About this time 2 years ago, our 505 message boards were teeming with hot debates as to whether or not we should adopt a six-meter luff chute. Speculations and opinions about required rigging changes, speed gains, and structural integrity abounded. After the ballot passing the international vote with a 2:1 margin, we now have substantially more downwind sail area, and we need to figure out how to make it work best. Prior to the vote, prototype Long Luff Spinnakers (LLS) appeared during a class sanctioned trials period that lasted approximately 2 years. Most trials simply involved raising the hoist and extending the halyard. Numerous photos, reports, and even some videos appeared of 505s under sail with the LLS. Tom B�jland of Denmark produced a nice video that clearly demonstrated how a 505 with the LLS was much faster than one with the standard five-meter spinnaker.

The LLS will make it's world championship debut this December in Perth, Australia. With 14 months of development time berween the October, 2001 rules change and the December, 2002 Worlds, we can expect refinements in both rigging and sail design. These developments are promulgated in North America, Europe, the UK, and Australia. Currently, there are at least 6 different mast sections in use with the LLS, and numerous rigging modifications. New spinnaker designs are being tested regularly to explore the bounds of the design envelope.
Most of the preliminary experiments are being carried out by the professionals and serious sailors within the 505 ranks. It's crucial that this information get passed down to all 505 sailors so that people can start making the necessary modifications to get out on the water with the LLS. This article is simply intended to report on what LLS rigging and sail design solutions are currently being tested around the globe. While most tests are inconclusive at this time, some recommendations are given to assist our readers.

Jean-Baptiste Dupont and crew	Proctor D mast inversion on a tight reach.

THE LLS DEFINED

The rules change that brings us the LLS seems fairly straightforward. The maximum luff length is extended 1 meter from 5 to 6 meters. The maximum foot median (head point to mid foot point) has also been extended I meter from 6096mm to 7096mm. The maximum foot length and half width are unchanged at 4500mm. The maximum sheave height has been increased to 5955mm, or 850mm higher than the previous location. Finally, the "75% rule" has been deleted. This is the rule that previously governed the minimum width of the spinnaker at it's half height. The old rule stipulated that the width at the half height (or half width) be at least 75% of the foot width. This effectively limited how "triangular" the spinnaker could be, supposedly to prevent upwind spinnakers, like the "Code 0" developed for Volvo Ocean Race boats. While nobody is reported to be developing a radically narrow spinnaker, optimizing such a sail for upwind use would be nearly impossible because of the rules requirement for the shape to be symmetrical.

LLS FLAWED BY DESIGN?

The current LLS specifications came about as the result of significant testing and debate. Luff lengths as long as 6.5 meters were tested by the likes of five-time World Champion, Krister Bergstr�m, with very low pole fittings and very high sheave heights. Increasing fears of gear failure, equipment geometry problems, and poor visibility ultimately dictated that we could not be overly radical with this change. The opinions of our international class officers were unanimous in the thinking that the final changes must reflect logical, systematic thinking and testing. Others, most notably a majority of the voting 505 public in France, were staunchly against the change. Two noteworthy opinion pieces lobbying for and against the change appeared in the Summer and Fall 2000 issues of Tank Talk.

It's very clear that we are not out of the woods with respect to the design parameters of the LLS. 

Larger teams have had a distinct advantage in heavy air in recent years, and the LLS may continue this trend. To offset this possibility, the Worlds course has been modified to include two runs and one triangle, with one less leg (original course had 2 reaches, one run, and four beats). Additionally, broader reach legs were introduced to reduce the requirement for righting moment off the wind. However, Ethan Bixby (North Sails Gulf Coast) wonders whether an additional LLS rules change was necessary. Bixby theorizes that by adding length to the spinnaker, more optimum aspect ratios can be achieved, and longer foot lengths, as compared with the 5-meter spinnaker, can be used to good effect.

