Advantages of a taller rig/30% larger sail area?

[HankOnthewater]

I am just wondering, to increase the sailarea by 30%.... one must make the mast by about that percentage higher………… as foredeck and boom are usually not changed much. In my view that would make the mast far too tall. I guess we are talking about a mast height of around 12.5 to 13 mt. A 30 % increase would give us a mast height of over 16 mt.

So I looked up the 2 links as given in the first post and total sail area seems to me an adding up of all sails available and indeed the numbers 44 and 59 appear there.

I think there the following is a common way to measure sailarea:
Area of fore triangle: I x J or mastheight above deck multiply by distance between mast and forestay; then divide that by 2
Area of mainsail: PxE or luff x foot, divided by 2
Then add those 2 results to get to the sailarea of boat.

Yes, one can use larger headsails (like 135 or 150% genoa), yes one can add roach to the mainsail, and yes, one can add other sails as well, and all that will give you more sailarea….. but I think the first calculated figure is the one normally used for calculating sailarea/displacement ratio.

In this case (Malo 40H from the late seventies), if using figures from sailboat data ( MALO 40H sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com ) with the foredeck of 3.8 mt, and boom length of 3.5 mt, the sailarea is calculated as:
(3.8x12.65)/2= 24 M2 and (3.5x11.4)/2=20 M2, thus the sailarea for this boat is about 44 M2. Note the sailboatdata refers here to the 44H model!!!

This figure of 44 correlate with the lower figures the first poster mentioned (44 and 59 M2). Are the measurements in the sailboat data correct? Are we talking about the same model boat? A 30% increase of mastheigth would go ffrom 12.65 to 16.5, nearly 4 meters taller!
I noticed there is also an Malo 40 ft model from 2006.

I still think an increase of 30% in sail on the same boat, would need a mast in excess what is possible of such boat, and possibly such increase is impossible on any well designed boat. But....... if I am wrong I am sure someone will tell me.
BTW I never seen such Malo boat.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GTom

Indeed, it's the "old 40", not mentioned on the sailboatdata site. I am looking for a full keel boat.

Baltic, North Atlantic (up to Greenland), later maybe Caribbean. Meaning I expect everything from 0 to 70kts, but mostly windy. How did you fare with all the extra stuff? I expect more trips in 20kts+ conditions, I mind the hassle of pulling a code 0 for those few days with little wind...

"Mind" or "don't mind"?

Your sailing areas are much the same as mine. 20 SA/D in my opinion is too much for those latitudes. In 20+ knots true you will be reefed and struggling, and you will not have much upwind ability. My boat is 16.5 SA/D, and the standard 120% yankee headsail was too much for a large percentage of conditions, especially upwind. I had a carbon laminate 95% blade made for the boat which has turned out to be just about right. I only wish for more sail area in rarely light conditions for these latitudes -- under 10 knots -- or when sailing downwind.

Another thing -- a full keel boat will need more SA/D to get moving than a fin keel boat with less wetted surface per unit of displacement. This is a disadvantage -- at a given quantum of SA/D, such a boat will not have a higher upper limit to her wind range, but the lower limit will be higher. I think the pros and cons of full vs. fin keels is not on topic in this thread, but you should keep this in mind when you're choosing boats and thinking about rigs. A more easily driven hull will have a wider wind range, for a given rig.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

Taller rig is faster in light wind, but more weight and windage aloft is bad in a storm. In strong winds reefed down, you won't have the same windward performance

This typical rig style used on most sailing boats is not a very good one.

I think people use it still because everyone else has it, and they don't have much imagination. I didn't know any better when I got my boat.

Consider dyneema standing rigging is much lighter cheaper stronger and more reliable than stainless, but most boats are using stainless. The same logic applies to all sorts of things.

I think BA has in mind gaff and claw rigs - beyond the imagination of most of us.

But I think the same point applies to more conventional sail plans. I personally think that the large overlapping genoa headsail often found on cruising boats really sucks as a general purpose headsail. No good upwind, no good reefed down, and no good far off the wind without a pole. It's only really good reaching in light air. I think this sail was originally designed as a specialized light air reaching sail -- how did it get to be a general purpose jib??

I had a 95% blade made for my boat, which I intended to use occasionally as a specialized upwind sail in strong conditions.

I was amazed at how versatile the sail is -- much more so than the standard 120% yankee. So the blade now gets used 90% of the time on my boat and I use the yankee only during periods of very light wind (high pressure dome in the summer) or long downwind passages without prospect of strong conditions. Not more than 10% of the time.

