|
Headsail size
So I'm going to a roller furler jib for cruising. What size would be
best? 120, 135,150, etc! Gordon |
Headsail size
"Gordon" wrote in message
... So I'm going to a roller furler jib for cruising. What size would be best? 120, 135,150, etc! Gordon Depends on where you sail and where you're going I'd imagine. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Headsail size
Gordon wrote:
So I'm going to a roller furler jib for cruising. What size would be best? 120, 135,150, etc! Gordon It depends on your cruising area, and the times of year you sail. I'd say the default answer is a 135 but for Chesapeake Bay or LI Sound in summer cruising, a 150. For San Francisco Bay, 115 or 120... For offshore cruising, I'd lean towards 135 but without knowing more about your boat or plans, nobody can offer much advice Evan Gatehouse |
Headsail size
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 22:14:35 -0800, in message
Evan Gatehouse2 wrote: Gordon wrote: So I'm going to a roller furler jib for cruising. What size would be best? 120, 135,150, etc! Gordon It depends on your cruising area, and the times of year you sail. I'd say the default answer is a 135 but for Chesapeake Bay or LI Sound in summer cruising, a 150. For San Francisco Bay, 115 or 120... For offshore cruising, I'd lean towards 135 but without knowing more about your boat or plans, nobody can offer much advice Since the numbers are calculated as LP/J*100, it also depends a lot on the rig design, ranging from small foretriangle fractional rigs to older masthead boats with a huge J dimension and a short boom. A 135 is a small sail on the former and a great big sail on the latter. My boat fits into the latter category and I would probably choose about 110 for cruising comfort and ease of tacking, then hoist a spinnaker off the wind if it isn't blowing. Go see your sailmaker for advice based on local conditions, type of boat, and the kind of sailing you want to do. It's usually free... Ryk |
Headsail size
Gordon wrote:
So I'm going to a roller furler jib for cruising. A good choice I think, assuming you can afford a good one and proper installation. ... What size would be best? 120, 135,150, etc! Gordon What size(s) do you normally carry? Evan Gatehouse2 wrote: It depends on your cruising area, and the times of year you sail. I'd say the default answer is a 135 but for Chesapeake Bay or LI Sound in summer cruising, a 150. For San Francisco Bay, 115 or 120... For offshore cruising, I'd lean towards 135 but without knowing more about your boat or plans, nobody can offer much advice Right on... I like Phil Bolger's discussion along the same lines, wherein he's asked how big a headsail some boat should have, and he then asks how hard the wind is going to blow. Ryk wrote: Since the numbers are calculated as LP/J*100, it also depends a lot on the rig design, ranging from small foretriangle fractional rigs to older masthead boats with a huge J dimension and a short boom. A 135 is a small sail on the former and a great big sail on the latter. Good point. The Yankee 30 is a masthead, with large but not extreme J dimension. I'd lean toward a larger genoa for normal sailing and a staysail for the heavy days. My boat fits into the latter category and I would probably choose about 110 for cruising comfort and ease of tacking, then hoist a spinnaker off the wind if it isn't blowing. Go see your sailmaker for advice based on local conditions, type of boat, and the kind of sailing you want to do. It's usually free... A good sail inventory is a basic necessity, and I don't mean large numbers of blown-out racing sails. It's amazing to me how many people are cruising with crap sails. But then, diesel fuel is still relatively cheap.... A cruising spinnaker, a 120 or 135 (depending on where & how most sailing is to be done, I might even go to a 145 but then I like to go fast) on a roller, and a staysail, would be a good set-up. Fresh BReezes- Doug King |
Headsail size
After a couple of season of sailing my masthead rig Endeavour 32 using mostly the 130% roller genoa, I've been astounded to find out how much better it goes to windward with the small working jib. In winds strong enough to need some rolls on the genoa and a reef in the main, there is nearly a knot of difference in speed due to the cleaner leading edge and better shape. In lighter winds, the boat doesn't go much faster but feels better and steers more easily.
