Ingeborg, Arne's Marieholm IF

  • 17 Apr 2018 00:29
    Reply # 6101969 on 3032430

    Hi Arne, that is interesting news about your FUP developments.  I am a big fan of the FUP, but unrigged mine due to the line getting trapped.  I could get it to render usually but it was a struggle and I was concerned for what it might be dong to the stitching on the sail.  But I am going to rerig a version of it again before going cruising this year (about the end of May I hope).  I am going to use two lines of different colours, one starting at the second batten up from the boom and one from the fourth batten up.  Both will come back to the same cleat so can be hauled together.  They will pass outside of everything on the sail.  The idea being, if I only have one panel reefed, I wont be worried about a fan up, especially with the slack taken out of the two lines.  When two panels are down, the lower line is snugged up tight and those two battens cannot go anywhere.  The upper line has the slack taken out of it.  Then the third panel is not a problem since the ones below it cannot lift, and when I get the fourth panel down, both lines are snugged up tight.  That only leaves the three fanned panels, that can come to no harm if they fan up, and I am unlikely to be more deeply reefed than that when coastal cruising and picking my weather.  If I was crossing oceans, I would also put a downhaul on the yard.

  • 15 Apr 2018 16:23
    Reply # 6099836 on 3032430
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Reducing friction problems of the FUP (Fan-up preventer).
    (Also see posting on the FUP subject below, in October 2017)

    Today I made use of the calm weather to partly hoist Ingeborg’s sail in her berth. I had already prepared two strings to replace the aux batten parrels on batten 3 and 4. The idea, as shown on the photo, was to make them slacker and thus reduce the chance for the FUP-line to be trapped between furled battens. In addition, the FUP line is now skipping batten 5 and 6.  As mentioned before, the line is now also passed outside the lazyjacks. Together this should reduce the chance of having the FUP line trapped.

    To be dead sure it will never happen, one has better taking in the slack FUP line as the sail is furled. This is what we do, anyway, during sailing, as we reef one or two panels at a time. I guess we will have to live with this little hassle that the FUP adds. I will much rather deal with that than having a real fan-up to deal with.

    Your choice.

    Arne

     


  • 15 Apr 2018 09:56
    Reply # 6099727 on 3032430
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Annie,

    no, the drogue was towed from the stern, or from the lee mooring bit to be more precise. I never left the cockpit after dropping the lines in our berth. I have fitted that drogue with a permanent line, only about 4-5m long, and with a big bowline loop at its end.

    As we motored out of the inner harbour, I slipped the bowline over that port stern bit, so when we were out in open water, I just put the engine in free and tossed the little parachute over the side. With the line pulled out, the parachute opened instantly. Without a drogue, Ingeborg (just as Johanna) would coast forever, but now we were slowed down to drogue speed in a couple of boat lengths. The GPS showed that we stayed below 0.5kts (0.1-0.3 mostly). Best of all, when the sail had been hauled up, the parrels trimmed and the halyard stowed in its bag, we had still just covered a fraction of the bay. The little forward motion was still enough for Ingeborg to maintain a beam to close reach with the tiller locked a bit to leeward (as on that photo).
    A bonus was that I only needed the smallest parachute for this particular job. At a square section of only 0.125sqm, it is not more than 1.5 times the area of a big bucket.

    I made one of that parachute’s six sections from a different colour to see if the thing rotated under load. However, it stayed so deep and I was too busy at the halyard, so I never noticed. Still, it cannot have spun fast, at least, for when I recovered it after raising the sail, there was no sign of twist on the line.

    Halyard hauler! Thanks, Annie, I wondered what to call that thing.
    No, my hands are not big. On earlier boats, I used ropes with multifilament in the outer layer, as that was so easy to grip. However, I also found that they were worn rather fast, so changed to monofilament ropes, which have proved to be much tougher and which also seem to run more easily through blocks. On the small boats, Broremann and Frøken Sørensen, it was still easy enough to haul, but on Johanna (48sqm) and Ingeborg (35sqm), I found it annoying, even with gloves. I still have the electric winch handle from Winchrite, which works perfectly well, but I like the idea of being able to raise the sail by hand, at least now and then.