The blade gives equal power to the yankee in any wind speed so long as the wind is ahead of the beam, so even in very light conditions. And is vastly better when hard on the wind, producing much less drag and heeling, and pointing about 5 degrees higher at max VMG. Interestingly! The blade is much easier to set and trim downwind. It's not as powerful of course, but you don't need a pole and it sets much better and has better shape.

The blade has less drag, out of proportion to the reduced area. I believe because it has a higher aspect ratio. This is a really super good thing. It means the usable wind speed is much higher -- out of proportion to the reduction in area. I don't need to reef it in less than 30 knots of wind; yet it pulls just as strong as the yankee in 10 knots of wind, so long as the wind is ahead of the beam. It's much easier to trim when sailing hard on the wind, because it has so much less drag. The range of trim and wind angle, where there is more lift than drag, is much wider, than with the yankee. Less heeling in all conditions means you can keep more sail up longer and sail faster, with less drag from rudder angle.

My next boat will not have an overlapping white sail. It will have a blade jib and staysail, and a roachy bat-wing full batten mainsail. Code 0 on a sprit for reaching and sailing off the wind in light air. SA/D will be about the same as what I have now -- about 16.5. Or possibly even a bit less. The jib will have double-purchase sheets and really good anchors for the sheet leads, because of the very high forces generated by high aspect jib.

[GTom]

@HankOnthewater: The 34% increase sounded fishy to me as well, when I wrote the first post. Just for clarity I am comparing the old Malo 40 from pre-1979 to the Malo 40H, 1979-1986 (the 2006 model is a completely different kind of animal). Between these two the difference is the rudder placement (moved to a skeg, separated from the still longish keel) and the rig. Emailed the manufacturer to shed light on exact rig dimensions. Highly suspicious, because browsing 40(mkI) and 40H images I can't se such a huge mast increase.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

"Mind" or "don't mind"?

Your sailing areas are much the same as mine. 20 SA/D in my opinion is too much for those latitudes. In 20+ knots true you will be reefed and struggling, and you will not have much upwind ability. My boat is 16.5 SA/D, and the standard 120% yankee headsail was too much for a large percentage of conditions, especially upwind. I had a carbon laminate 95% blade made for the boat which has turned out to be just about right. I only wish for more sail area in rarely light conditions for these latitudes -- under 10 knots -- or when sailing downwind.

Another thing -- a full keel boat will need more SA/D to get moving than a fin keel boat with less wetted surface per unit of displacement. This is a disadvantage -- at a given quantum of SA/D, such a boat will not have a higher upper limit to her wind range, but the lower limit will be higher. I think the pros and cons of full vs. fin keels is not on topic in this thread, but you should keep this in mind when you're choosing boats and thinking about rigs. A more easily driven hull will have a wider wind range, for a given rig.

I found a SADR=20 excessive even for a full keel construction and the original 15.2 much more realistic. Keel type is also a safety consideration, I definitely don't want to sail in icy areas with a keel hanging on a few rusty bolts... Some websites indicate the tall-rig version to be 0.9tons heavier - probably a big mess of unreliable data around the web, hopefully the manufacturer can show some polar diagrams.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GTom

. . . If you found a ~20% decrease from SADR 16.5 (new SADR=13) I doubt that even a full keel construction would be in a wrong position at a SADR=15.2. Some websites indicate the tall-rig version to be 0.9tons heavier - probably a big mess of unreliable data around the web...

Well, SA/D didn't change on my boat, because it's measured using the foretriangle area, not the sail area.

But in any case, in my opinion, SA/D of 15.2 is very good for these latitudes. If you don't mind using non-white sails for light conditions, I think this will be quite ok, even in a full keel boat. Malos are superb boats -- and the rigs are well designed. I am sure that there will be nothing bad about the standard rig.

0.9 tonnes heavier for the tall rig would be about right -- ballast would be added to offset the higher rig. This will increase wetted area and offset some of the performance gain, even when the taller rig is in its wind range.

[GTom]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

If you don't mind using non-white sails for light conditions, I think this will be quite ok, even in a full keel boat.

Don't mind at all, I expect those big sails to stay in their bags 90% of the time anyway...

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GTom

Don't mind at all, I expect those big sails to stay in their bags 90% of the time anyway...

At our latitudes -- definitely!

In lieu of the non-white sails, you can also just motorsail. Especially if you have a variable pitch prop. That's what I do presently.

But if I have some extra money this winter I'm going to add the Code 0. I love to sail in light weather -- the sensation beautifully described by someone above.