The downside is losing the increase in speed when the sheets are eased. I miss that feeling of rocketing away on a reach. Instead, the boat just maintains about the same speed as it was going to windward. I'm going to sail a lot more with the working jib and am having a leach doubling sewn onto it this winter so I can leave it up more often without suffering sun damage. A cruising spinnaker was low on my list because I was pretty happy with the performance under the genoa for cruising and didn't think I wanted to deal with getting a downwind sail out of the bag and up. Now that I've seen how well the working jib is for windward work, I'm re-thinking. I end up doing a lot of beating to windward. If I carry the genoa as my primary headsail, I'm now going to want to switch to the working jib for any long windward legs if there is any real breeze. That's an involved operation. Carrying the working jib as the primary headsail and getting an asymetrical spinnaker out for long reaching and downwind legs might be more fun and less work. -- Roger Long |
Headsail size
"Evan Gatehouse2" wrote in message
... Gordon wrote: So I'm going to a roller furler jib for cruising. What size would be best? 120, 135,150, etc! Gordon It depends on your cruising area, and the times of year you sail. I'd say the default answer is a 135 but for Chesapeake Bay or LI Sound in summer cruising, a 150. For San Francisco Bay, 115 or 120... For offshore cruising, I'd lean towards 135 but without knowing more about your boat or plans, nobody can offer much advice Evan Gatehouse I'm considering a 130, and I sail in the SF bay. That's what Quantum recommended... they can make one that's got the luff foam so the shape is good when it's reefed. Most of the time, of course, it would down to 90%. :-) -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Headsail size
Roger Long wrote:
After a couple of season of sailing my masthead rig Endeavour 32 using mostly the 130% roller genoa, I've been astounded to find out how much better it goes to windward with the small working jib. In winds strong enough to need some rolls on the genoa and a reef in the main, there is nearly a knot of difference in speed due to the cleaner leading edge and better shape. In lighter winds, the boat doesn't go much faster but feels better and steers more easily. The downside is losing the increase in speed when the sheets are eased. I miss that feeling of rocketing away on a reach. Instead, the boat just maintains about the same speed as it was going to windward. I'm going to sail a lot more with the working jib and am having a leach doubling sewn onto it this winter so I can leave it up more often without suffering sun damage. A cruising spinnaker was low on my list because I was pretty happy with the performance under the genoa for cruising and didn't think I wanted to deal with getting a downwind sail out of the bag and up. Now that I've seen how well the working jib is for windward work, I'm re-thinking. I end up doing a lot of beating to windward. If I carry the genoa as my primary headsail, I'm now going to want to switch to the working jib for any long windward legs if there is any real breeze. That's an involved operation. Carrying the working jib as the primary headsail and getting an asymetrical spinnaker out for long reaching and downwind legs might be more fun and less work. -- Roger Long What brand of furler and is your sail set up with the luff foam or rope? Thanks Gordon |
Headsail size
It's a 1980 vintage Harken furler which works great. The sail has the foam in the leading edge and the shape is pretty good. If the boat is a bit over pressed and I roll up about a foot and a half of sail, I'll see the speed go up. Shape degrades as the sail is furled further but it still looks like a sail when half rolled up. I think the big roll at the leading edge is more of a detriment than the shape change. Still, it's not as good a shape as the working jib when rolled to the same size.