It was well known that the best 5-meter luff spinnaker designs, were shy of the class maximum foot length (most were about 3.6 to 4 meters). Bixby wonders if a more defined box should've been placed on the spinnaker rules by limiting the foot and half-width dimensions to something smaller than 4.5 meters. In fact, we're now seeing these maximum size spinnakers (sometimes called "Whompers" by those of us with an affinity for the Hollywood film, Wind). Another possible detraction is that the latitude in spinnaker design may dictate that three spinnakers are needed at the world championship level (you can only measure in two however). Bixby is quick to point out that he doesn't know how this will all pan out when the dust clears, and that his theories may not come to be true at all. In fact, he still feels that the LLS and course changes might offer more flexibility for smaller teams to optimize the spinnaker size to suit their weight.

A modified Pinnell, Bixby North and a new Le Bihan side by side.

The possibility of rig failures with the LLS looms ominously on the minds of many sailors. A combination of more horsepower and the force exerting itself at a point well into the tapered section of the mast are certainly valid reasons for concern. Additionally, many teams will be sailing with modified rigs. The extra holes put in these spars for the new sheave and new pole position will weaken the mast. If these spars are old, the risks are higher still. With significant latitude on the location of the spinnaker sheave, owners can weigh the trade-off of height and structural reliability.

At press time nobody has lost a rig as a direct result of added stress from the LLS, but it may not come as a surprise if and when a failure happens. TEAM Spot recently lost an old rig sailing with the LLS due to the failure of 20-year-old shroud tackle. Paul VanGrey discovered a mysterious kink in his brand-new "D" which Larry Tuttle believes is due to a section flaw rather than the LLS.

 

THE OPTIMUM MAST SECTION

A lot is required of a 505 rig, especially now with the LLS. It must have the proper flexural characteristics to keep the main fully powered in light to moderate conditions, yet de-power quickly as the wind strengthens. It also must be strong enough to withstand high forces, like during the rare occasion when the 505 stuffs it's bow in a wave causing rapid deceleration, or during a high-speed capsize.

Something that is often overlooked is the fact that the mast and sails must work together as a system. Both components need to complement each other for maximum performance. Great sails on the wrong mast will not perform well, and viceversa. This systems engineering approach to the problem is best exemplified by the number of different mast sections used by recent World Champions. The Hunger/Jess team won in 2001 with a SuperSpar M2, Bergstrom/Moss won in 2000 with a Proctor Cumulus, and Hamlin/Martin won in 1999 with a Proctor D. 

The Proctor D is significantly softer than a Superspar M2, yet both the 2001 and 1999 worlds were sailed in light air. Both systems were obviously working well.
What's wrong with the standard Proctor D rig? In light to moderate air, there's nothing wrong with the Proctor D as far as most people are concerned. The problem with the standard D rig is the excessive bend above the hounds in heavy air that causes the main to distort. This distortion seemingly causes a loss of power in the sail that upsets the balance of the boat. Additional rigging with upper mast support can correct this problem.

So, it can be concluded that there is no optimum mast section for the 505, and there won't be until we all start using the same sails, blades, boats, crew weights, and sailing styles. Most top sailors view the new "optimum" mast section as one that will maintain the upwind bend characteristics they are accustomed to while providing enough stiffness downwind to keep the main from distorting and the mast from failing. Clearly, this is a compromise that must be reconciled, and most top sailors have not ruled out the possibility of slight modifications to their sails to suit a stiffer mast.

	Section	Sectional Weight kg/m	Dimension (mm) fore/aft	Dimension (mm) athw	Stiffness fore/aft	Stiffness athw
Dinghy Mast Sections
	Cumulus	0.95	69	58	19.5	14
	D	0.97	73	57	19.5	12
	D Plus	1.03	73	57	19.5	14
	E	1.17	70	54	19	14
	Epsilon	1.02	72	57	20	15.5
	Stratus	0.98	69	57	19.5	15
Proctor Mast Sections - Courtesy of Selden/Proctor

INTERNATIONAL RIG DEVELOPMENTS

Most people don't have the time to develop a new rig or new rigging systems. The majority of sailors rely on the professionals and keen competitors in our ranks for this development. The "no secrets" policy in the class seems to be working, and the results of rig testing are now being publicized. While nobody is exactly offering up every bit of information, Tank Talk has been able to get a few details from around the world.

