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?

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.

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...

Edit, 20190808: This summer the sheet bundle has actually ended up behind the sail after a couple of gybes. By rounding up a little, the sheet goes slack and then frees itself. I can live with that...

Looks good, Robert!

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

Arne

David wrote:
Arne,

My point is that they seem to be proof against F-U without anything to hold the top down.

I have halyard, sheet, YHP, LHP. A lower LHP is optional, as it is on H-M sails, but helps with keeping the luff taut when deep reefed. Again, it's something that inshore sailors may not need. Most of the time, it's redundant. A spanned downhaul is as good at doing that, and I may change back. 

I agree, some camber in the panels helps to keep the leech from fluttering. That's one reason why I put some in, as well as hinges.

David, it could be that I as an inshore sailor don't know so much about this, but I doubt it. You know, there is inshore and there is 'inshore'. The fjords I sail may be protected from the swell from the North Sea, so very few people get seasick here. Still, the fetch can soon reach 10 N-miles or more, which is enough to develop a nasty, steep chop, big enough to provoke quite wild, rhythmic hoppy-horsing, even in just F4-F5 winds. Still, I have never felt any need for lower LHP. When I had hinged battens in Malena’s flat sail, I kept the original LHP over three battens in addition to the new THP that I then added, but I can’t remember why. 

I think the HK-parrels help the lower part of the cambered panel sail from sawing back and forth on the mast when pitching. The top section has already been locked in its position, and can go nowhere. In  addition, the luff from throat to tack is much shorter on Ingeborg's sail than on Weaverbird, only 4.86m versus 6.07m. In other words, there is much shorter length of luff to support, so I get away with the THP plus HKP.

Btw, from the top of F5 (offshore or inshore), the three lowest panels will already be nesting quietly in the lazyjacks, so no need for any lower LHP then.

I guess we end up with the same number of lines to tend. The new FUP line I have fitted may add a bit hassle, but I gladly live with that. It pays back in safely letting me rig that lovely, efficient, high-peaking, three-panel top section.

Arne

PS: As long as we both are happy with our rigs, there is no need to worry.