The main flattens very nicely with the first reef. Two reefs and working jib in 25 - 30 knot winds and she is just a joy going to windward. For a none too stiff and wide sheeting base boat with a shoal keel, she makes surprising progress. -- Roger Long |
Headsail size
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 16:01:13 +0000, Roger Long wrote:
After a couple of season of sailing my masthead rig Endeavour 32 using mostly the 130% roller genoa, I've been astounded to find out how much better it goes to windward with the small working jib. In winds strong enough to need some rolls on the genoa and a reef in the main, there is nearly a knot of difference in speed due to the cleaner leading edge and better shape. In lighter winds, the boat doesn't go much faster but feels better and steers more easily. The downside is losing the increase in speed when the sheets are eased. I miss that feeling of rocketing away on a reach. Instead, the boat just maintains about the same speed as it was going to windward. I'm going to sail a lot more with the working jib and am having a leach doubling sewn onto it this winter so I can leave it up more often without suffering sun damage. A cruising spinnaker was low on my list because I was pretty happy with the performance under the genoa for cruising and didn't think I wanted to deal with getting a downwind sail out of the bag and up. Now that I've seen how well the working jib is for windward work, I'm re-thinking. I end up doing a lot of beating to windward. If I carry the genoa as my primary headsail, I'm now going to want to switch to the working jib for any long windward legs if there is any real breeze. That's an involved operation. Carrying the working jib as the primary headsail and getting an asymetrical spinnaker out for long reaching and downwind legs might be more fun and less work. Interesting. This shows how shape matters, and sail area isn't everything. With the working jib, are your leads closer to centerline (in degrees), than with the genoa? This could make a big difference in your pointing ability and speed. Also, is your working jib simply newer, or otherwise better than your genoa? Cruising spinnakers are great, but definitely more work than jibs. Screachers on roller furlers (detachable) are almost as easy as a jibs, but don't go deep downwind as well as spinnakers. However if you're happy with a genoa as a downwind sail, a screacher may be a good compromise. Also, sorry to be a pain, but your last two wonderful messages were almost unreadable with a text-only newsreader. There were no line breaks, so I had to scroll horizontally. Outlook Express is famous for such problems. I recommend turning HTML off and posting text-only, plus maybe using an add-on like OE-Quotefix. Or changing newsreaders. Matt O. |
Headsail size
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:16:07 -0500, in message
DSK wrote: Ryk wrote: Since the numbers are calculated as LP/J*100, it also depends a lot on the rig design, ranging from small foretriangle fractional rigs to older masthead boats with a huge J dimension and a short boom. A 135 is a small sail on the former and a great big sail on the latter. Good point. The Yankee 30 is a masthead, with large but not extreme J dimension. I'd lean toward a larger genoa for normal sailing and a staysail for the heavy days. My boat fits into the latter category and I would probably choose about 110 for cruising comfort and ease of tacking, then hoist a spinnaker off the wind if it isn't blowing. Go see your sailmaker for advice based on local conditions, type of boat, and the kind of sailing you want to do. It's usually free... A good sail inventory is a basic necessity, and I don't mean large numbers of blown-out racing sails. It's amazing to me how many people are cruising with crap sails. But then, diesel fuel is still relatively cheap.... Depends on the local racing fleet... Non-competitive racing sails may still have years of performance cruising capacity left in them. Still, I agree that cruising with bad sails is not fun for me. A cruising spinnaker, a 120 or 135 (depending on where & how most sailing is to be done, I might even go to a 145 but then I like to go fast) on a roller, and a staysail, would be a good set-up. I carry a good inventory, but sail changes tend not to happen a lot when cruising, and then not until far after they should. Unrolling a big genoa and getting it down on the deck can be nasty work if left too late while the wind is rising. Most cruisers around here seem to hoist sail at the start of the season and leave it on the furler until the fall. It's great to fly my mylar 150 until the wind gets up over 7 knots, but I would never keep it on the furler. If I wanted a general purpose cruising sail I would go smaller than my standard 135 that I use club racing. Again, it's hard to generalize over different rigs and venues Ryk |
Headsail size
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 16:01:13 GMT, in message
