Code Zero, Blast Reacher, Continuous Furler ?

[akio.kanemoto]

Greetings Folks,

After my Seriously Long Rebuild(tm), I'm finally ready to buy some sails. As a reminder, boat is a 40ft monohull ex-racer from the IOR days. Very tall and narrow rig, deep fin keel, quite a narrow hull. Rig is a masthead sloop. All spectra running rigging.

I plan on slowly sailing around the world, tropics, etc... no high latitude aspirations. I like things EASY and SIMPLE as possible, for our double-handed crew.

OK, so now about sails. So far, I have a main which just arrived. Fully battened, 9oz dacron, heavy'ish.

I have also just ordered a 135% vectran/laminate roller furling genoa, a trysail and storm jib.

I'm hoping that this lot should take care of most requirements. However, as you can see, there's nothing for light air or downwind.

What I am trying to do is to keep my spend to a minimum and buy another sail which will work in light air and downwind.

At this stage, after reading a lot about how people love them, I'm thinking along the lines of buying a Code Zero and flying it just forward of my forestay on a facnor continuous line furler. What I understand is that the code zero is good for pretty much all points of sail in light winds and is EASY to roll up/take down. (Not cheap at USD3300 though, but that's life...)

For downwind work, I'm planning on using two j-length spinnaker poles (clipped to the same mast face track hopefully!) and poling out the 135% RF genoa and (theoretically) the code zero.

Questions:

1. What are your thoughts about buying a code zero as my final sail for my small/simple inventory? Would I be better off buying a different sail like a blast reacher or somesuch to fly off the CL furler, and use it both in my double headsail/poled out downwind scenario and also other points of sail etc.. (i.e. what's going to be better in general if limited to buying just one more sail?)

2. Can a code zero be poled out per my thinking or is this rubbish?

3. If the code zero can be poled out, can I roll it in as required DOWNWIND ONLY when poled out to match the 135% RF genoa? (I understand that code zeroes on CL furlers are all out/all in, but what about when poled out downwind?)

4. I have a new vectran/mylar/something #3 genoa which came with the boat originally. It has a luff rope for an old-style racing headfoil. Is it possible to have this modified for use with the Facnor CL furler and use it poled out in my double-headsail-poled out scenario?

5. I have a bunch of symmetric spinnakers in various weights which also came with the boat - which I will not fly as symmetrics. I think I know the answer, but do you think any of these can be modified for use with the CL furler?

Thank you very much in advance and looking forward to your sage advice!

[bewitched]

My opinion is that if you buy an asymetrical in a sock with a weight of around 0.9oz, you will use it far more than a code zero.

A code zero is really a light air reaching sail. If you are considering a sail plan for downwind, you should be planning to buy a downwind sail, not a limited reaching sail and trying to use it downwind.

In light air you will still be able to fly the spinaker on a reach.

[Bash]

I don't like the idea, on your boat, of poling out both a 135% genny and a code zero to go DDW. That's a sure formula for a death roll--especially on old IOR designs.

With your high-aspect main, consider a lightweight gennaker for light air. You'll be able to sail it plenty deep.

[savoir]

Get a reaching spinnaker with a sock. Call it a code 3 if you like. I would suggest a mixture of 1 oz and 1.5 oz to increase lifespan. You could pole it out but it would be easier to set from the bow and pole out the clew at broader angles.

Code zero sails have too little application as a percentage of total sailing time and are only for people with big budgets. Of all these sails the one that will give the most use will be the #3 which is a fabulous tradewind sail.

Trash the double luff sails unless you think you can sell them.

Cruising tip #6284: when cruising downwind with an IOR hull always reef the main. Your autopilot will thank you.

[roverhi]

I'd go with a pole longer than the J measurement. A poled out 135 will have a much better shape and drive with a longer pole. I ran a whisker pole extended out to 17' on my 13'8" J boat running the 135% genoa DDW. The sail set really well till the pole pretzeled. Sail still worked when I plugged in the J length spinnaker pole but sail had a lot of belly and less projected area with the shorter pole. Don't even think about one of the extendable whisker poles as I doubt they make them large enough diameter to hold up. You'd need at least 4" with a 3.5" extending part to have any hope of longevity when extended out.

