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.

Rigging list for Poppy.

Items in bold print necessary, and the rest were used in initial rigging and experimentation.

Mast lift. Fitted first to help with setting up the rig and sailcatcher, and could have been removed when all was set up.

Lazy Jacks and combined cover/ sail-catcher. Non-adjustable once set up.

Halyard.

Peaking parrel/halyard, talked about but never fitted nor felt necessary.

Yard hauling parrel. But see below.

Long yard parrel. One experiment not tried but planned was to replace the YHP by a combined downhaul/ yard parrel as on the battens.

Long batten parrels. Fitted before the downhaul/ batten parrels invented and most were then disguarded. The bottom one (boom) left on (I think) but probably not necessary as sailcatcher was attached to the bottom batten (I think).

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.

Hong Kong parrel. Single one fitted towards the leech, tried and ignored as it was slack, and not really needed.

Sheet. Copied from Arne's Johanna with double lower block and jamber, single upper block, and I think the rest were nylon thimbles.

To make sail consisted of,

1. Release all jambers.

2. Raise sail to the required number of panels with halyard and jamb.

3. Adjust YHP if less than 5 panels raised. If a combined yard parrel/ downhaul tried may not require this step.

4. Remove slack, light tug and jamb the downhauls with no critical adjustment needed.

5. Sheet in and go.

Often it was a case of hoist full sail and sheet in and go.

S.

Anonymous wrote:

David, would it be childish of me to point out that your rig does need an adjustable LHP and apparently numerous stainless steel rings, some on lines tied to the batten aft of the mast, and on the spanned downhauls to prevent the halyard and the YHP to get around to the wrong side of the luff? And all this after making hinges.

Perhaps not so KISS after all.

S

David, would it be childish of me to point out that your rig does need an adjustable LHP and apparently numerous stainless steel rings, some on lines tied to the batten aft of the mast, and on the spanned downhauls to prevent the halyard and the YHP to get around to the wrong side of the luff? And all this after making hinges.

Perhaps not so KISS after all.

S

Scott wrote:

It may be the angle of the photos, but I can't see how that is holding the mast down.  It looks as if the lashings are almost parallel to the step.   I get that how that will keep it from turning, but isn't there enough play to allow the mast to work its way upward?

Yes, it has a bit to do with the photo angle. The angle of the lashing strings was between 30 and 45 degrees. With the taut Dyneema lines, there is no chance the mast will jump out of the step. I did it this way to prevent the mast from rotating in its step.Arne