"Roger Long" wrote: Carrying the working jib as the primary headsail and getting an asymetrical spinnaker out for long reaching and downwind legs might be more fun and less work. Getting the chute up off the wind is definitely more fun. Ryk |
Headsail size
"Matt O'Toole" wrote
Also, sorry to be a pain, but your last two wonderful messages were almost unreadable with a text-only newsreader. There were no line breaks, so I had to scroll horizontally. Outlook Express is famous for such problems. I recommend turning HTML off and posting text-only, plus maybe using an add-on like OE-Quotefix. Or changing newsreaders. Sorry, I didn't realize, and wonder why, anyone would still be using a plain text only reader. Seems like those who want to cling to the Gutenburg age should perhaps make the adjustement instead of everyone else posing to the lowest technology denominator. I appreciate being able to click on links provided in these posts and you can't do that in plain text. Isn't there something you can click to force word wrap? I'm sure there are many opinions out there on this and I'd be interested in hearing them. -- Roger Long |
Headsail size
A good sail inventory is a basic necessity, and I don't mean
large numbers of blown-out racing sails. It's amazing to me how many people are cruising with crap sails. But then, diesel fuel is still relatively cheap.... Ryk wrote: Depends on the local racing fleet... Non-competitive racing sails may still have years of performance cruising capacity left in them. Still, I agree that cruising with bad sails is not fun for me. Depends on what you mean by "non-competitive." A lot of racers are flogging their way around the course with crap sails, too. By "crap" I mean a sail that is blown into a baggy shape that will not respond to tuning, that has had the seams stressed & cloth weakened such that it is at risk of coming apart in a hard blow. A sail with a full season on it is not competitive but should be fine for good sailing (cruising or otherwise). A sail with two full season on it will need to be recut to be competitive and restitched to be any good for anything else. I don't see cruising as all that different from racing, in terms of demand on the sails & rig. In fact, when cruising, one is likely to leave sails up longer and in slightly stronger wind since one is likely to be shorthanded. Of course, the racer's daily bending on, all that tacking, and taking them off & folding them, is also hard on the sails. One of the problems with hi-tech racing sails is that they don't really lose much shape, they get unresponsive to tuning adjustments (which you can live with) and weakened (which is a problem). The sail will have a nice shape and just look a bit tired, and suddenly disappears in a gust. A cruising spinnaker, a 120 or 135 (depending on where & how most sailing is to be done, I might even go to a 145 but then I like to go fast) on a roller, and a staysail, would be a good set-up. I carry a good inventory, but sail changes tend not to happen a lot when cruising, and then not until far after they should. Unrolling a big genoa and getting it down on the deck can be nasty work if left too late while the wind is rising. Most cruisers around here seem to hoist sail at the start of the season and leave it on the furler until the fall. Same around here. A big light air genoa is nice to have but taking it on & off is a PITA, so is stowing it... you don't even want it on the boat the rest of the time. That's one reason why I thought a 145 (for areas with lots of light air, smaller for areas where the wind is more dependable) with one of the reefing options would be good, with a staysail for when it really blows. The staysail would be easier to set, easier to stow. It's great to fly my mylar 150 until the wind gets up over 7 knots, but I would never keep it on the furler. If I wanted a general purpose cruising sail I would go smaller than my standard 135 that I use club racing. Again, it's hard to generalize over different rigs and venues And different tastes. One thing I'd like in a cruising and "fun sailing" genoa is one that allows somewhat better visibility. A high-cut foot is deadly to a racer but desirable for any other type of sailing. Diesel fuel is still relatively cheap. Of the cruisers I know, 99% of them motor 99% of the time when they are trying to actually get somewhere. Crap sails is one reason for that, but then you can buy a lot of fuel for the price of a set of good sails. DSK |
Headsail size
Roger Long wrote:
:"Matt O'Toole" wrote :Also, sorry to be a pain, but your last two wonderful messages were :almost unreadable with a text-only newsreader. There were no line breaks, :so I had to scroll horizontally. Outlook Express is famous for such :problems. I recommend turning HTML off and posting text-only, plus maybe :using an add-on like OE-Quotefix. Or changing newsreaders. :Sorry, I didn't realize, and wonder why, anyone would still be using a plain :text only reader. Seems like those who want to cling to the Gutenburg age :should perhaps make the adjustement instead of everyone else posing to the :lowest technology denominator. USENET is a text-only medium. Keeping it so keeps it efficient; using a text-only newsreader, I can keep up with groups with much less work and expenditure of time. If you want flashy crap, go somewhere else. There are plenty of mostly worthless web fora that will allow you to have flashing text and animated smileys. :I appreciate being able to click on links :provided in these posts and you can't do that in plain text. Isn't there :something you can click to force word wrap? Being able to click on links is a function of the newsreader software, or perhaps the terminal emulator software. |
Headsail size
"David Scheidt" wrote
If you want flashy crap, go somewhere else. Wraping lines of text is flashy? -- Roger Long |
Headsail size
Roger Long wrote:
:This is a multi-part message in MIME format. :------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C71209.4488F360 :Content-Type: text/plain; : charset="iso-8859-1" :Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable : "David Scheidt" wrote=20 : If you want flashy crap, go somewhere else. =20 :Wraping lines of text is flashy? The html bloat is certainly crap. I've left intact the text/html section of your response. For your 32 character response, the html and mime requires 1331 bytes. :-- Roger Long :------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C71209.4488F360 :Content-Type: text/html; : charset="iso-8859-1" :Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable :!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" :HTMLHEAD :META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = :charset=3Diso-8859-1" :META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=3DGENERATOR :STYLE/STYLE :/HEAD :BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff :DIVFONT face=3DArial :BLOCKQUOTE=20 :style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = :BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" : DIV>"David Scheidt" <A=20 : "dscheidt@panix. com/A> wrote = :/DIV : DIV /DIV : DIV>If you want flashy crap, go somewhere else. /DIV : DIV /DIV/BLOCKQUOTE/FONT/DIV :DIVFONT face=3DArialWraping lines of text is = :flashy?/FONTBRBR-- Roger=20 :Long/DIV :BLOCKQUOTE=20 :style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = :BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"FONT=20 : face=3DArial/FONT /BLOCKQUOTE/BODY/HTML :------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C71209.4488F360-- |
Headsail size
That's very interesting and it certainly does seem inelegant and wasteful
although I can't imagine bandwith is really a problem with all the video's being sent around. I agree that attachements, embedded pictures, animated signatures, etc. have no place here. It's odd though that the only complaint I've gotten about posting since signing up as the twelth internet user in Maine (outside of educational institutions, anyway) was for my line feeds producing broken up text. The concensus then was, "leave the line wraps to the reader". I recently had to reinstall Windows and OE. I don't know at this point what format I was posting in previously. I've set it back to plain text to see how it works. I'm curious though how it handles links like this one: http://home.maine.rr.com/rlma -- Roger Long |
Headsail size
So, plain text works with the links. I'm sure now that I was using plain
text before and that my settings defaulted back to html with the reinstall. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll sleep a little better knowing I'm saving a few bytes to make room for all the porn videos and spam the net has to carry:) Happy now? -- Roger Long |
Headsail size
"Roger Long" skrev i en meddelelse ... So, plain text works with the links. I'm sure now that I was using plain text before and that my settings defaulted back to html with the reinstall. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll sleep a little better knowing I'm saving a few bytes to make room for all the porn videos and spam the net has to carry:) Happy now? -- Roger Long Hello Roger, I'm reading this newsgroup on a daily basis with great interest - without really contributing ...but learning ... not least from your many projects ... and illustrations on your homepage ... For a while, however, I have really missed your contributions to this newsgroup, and was wandering if you had left the group ... Maybe that has something to do with your settings? ... I could however see someone respondig to some of your remarks, but they did not appear on my screen as coming from you, but just imbedded in other comments ... Good to "see you again" ... Keep your settings as of now please! Best regards Flemming Torp Denmark |
Headsail size
Thanks. I've been very busy and was also completely off line for nearly a
