Ingeborg, Arne's Marieholm IF

<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   4   5   ...   Next >  Last >> 
  • 10 Sep 2018 21:18
    Reply # 6663025 on 3032430
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Single or double sheet.

    One thing puzzles me: Why does so many junks sail around with 4-, 5- or even 6-part single sheets?

    All my boats have had 3-part sheet, either the Pilmer or the Johanna version (see p. 4-5). Only once did I start with a 5-part sheet and that was on Johanna’s 48sqm sail. One single trip. I found that the sheet added too much friction while hoisting sail, and in the very light wind, during that trip, the sail was reluctant to pull the sheet out through all those blocks. Last, but not least, that 5-part sheet added up to a lot of spaghetti in the cockpit.

    I am much happier with the 3-part (single) version, even though it can be a handful to haul in on sails over 30sqm. Then I have the choice between cranking in the last bit with my genoa winch (Lewmar 8). The forces are light enough to let me crank the winch with one hand and hauling the end with the other. The other option is to simply head up for a second, pull in the slack sheet and then fall off again.

    To me it appears that controlling the twist in the sail is vital to getting most out of the sail. Most sails end up with too much twist much of the time. My H-M sails with a full size fan top all seem to like the Johanna-sheeting. That may be over the top on flat-topped sails, so maybe the Pilmer version is better.

    I have seen double (upper-lower) sheeting on one sail; the schooner Samson’s 70sqm mainsail. That appeared to make sense. In light winds, the skipper just grabbed both ends and hauled in. In stronger winds he could haul at one end and then on the other.

    However, on Ingeborg’s little (35sqm) sail, it makes little sense to me to split the sheet. The twist stays quite right both with full sail and when reefed.

    On the other hand  -  if there is very little room for the sheets, a double version may be needed, both to save space (D-min) and to control the twist.

    The photo below shows Ingeborg leaning to the breeze, using the Johanna-sheeting. 

    Arne



  • 10 Sep 2018 10:11
    Reply # 6661925 on 3032430
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    To do or not to do a fan-up

    I have never experienced a fan-up with any of my rigs. However, I have no wish to do so either, so fitting some sort of FUP makes sense to me (I haven’t crashed my car either, but still thinks using the safety belt makes sense).

    Actually, I strictly don’t need the FUP, as for my sort of sailing I don’t have to make long gybes if I don’t want to. I more often make my gybes short, or I just round up and tack her around. My playing with the FUP idea is therefore more a result of curiosity, and I then thought it could be useful as a ‘safety belt’ for offshore sailors as well. I have Bob Grove’s experience in mind.

    From a fanning-up point of view my sails are nothing but H-M sails, of which there are hundreds sailing around. Most of them have never had a fan-up (including Badger?).  Even if my armchair guess is that flat-topped junksails are less prone to be grabbed by the wind and thus fan up, they are not bullet proof in this respect. In the ‘right’ conditions, the top section can be flung over in a violent roll, unless some sort of downhaul is there to prevent it. My FUP is my suggested version. I guess that Slieve McGalliard’s  combined batten parrel/downhauls have a similar effect.

    Arne

     


    Last modified: 10 Sep 2018 12:38 | Anonymous member (Administrator)
  • 09 Sep 2018 23:18
    Reply # 6661294 on 6661218
    Annie wrote:Number of running lines

    Speaking for myself, I want to keep the number of running lines to an absolute minimum.  Moreover, there is a big difference between lines that simply need hauling in and cleating off - YHP, FUP  - and those that need tweaking and adjusting - LHP.  At 0300 on a pitch-dark night, even a head torch may not be enough to show you that everything is set up correctly, especially on a two-masted rig.  To be fair, it probably doesn't matter that much either.  However, as a lazy sailor, I will trade simplicity over performance any day 

    ... and that is what you will be getting with the sailplan that you have chosen.

    and nothing would persuade me to become shipmate's with David's two-part sheet system.

    Don't knock it until you've tried it. Nothing would persuade me to go back to the long, long tail of a five part single sheet.