For a light air and reaching sail, go for a 1.5% asymetrical chute. It will set nicely in reaching conditions especially if set on a short bowsprit. It can also be set on a pole for DDW work. I'd go with 1.5 oz for longevity and strength. Unless you are a super diehard, sailor you won't be sailing in conditions when there isn't wind to get some drive out of a 1.5% chute. If you've got the bucks, invest in a 3/4 oz as well but bet you'll use the heavier sail more.

IOR boats need a big headsail to do well downwind. Back in my racing days at the height of the IOR rule, the old CCA boats with their larger mains would eat us IOR guys up on a reach till we got far enough off the wind to set a chute.

[akio.kanemoto]

Thank you for all the replies.

Bewitched - On the asymmetric spinnaker recommendations, I really don't like the idea of using a sock/snuffer. Think of it as a religious issue and let's call it that.

Having said that - it looks like Facnor makes an asymmetrical spinnaker furler as well (twice the price of the code zero/gennaker furlers for some reason... what's the difference?).. so maybe a thought there, but it's getting even more expensive this way.


Bash - you mention that poling out a code 0 + 135% genoa will result in death rolling, would your opinion change if I said that it was a 100% genoa on one side and the 135% on the other side rolled up to 100%? Also, on another thread, you mention that you use a North G3 gennaker, do you use it with a furler? (apparently the top part of the sail doesn't furl well?)

Savoir - thank you for cruising tip #6284, I will bear that in mind, one of the main reasons I'm trying to get a double headsail setup to work is so I can drop the main and make life easier for the AP.


Roverhi - I have no deckspace left! I can barely squeeze in my J length pole parallel to my genoa tracks - just outboard, but that's it. I can't move it further forward towards the foredeck either since then the space left over from the lashed down dinghy gets into the "scary" territory. Also, as with yourself, I don't like the idea of anything telescopic..

Thanks again to all!

[savoir]

If you don't want a sock then get a roller furling gennaker. It will be a little flatter than an asymmetric but easier to douse. Some people call them a screecher.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by akio.kanemoto

I have also just ordered a 135% vectran/laminate roller furling genoa, a trysail and storm jib.
I'm thinking along the lines of buying a Code Zero

I'm planning on using two j-length spinnaker poles (clipped to the same mast face track hopefully!) and poling out the 135% RF genoa and (theoretically) the code zero.

I personally think that is an excellent plan.

The only modification I would make is to add an additional smaller jib to partner with the 135%. I suggest this because the combination of the code zero + 135% will be a lot of sail area and for light air use. In 20kts true you will want some thing smaller than the zero.

The zero should not be set partially furled, even downwind. The fabric is light and the edges will not be properly reinforced for the loads imposed by furling. There are significant snatch/shock loads even/particularly in light downwind sailing.

We have sailed quite a bit carrying both a zero and a general purpose asymmetrical. Over time we have shifted to almost always using the zero, except for photo ops . The reason is two fold: (a) its so much easier to douse and reset, especially in brief squalls, and (b) when the wind is on the beam and we sail into a wind hole the apparent wind comes forward and the asy will collapse while the zero will not (both because the luff is supported and because it can be trimmed to much tighter angles). This puffy/holey type of conditions is relatively common. The asy is a tad faster (vmg) DDW, but the zero is not so bad sailing quite deep, and the handling advantages outweigh that little speed advantage for us.

The new furling asy sails and equipment do work, but not as smoothly as the zero furling (the deep sail cut just plain makes a smooth furl problematic) and you still have the hole/puff problem mentioned about.

[Jim Cate]

G'Day AK,

We've never used a CZ or a furling asymmetrical so I'll keep quiet on those subjects.
But, on our old Insatiable-one (an IOR one-tonner from 1974) we often ran very deep flying two unequal headsails (say a #1 and a #3) with only the windward one poled out (only had one pole). If the conditions caused excess rolling we put a couple of reefs in the main (to flatten it) and sheeted it hard amidships where it acted as a roll dampener. Improved the ride to the point that we could ignore the rolling... did a few thousand miles under this rig. Could carry it up to around 140 degrees apparent, too. Wasn't as fast as our big running kite, but not far off either and we didn't have to pay as much attention to trim.

Might work for you, too...

Cheers,

Jim

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

The only modification I would make is to add an additional smaller jib to partner with the 135%.

Just a follow-on to this thought. We had a 'blast reacher' made to work with our code zero furler for this exact purpose.

[akio.kanemoto]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

I have a spare 100% genoa with a normal luff rope. I will take it to a sailmaker to see if I can have a high tensile luff rope and thimbles put in for use with the code zero furler.