    Arne

     


    Last modified: 28 Sep 2024 14:46 | Anonymous member (Administrator)
  • 15 Apr 2018 02:08
    Reply # 6099533 on 3032430

    Gosh, Arne, what an inventive mind you have! I assume you used your drogue over the bow.  It seems like something that will be useful for you to have.  The halyard hauler will be a boon for those with big hands.  The one time it's an advantage to have hands the size of mine is when I am handling 8mm rope: it's very comfortable for me!

    Glad to hear that spring has sprung for you.  And that you are showing a clean pair of heels to your fellow sailors.  Ingeborg sounds like a joy. 

  • 14 Apr 2018 23:29
    Reply # 6099390 on 3032430
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Today, after a long and chilly winter, something similar to spring has set in here, so I could make the first little sailtrip in Ingeborg.

    Before this first trip, I had prepared three things:

    ·         Last year, it was reported that the line for the Fan-up preventer (FUP) tended to jam if the sail was reefed or furled. I didn’t notice this on my light Frøken Sørensen, but on Ingeborg, I too notice the problem to some degree. My way of solving it has been to run the line outside the lazyjacks, and to only pass the line under the ‘aux batten parrels’ of batten 3 and 4 (from top). Today this looked very good. I will test it more and then add an appendix to the FUP write-up.

    ·         Earlier this winter I made as many as four parachute type sea anchors, ranging from 0.125 to 1.00sqm in cross section. Today I brought with me the smallest one. After having motored out of the harbour, I chucked the sea anchor over board and prepared for hoisting sail. Ingeborg stopped almost dead and let me hoist the sail without moving more than 4-6 boatlengths, and without accidentally tacking. This was a grand success and since this device is so small, it is easy to stow away together with its 4-5m long line attached. It will definitely be used when hoisting sail where space is limited.

    ·         A couple of days ago I made the shown ‘halyard handle’, mostly from 15mm plywood. I find that my hands dislike clutching to the slippery 8mm line, even with gloved hands. This device lets me haul in all the 40m of halyard without strain. The muscles used are actually the same as when rowing a boat. This device worked remarkably well, and felt ‘natural’ in use, so I guess I will go over it with sandpaper, then paint it, and finally declare it fully operational.

    All in all, a fine day on the fjord ( the boys in the Albin Express that we met and chased, may have been less impressed  -  with their own performance).

    Cheers, Arne



    (More photos  on Section 6 of my photo albums...)

    Last modified: 28 Sep 2024 14:43 | Anonymous member (Administrator)
  • 18 Oct 2017 09:49
    Reply # 5319820 on 3032430

    What I meant by batten stagger was not the usual positive (or negative!) batten stagger where battens come down fore or aft of the ones below, but from side to side inside the topping lifts, one batten to port, the next to stbd perhaps, until you have a nice "bundle".  This is what seems to trap the line.  However, my saddles were small stainless steel items and perhaps the loose parrels you mention might assist in freeing the line up.  I plan to play with it this summer when I am tied up in a marina (voyaging gobbles up all my time and energy), because I believe that if an FUP can be made to work without too much friction it will be a valuable development.

  • 18 Oct 2017 09:25
    Reply # 5319817 on 3032430
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Graham,

    after I, early in the first season, moved the sail of my Ingeborg forward, almost as far as the batten parrels allows them, there is very little batten stagger when reefing or furling that sail, so this cannot add to the friction on my boat. To me it appears that the friction is the sum of several small friction points.

    In addition to passing the line outside the topping lift (definitely a friction point), and through hoops on the boom, I will have an eye on what you call the saddles on the battens, and which I called the aux. batten parrels. They may well be made slacker, so they almost hang as a semi-circle: The reefed battens land in no particular order side by side each other, so the slacker saddles should make it easier for the FUP line to run through. As I sit here, I even wonder if I should only let the FUP pass through one or two of those saddles. However, that would be the last resort.

    I definitely think the friction problem can be solved, this or the other way, and I most certainly want to keep the FUP.

    Arne

    PS: In your case, with more random batten stagger, I suggest you lengthen the saddles to keep them from binding the FUP line.


  • 17 Oct 2017 23:43
    Reply # 5319342 on 5318091
    Arne Kverneland wrote:Friction problem with the Fan-up preventer. 