    As for the inshore/offshore business, I think you're talking a bit of bosh here, David. Caught in the popple around Cape Brett and trying to make sail there, is probably the best opportunity you will ever have for seeing what lines can snarl what bits of sail, boat and crew. 

    Maybe a bad choice of words. For 'inshore' read 'sheltered waters, little tidal action, little swell, day-sailing in good weather'. For 'offshore', read 'exposed headlands such as Cape Brett and East Cape, and other places where there is exposure to swells, tidal races, clapotis and wind over tide conditions'. Ocean conditions are something else again, and are generally easier to cope with than offshore conditions.

    For that matter, your topmast had survived many an ocean mile before breaking on a short coastal passage.  

    My topmast was suffering from fatigue due to sailing many an ocean mile, and it was a miracle that it survived the last gale on the approach to Whangerei. I thought it was looking a little odd, but couldn't work out why. It certainly did not break purely as a consequence of rounding Cape Brett. 

    I think we've had enough of 'my approach is the best'.  
    Let me try to be absolutely crystal clear. My rig is not the 'best' (neither is any other rig). It is simply one of many approaches to rig design. It has pluses and minuses, as all rigs do. One of the big pluses is that it shows no inclination to fan up, in which respect I consider myself fortunate. I point out that it does not show such inclination, only so that others may share in my good fortune. Arne's rig does show such inclination and needs the preventative FUP, but Arne accepts that as a trade-off against the performance advantage that he perceives.  Fair enough. So long as prospective rig builders are very clear about the pluses and minuses of the various rig types, because of the work that Arne, I and others have done, then we can feel that we have done something useful. You, Annie, presumably wish to have a rig that shows no inclination to fan up, since you have chosen a rig with that characteristic over the more usual H-M sailplan with triangular top panels. Am I right? Or do you wish to rethink the sailplan?

    Last modified: 10 Sep 2018 10:01 | Anonymous member
  • 09 Sep 2018 21:30
    Reply # 6661218 on 3032430
    Number of running lines

    Speaking for myself, I want to keep the number of running lines to an absolute minimum.  Moreover, there is a big difference between lines that simply need hauling in and cleating off - YHP, FUP  - and those that need tweaking and adjusting - LHP.  At 0300 on a pitch-dark night, even a head torch may not be enough to show you that everything is set up correctly, especially on a two-masted rig.  To be fair, it probably doesn't matter that much either.  However, as a lazy sailor, I will trade simplicity over performance any day and nothing would persuade me to become shipmate's with David's two-part sheet system.

    As for the inshore/offshore business, I think you're talking a bit of bosh here, David. Caught in the popple around Cape Brett and trying to make sail there, is probably the best opportunity you will ever have for seeing what lines can snarl what bits of sail, boat and crew.  For that matter, your topmast had survived many an ocean mile before breaking on a short coastal passage.  Arne's rigs have been built and sailed in many different parts of the world now, and voyaged tens of thousands of ocean miles.  Maybe they can be 'improved' - most things can - but I don't think they need justifying any more.  Indeed there are several split junks racking up the miles, too.  And if people simply prefer the appearance of one type of sail over the other, that is a completely acceptable approach, too. 

    We must never forget that the JRA is a group of true amateurs, building, sailing, designing and debating for the love of junk rig.  Those who make their findings available for others to use, do so in a spirit of sharing and generosity.  They are not paid designers asking for a robust critique.  They are individuals with enquiring and ingenious minds looking for different ways to skin this particular cat. 'Better' is a relative word, don't forget, not an absolute.  And as Kurt has said on more than one occasion, if it's good enough, well, it's good enough.

    I admire those who strive for perfection, but those who make something that works to their own satisfaction, and are then happy to share these ideas with others who are also happy with 'good enough,' are also contributing immensely.  Moreover, the pragmatic and straightforward approach is often something that less self-confident people feel they can emulate.

