole than take sail off pole]: it's also a strength issue:
when you're reefed down and whiteknuckled, with the sail pulling extra-strenuously, it's self-sleeving to really quite a strong, compact unit.
In light winds, it's long and willowy. Ideal! )