To avoid chafe, all my new sails are set with the tack just above the lifelines, whereas this old sail goes right to the deck, so the sail will need to be cut down as well.

Do you see any problem with flying this sail off the code zero furler and poling it out beside the 135% RF genoa (rolled up to 100% to match) and running DDW with the two poles?



The zero should not be set partially furled, even downwind. The fabric is light and the edges will not be properly reinforced for the loads imposed by furling. There are significant snatch/shock loads even/particularly in light downwind sailing.

We have sailed quite a bit carrying both a zero and a general purpose asymmetrical. Over time we have shifted to almost always using the zero, except for photo ops . The reason is two fold: (a) its so much easier to douse and reset, especially in brief squalls, and (b) when the wind is on the beam and we sail into a wind hole the apparent wind comes forward and the asy will collapse while the zero will not (both because the luff is supported and because it can be trimmed to much tighter angles). This puffy/holey type of conditions is relatively common. The asy is a tad faster (vmg) DDW, but the zero is not so bad sailing quite deep, and the handling advantages outweigh that little speed advantage for us.

The new furling asy sails and equipment do work, but not as smoothly as the zero furling (the deep sail cut just plain makes a smooth furl problematic) and you still have the hole/puff problem mentioned about.

Well, while the AUD is still decent, I'll quickly order my Facnor 2500 then!

[akio.kanemoto]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

G'Day AK,

We've never used a CZ or a furling asymmetrical so I'll keep quiet on those subjects.
But, on our old Insatiable-one (an IOR one-tonner from 1974) we often ran very deep flying two unequal headsails (say a #1 and a #3) with only the windward one poled out (only had one pole). If the conditions caused excess rolling we put a couple of reefs in the main (to flatten it) and sheeted it hard amidships where it acted as a roll dampener. Improved the ride to the point that we could ignore the rolling... did a few thousand miles under this rig. Could carry it up to around 140 degrees apparent, too. Wasn't as fast as our big running kite, but not far off either and we didn't have to pay as much attention to trim.

Might work for you, too...

Cheers,

Jim

Hi Jim,

That's really clever - kinda like a "flopper stopper" at anchor.

Do you think having two identically sized sails (one rolled up to match the other) would also reduce rolling, or is the rolling caused by the IOR hull form and having no buoyancy aft due to the pinched aft section?

Here are two pics for reference - one showing the forward hull section and another showing the stern. For scale, bottom of the to WL is approx 8ft (2.3m).

[akio.kanemoto]

Evans,

One more question for you - on the cut of the code zero, since I'm not racing and not bound by any 75% girth blah blah measurement to call it a spinnaker, do you have any recommendations for how I should have it cut?

Specifically, I'm looking for the greatest usability and easiest to fly/trim etc.

I've seen for example, that north make a "G-0", which is apparently a code zero, but with less luff curve and the 75% "bump" in the leech cut off to make it a fair curve.

Do you think these things are things I should tell my sailmaker to do as well or just get a "stock" code zero?


AK

[barnakiel]

I think you miss at least two sails:
- light upwind jib,
- light off the wind sail.

If you are willing to go the furler way, you might like to have a look at a C0 (well almost) and an MPR. I think you may get a good price if you order the 3 things from the same source (or at least the sails as a bungled deal from the same sailmaker). The MPR will be pretty cheap as you will probably use nylon. The C0 may be a bit more pricey but you do not have to go fancy with advanced materials - probably a good one can be made in light dacron with only the luff area/hardware in vectran.

Cheers,
b.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by akio.kanemoto

Evans,

One more question for you - on the cut of the code zero, since I'm not racing and not bound by any 75% girth blah blah measurement to call it a spinnaker, do you have any recommendations for how I should have it cut?

The sailmakers will know what you want if you tell them you are cruising and not racing. We have had both Quantum and North (Auckland) build us cruising zeros and they both have been very usable. The only change we made from the 'stock computer produced plan' (for a cruising zero) was to make it a bit larger. This apparently makes it a little less close winded but gives it a little more push in the light stuff where we fly it. It will fly up into the teens of wind speed and we have occasionally done that by accident but our rule on board is 'no whitecaps' so we normally take it down at about 12-13kts true and switch to the blast reacher (which is a bit bigger than our working jib). That is sure slower than the racers would go, but keeps the stress level down in squally conditions.