    I think we've had enough of 'my approach is the best'.  Let's not only agree to disagree, but agree to encourage more people to try out ideas and to share them, without worrying that their tentative suggestions are going to be savaged.  There aren't many kind places on the Internet.  I'd like to see the JRA continuing to be an exception. 
    Last modified: 09 Sep 2018 21:32 | Anonymous member
  • 09 Sep 2018 11:44
    Reply # 6660832 on 3032430
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    It appears to me that little differences in sail shape (AR for instance) or balance with respect to mast, can make big differences in handling. On all my JRs before Ingeborg’s, I could do without the YHP until I took the first or second reef. That was because the sails were rigged with little balance, so the halyard pulled forward. On Ingeborg the sail has been moved forward, and the YHP is therefore used for positioning the halyard’s slingpoint about 15-30cm aft of the mast. The good thing is that the control forces, both in the YHP and THP has been much reduced on Ingeborg, partly because of this increased balance, and partly because the YHP now sits 2/3 up the yard (thanks to having a tall enough mast).

    I guess it depends if the FUP line is a real trouble-maker or not. I think not in Ingeborg. I can dump two panels, and the loop of the FUP line still flies clear of everything, so the slack can be taken in at leisure, after reefing. On the other hand, if the FUP were to be used on a foresail, right in the position of a flue or Dorade vent, it could be a real show-stopper.

    My conclusion is that no sailboat or sailing rig likes foolish handling. Neither does the JR.  One simply has to learn to do it right. The big difference between the JR and some of the others, is that the JR doesn’t expect one to be in two places at the same time.

    Arne

    PS: Here is how i rove the THP on Frøken Sørensen to reduce the chance of it catching the batten ends. It worked, not 100%, but close to it.


    Last modified: 09 Sep 2018 14:24 | Anonymous member (Administrator)
  • 09 Sep 2018 10:09
    Reply # 6660779 on 3032430

    Yes, that's an important distinction to make, Arne. Weaverbird's  YHP is redundant under full sail, and an at-leisure line with one reef (because the halyard pulls forwards as well as upwards). It only becomes an important line at two reefs or more. The upper LHP is an important line for getting rid of the creases, but not for performance - if I'm having a busy time getting underway in a tight anchorage, I can ignore it until later. The lower LHP is certainly an at-leisure line. 

    There's another category, I would suggest: those lines which are capable of causing hassle if not tended promptly when the sail is reefed or lowered, by snagging on a batten end or something on deck (or on me). I would put your FUP into that category, which is why I'm glad that I don't need one. Also in that category are those lines which could get the wrong side of the luff under some circumstances, which is why I rig those rings to prevent the halyard and YHP from blowing too far forward, when they are slack and I'm sailing downwind; and the upper LHP, when I drop the sail quickly when coming to anchor - I can get a foul-up around a lower batten end, which I have to watch for and clear before hoisting again. It's possible that Slieve's pattern of downhaul is proof against that, because it's rigged further aft than a LHP, and I think I'll alter my lower LHP to that pattern to check whether that's the case with my sailplan. So far, though, I can't think of a way to ensure that the upper LHP is 100% proof against that snag.

    Another thing that helps with all my running parrels is that they run through a triple clutch. Thus, the initial slack is taken out by taking a quick handful of all three, only making fine adjustments later. Of course, it helps that the load is light on all three, due to the low yard angle. The same applies to my upper and lower sheets, which run through an Easy block with a double cam jammer.

  • 09 Sep 2018 09:27
    Reply # 6660770 on 3032430
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Important contra  less important running lines

    The answers I received here when I asked for number of running lines in use, shows that I should have distinguished between important or highly loaded lines on one side, and less important or at-leisure lines on the other.

    The important lines to make Ingeborg’s sail set well are the halyard, sheet, THP and YHP. The YHP and THP see some load when hard on the wind, so I’d better set them up before I sheet in the sail. On my last trip, I had forgotten the THP, so when the wind picked up and I headed upwind, diagonal creases showed up, not the big, camber-robbing ones, but still. I then just waited until it was time to tack, and gave the THP a tug as we came about, and the sheet was slack for a moment. Job done.

    My new fan-up preventer, FUP is in the at-leisure category, for sure, so I just take in the slack after reefing to do its normal job  -  guarding against a fan-up.