    In the new JRA magazine (#75), Simon Foster describes his experience with a Fan-up preventer to my design. He experienced too much friction from it to make it work properly. I too have experienced this to some degree in my Ingeborg. (See posting 25.July 2017). On the lighter rig of Frøken Sørensen, this was not a problem. I suspect that most of the friction is due to the fact that I passed the FUP line inside the topping lift and sail catchers, so it got squeezed as several panels were dropped. I will now pass the FUP line on the outside of the topping lift and add 2-3 rope hoops under the boom where the line can pass through. This should hopefully help. When I have sorted it out, I shall write a little appendix to the FUP write-up, and let you know.

    Arne



    Hi Arne.  I will be interested to see what your conclusion is.  I also found too much friction on Arion when I rigged an FUP based on your design.  It was attached to the top sheeted batten then came down through small saddles near the back of each batten to a turning block on the boom.  It was ok for the first two panels but once I reefed further, the line started to get trapped in the bundle by the nested battens.  I could drag it through with much difficulty but I feared I might chafe the sail's stitching.  Because of the way the battens stagger slightly when nested, it seems inevitable the line will be trapped, even if it is rigged outside lifts and sail catchers.  It seems to me that the system works well for two nested batten but begins to bind after that. I then made two FUPs, one for the upper sheeted battens and one for the lower ones, which worked better, as the upper FUP was not attached to the battens in the lower part of the sail and could pass outside of the nested bundle.  I currently don't have this rigged and just tie the battens together if I am going to sail downwind deeply reefed, but think a FUP system is very useful for long passages and would definitely rig the two FUP version again if I made a long passage.   Roger Taylor has permanent sail ties attached to the upper two sheeted battens that he uses to tie the bundle together when deeply reefed, but that requires accessing the bundle to tie them.  An adjustable FUP, in my opinion, is preferable.
    Last modified: 17 Oct 2017 23:46 | Anonymous member
  • 17 Oct 2017 10:21
    Reply # 5318091 on 3032430
    Anonymous member (Administrator)
    Friction problem with the Fan-up preventer. 

    In the new JRA magazine (#75), Simon Foster describes his experience with a Fan-up preventer to my design. He experienced too much friction from it to make it work properly. I too have experienced this to some degree in my Ingeborg. (See posting 25.July 2017). On the lighter rig of Frøken Sørensen, this was not a problem. I suspect that most of the friction is due to the fact that I passed the FUP line inside the topping lift and sail catchers, so it got squeezed as several panels were dropped. I will now pass the FUP line on the outside of the topping lift and add 2-3 rope hoops under the boom where the line can pass through. This should hopefully help. When I have sorted it out, I shall write a little appendix to the FUP write-up, and let you know.

    Arne


  • 03 Aug 2017 11:00
    Reply # 5009987 on 3032430
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    High versus low AR

    So why didn’t Ingeborg walk away from La Barca  upwind, in those conditions, with so much bigger sail area?
    The reason can probably be found on the diagram below. It shows two sails of quite different AR and SA, but with the same height of 10m.

    When sailing on the wind, sails are set with about minimum possible angle of attack. The same amount of wind will pass over both sails, and if both sails have been made with the same camber/chord ratio, the wind will also be deflected the same number of degrees. The two sails should thus produce the same lift and induced drag. The broader sail may have a bit more friction drag, but that is a little factor here. In other words, these two sails should produce about the same performance to windward.

    The rig of the Nordic Folkboat is about as tall as the present JR of Ingeborg, so finer details like camber, planform and parasitic drag factors will decide the outcome of such a test race to windward.

    However, wind tunnel tests have shown that sails with lower AR will accept higher angle of attack before stalling, and will even produce a higher force when stalled. This was clearly demonstrated when Ingeborg with her AR=1.90 sail walked away from La Barca, even on a beam reach.

    This phenomenon has been known for a long time. When the Swedish skerry-cruiser classes were developed about 80-90 years ago, they had a fixed sail area. The designers soon learned to make ultra-tall sails, even by today’s standards. They didn’t have to worry about the downwind leg as they were allowed to set spinnakers (and genoas as well).

    So will I build a taller JR, then? No, I will not. I find it very practical to be able to pass under 10m-bridges. I am more tempted to make a new sail for Ingeborg, with 10% camber in it. That would be interesting  -  and sewing a sail is anyway easy-peasy....

    Arne

    20171017 Edit: Actually, the Bermuda rig of a Folkboat starts at deck level so the total luff length of that rig is quite a bit longer than Ingeborg's rig.

    Last modified: 21 Oct 2017 18:16 | Anonymous member (Administrator)
       " ...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