week upgrading to a new computer after a crash. Here's something else to pass on: When you are cleaning the dust out of your computer, take a close look between the fins of the CPU cooler. My machine looked clean but the cooler fins under the fan were completely choked with dust. The CPU thus overheated. It sounds like you might have a security or other setting set to not show html postings. I'll post plain text from here on (Thanks, Dave) but you might want to read what other bandwidth wasters have to say about boats. -- Roger Long |
Headsail size
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:11:55 +0000, Roger Long wrote:
"Matt O'Toole" wrote Also, sorry to be a pain, but your last two wonderful messages were almost unreadable with a text-only newsreader. There were no line breaks, so I had to scroll horizontally. Outlook Express is famous for such problems. I recommend turning HTML off and posting text-only, plus maybe using an add-on like OE-Quotefix. Or changing newsreaders. Sorry, I didn't realize, and wonder why, anyone would still be using a plain text only reader. Seems like those who want to cling to the Gutenburg age should perhaps make the adjustement instead of everyone else posing to the lowest technology denominator. Tell Microsoft! OE creates bad HTML that doesn't display properly in other clients. It also doesn't handle newline characters (word wrap) properly. This is bad enough with plain text messages, but it really makes a mess with HTML. I appreciate being able to click on links provided in these posts and you can't do that in plain text. Most "plain text" news and mail clients will display clickable links. Isn't there something you can click to force word wrap? Not usually, and with good reason. It would screw up any pre-formatted content. I'm sure there are many opinions out there on this and I'd be interested in hearing them. I've created my own share of unreadable messages with OE. OE's text editor bugs are well-known among programmers, webheads, and other e-communications professionals. Since Microsoft doesn't seem interested, people have tried to solve these problems with OE add-ons like OE-Quotefix. I used these too for awhile. Matt O. |
Headsail size
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 15:29:38 +0000, Roger Long wrote:
That's very interesting and it certainly does seem inelegant and wasteful although I can't imagine bandwith is really a problem with all the video's being sent around. I agree that attachements, embedded pictures, animated signatures, etc. have no place here. It's odd though that the only complaint I've gotten about posting since signing up as the twelth internet user in Maine (outside of educational institutions, anyway) was for my line feeds producing broken up text. The concensus then was, "leave the line wraps to the reader". Actually that's not the way it works. The writer should produce the line breaks. The problem with OE is that it doesn't do this properly, and with HTML it's worse. Turn off HTML posting and you solve half the problem. The reason OE screws up quoted text is that while re-wrapping it doesn't remove old line breaks before inserting new ones. It also doesn't recognize its own quote marks, so you wind up with in the middle of lines. Put an HTML page through this and it ruins the HTML, making it unreadable by machine or human. I recently had to reinstall Windows and OE. I don't know at this point what format I was posting in previously. I've set it back to plain text to see how it works. The default for OE is HTML posting. You have to change it back to plain text. Matt O. |
Headsail size
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 08:19:42 -0500, in message
DSK wrote: Diesel fuel is still relatively cheap. Of the cruisers I know, 99% of them motor 99% of the time when they are trying to actually get somewhere. Crap sails is one reason for that, but then you can buy a lot of fuel for the price of a set of good sails. Yes, my total expenditure on fuel since I bought the boat comes nowhere near the price of a single sail. Ryk |
Headsail size
Ryk wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 08:19:42 -0500, in message DSK wrote: Diesel fuel is still relatively cheap. Of the cruisers I know, 99% of them motor 99% of the time when they are trying to actually get somewhere. Crap sails is one reason for that, but then you can buy a lot of fuel for the price of a set of good sails. Yes, my total expenditure on fuel since I bought the boat comes nowhere near the price of a single sail. Ryk I filled the tank in July and have burned off half of it already. It's a 3 gllon tank. RL |
Headsail size
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 23:26:38 GMT, cavelamb himself
wrote: I filled the tank in July and have burned off half of it already. It's a 3 gllon tank. You clearly need to buy a power boat in order to keep your fuel freshened up. With good selection you could burn the whole 3 gallons in a single mile. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:42 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com