    My sail generally comes down by itself as long as there is no wind pressure in it. Still, since it is now riding far forward, near the end of the batten parrels, the battens may stick a little. A light tug on the THP will free them.

    If I were an offshore sailor, I guess I might try adding two downhaul lines, one acting on battens 2-3 and one on battens 4-5 (from top). This would give about 100% predictable reefing when running before. Hasler and McLeod mention these downhauls as optional extras. For my use, it is not necessary, as I don’t put Ingeborg in danger by rounding up, no matter how much it blows.

    I guess that Weaverbird’d lower LHP, as well as Poppy’s batten parrels cum downhauls all are in the at-leisure category, so whether there are one or three downhauls, makes little difference. All of them should be easy to adjust with full pressure in the sail and neither need much work or brainwork to operate.

    Cheers,
    Arne

    PS: For some reason. Ingeborg’s sail has none of the snags that that former junkrigs have had, occasionally (but rarely). Neither the THP nor the Hong Kong parrels ever have to be freed at hoisting the sail. Never. My guess is that the fore battens ends, which protrude further out of the luff than on former sails, act as ‘fences’ of some sort. Same with the sheet. I have lost count on the number of gybes, long or short, I have made during the last three seasons, but the sheetlets never catch the battens or boom. Same when hoisting sail; there is never any sheet tangle. Never. Don’t ask me why  -  I can live with it...



    Last modified: 14 Sep 2018 22:23 | Anonymous member (Administrator)
  • 07 Sep 2018 21:12
    Reply # 6659283 on 3032430

    Thanks Robert, Looks good.

    I like the combined downhaul/ batten parrels as they keep the battens tight to the mast and results in a very snug and stable rig. When the rig is lowered they automatically slacken off and the rig just falls down with no friction. Like you I only released them for hoisting and taking in the slack after hoisting/ reefing, with no critical settings to adjust. I can't see how it could be made much easier.

    Cheers, Slieve.


    Last modified: 08 Sep 2018 15:09 | Anonymous member
  • 07 Sep 2018 21:09
    Reply # 6659229 on 3032430
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Looks good, Robert!

    I suggest you write a little article about your boat and send it to the magazine  editor, Lynda Chidell.

    Arne

    Last modified: 07 Sep 2018 21:10 | Anonymous member (Administrator)
  • 07 Sep 2018 16:41
    Reply # 6658699 on 6656429
    Anonymous wrote:
    Slieve wrote:

    Rigging list for Poppy.

    Spanned downhaul/ batten parrels. These are a magic ingredient. They were simpler than the drawings in my draft notes. They consisted of a line tied to the batten, run round the mast, over the batten and down through a nylon thimble, back up and over the lower batten, round the mast and tied to the lower batten. By keeping the loop down to the thimble very short the battens are held close to the mast even when the downhauls are loose, keeping the rig secure at all times.

    S.

    How many downhauls, in total, Slieve? More than my (lightly loaded) LHP and (optional) lower LHP or spanned downhaul? 
    My split rig's final running line tally is: sheet, halyard, YHP and 3 traditional spanned downhauls. Once in awhile I tug on a downhaul to get a batten moving when reefing. Not critical. Usually the movement of the boat unloads the batten-mast friction point and the batten falls. So really I could get by with only 3 running lines.


    I tryed the combined spanned downhaul/batten parrel idea but reverted back to the traditional spanned downhaul and (very) short batten parrels. Now I don't have to tend to downhauls except to unclamp when raising sail and take the slack out when reefing.


    I ended up tieing-off the YHP to a far aft location on the yard (like Arne) in order to gain leverage in rotating the leech clockwise...helps to remove creases.

    See the JPG. The sail sets fairly well.

    robert self

    PS jpg captions: left..F3 upwind; right...F1-F2

    Last modified: 07 Sep 2018 16:57 | Anonymous member
<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   4   5   ...   Next >  Last >> 
       " ...there is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing about in junk-rigged boats" 
                                                               - the Chinese Water Rat

                                                              Site contents © the Junk Rig Association and/or individual authors

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software