Motoring or motor-sailing in light weather is also pleasant, though, especially compared to bashing upwind in 30 knots as we often have to do up here

[GTom]

Speaking of motoring, a lighter boat with smaller rig is definitely an advantage there

A shorter rig is also friend of our wallets, from the boat purchase price till the sailmaker's/rigger's bill... But the jackpot is when you avoid a lightning strike by mooring next to the taller rigged sister

Originally Posted by Dockhead

At our latitudes -- definitely!

In lieu of the non-white sails, you can also just motorsail. Especially if you have a variable pitch prop. That's what I do presently.

But if I have some extra money this winter I'm going to add the Code 0. I love to sail in light weather -- the sensation beautifully described by someone above.

Motoring or motor-sailing in light weather is also pleasant, though, especially compared to bashing upwind in 30 knots as we often have to do up here

[atmartin]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Another thing -- a full keel boat will need more SA/D to get moving than a fin keel boat with less wetted surface per unit of displacement. This is a disadvantage -- at a given quantum of SA/D, such a boat will not have a higher upper limit to her wind range, but the lower limit will be higher. I think the pros and cons of full vs. fin keels is not on topic in this thread, but you should keep this in mind when you're choosing boats and thinking about rigs. A more easily driven hull will have a wider wind range, for a given rig.

Not to further derail things, but this is a good point. When I get into conversations with aspiring cruisers, they expect me to sing the praises of full-keels because I own one. They have their advantages, but this is not one of them.

Below 10 knots, we need a 135% genoa, below ~7 knots, the Code Zero.

Above 15 knots, we drop mizzen upwind or first reef in main off the wind. For daysails and messing around, it's fine to 20 knots, but 'racing' or balancing for windvane, our 'white sails' are only good for 10-15 knots true.

Also, we spent a few months in the western Caribbean coming up from Panama to Florida, March to May. Never used the motor and spent most of the time reefed. If you're expecting to sail in areas where 20+ knots are commonplace, I take back my "more sail!" advice.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by atmartin

Not to further derail things, but this is a good point. When I get into conversations with aspiring cruisers, they expect me to sing the praises of full-keels because I own one. They have their advantages, but this is not one of them.

Below 10 knots, we need a 135% genoa, below ~7 knots, the Code Zero.

Above 15 knots, we drop mizzen upwind or first reef in main off the wind. For daysails and messing around, it's fine to 20 knots, but 'racing' or balancing for windvane, our 'white sails' are only good for 10-15 knots true.

Also, we spent a few months in the western Caribbean coming up from Panama to Florida, March to May. Never used the motor and spent most of the time reefed. If you're expecting to sail in areas where 20+ knots are commonplace, I take back my "more sail!" advice.

Yes, but you've gotten back wind range by having a split rig, and a variety of sails on board .

A cutter rig also helps to expand the useful wind range, but a ketch gives you the most variety of sail plan.

In my opinion, too many sailors, try to make a standard set of white sails, do too much.

[valhalla360]

I don't know where this particular models falls but a lot of short rigs are to get under bridges. Big pain in the rear doing the ICW with a mast that's too tall.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I don't know where this particular models falls but a lot of short rigs are to get under bridges. Big pain in the rear doing the ICW with a mast that's too tall.

My mast is one meter too high to get under the bridge between Fehmarn and the German mainland! Requiring quite a long detour to get into the Central Baltic from Kiel Fjord!!

But this is a very rare situation in European waters. We don't have any ICW and very few bridges to deal with, which are not opening bridges. Not really a consideration at all over here.

[FionaJC]

My mast is bout 1.2m less than the design requirements. Its like sailing reefed the whole time, we rarely sail at 20 degrees. The upside is that I dont have to reef when it blows, we dont stand on our beam ends and we still get an acceptable speed, but best of all we are a motor sailer so the wind is the extra push. I would like the extra sail area as I can always spill the wind if I want but its nice and stable.

[KP44]

GTom,

The taller rig will give better upwind ability. If you plan to sail, get the tall rig.
If you don't mind motoring upwind, any rig will do.
The sailing ability I have with a 60' rig far outweighs the few times I have waited for a drawbridge while shorter rigs motor under the span.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by KP44

GTom,

The taller rig will give better upwind ability.. . .

Not when you're reefed!

The tall rig means reefing earlier, and once you reef your headsail, your ability upwind is gone!

As has been discussed -- each size of rig is best, within its own wind range.

The tall rig is fantastic, up to the upper limit of its wind range. After that, it sucks!