THE UNITED KINGDOM

Paul Young (Rondar Raceboats) and Chips Howarth (Selden/Proctor Spars) suggest that the trend toward heavier crews (190-240 pounds in the UK) has caused the Proctor D to fall out of favor a bit with those teams buying new masts. Recently, sailors using the Holt Antares and the SuperSpar M2 have won the UK Nationals. Both of these sections are reportedly stiffer than the Proctor D and the Cumulus, but no data was available at press time for either. SuperSpar declined to provide us with bending data because they feel that Proctor's published numbers are inaccurate, so comparisons would be misleading.

There is obviously a "Spar War" going on here. The Cumulus has developed a following lately in the UK, and Ian Pinnell (Pinnell & Bax Sails) has determined that his main and jib design, initially suited to the D, do not have to be re-designed to fit the Cumulus. Additionally, some people including Pinnell and Young are rigging the Cumulus with "Trap Twings" that allow for greater support of the upper portion of the mast with the crew on the wire. Other sections in use in the UK include the Proctor Stratos which, according to Proctor, is slightly stiffer than the Cumulus sideways and the same stiffness fore and aft.

Paul Young believes that the Cumulus is better than the D with the LLS, but the rigging may need to be refined for compatibility with sails cut for the D despite what Pinnell has suggested. Young also believes that the M2 and the Antares are stiff enough that they don't require additional rigging to support the upper mast. Young has been sailing with a Stratos, but has also started sailing with a Cumulus rigged identically to Krister Bergstr�ms with trap line twings (see Trap Line Twings section for details).

Chips Howarth states that Proctor is working closely with Paul Young, Krister Bergstr�m, and Ian Pinnell, all of whom are having similar ideas using the Cumulus with trap line twings. Chips also feels that the Cumulus will be a better mast in the fully powered 8-12 knot range because the mast won't bend off as much at the top in small puffs. The consensus in the UK on spinnaker sheave height is that maximum height is the best option with mast sections stiffer than the D.

1995 World Champion, Bill Masterman, is reportedly rigging a Cumulus based on sail testing in the UK. Masterman has been sailing with an M2 for 10 years. This report comes from Howarth at Proctor.

Young sums up by saying; "All of (the mast sections) them have the potential to be winners, properly rigged."

FRANCE

A report from Jean-Baptiste Dupont detailing tests with a Holt Antares is available on the International 505 Web Site. The Antares performed well with the LLS in 15 knots of wind. The picture shows only slight side bend in this rig. The mast is rigged as per US spec, the spinnaker halyard is at maximum height, and the pole was lowered to approximately 24 inches above the boom band. Apparently, testing with the Antares was also done in very heavy winds of up to 30 knots with good results. Jean-Baptiste feels that a stiffer mast section is not absolutely necessary for the LLS, but is a good idea.

GERMANY

The SuperSpar M2 has become the dominant mast section in Germany. The Wolfgang Hunger/Holger Jess team used an M2 to win the 2001 Cascais World Championships. Jess feels that both the D and the Cumulus are too soft for the LLS. Jess is of the opinion that moving the trap wires higher on the mast is a good bend compensator for the LLS without requirement for any other rig strengthening on the M2. Perhaps it's worth noting that Jess is a distributor for SuperSpar. Chips Howarth claims that Wolfgang Hunger is interested in trying the Cumulus, so perhaps there's a bit of gamesmanship going on here. We wonder if Hunger has told his crew!

AUSTRALIA

Based on the results of the Australian Nationals, it seems that the Aussies have been trying the broadest range of mast and rigging combinations. The top two boats at the nationals used Cumulus sections. Proctor Ds, Proctor Epsilons, and Goldspars were also being used to good effect, and at least two boats had double spreader rigs (see "Floppy Spreader Rig" below). The fact that 6 different rig configurations were in the top 10 at the Australian Nationals is a reoccurring theme.

THE UNITED STATES

The Proctor D has dominated in the USA for over a decade. Sails developed by Ullman and North are well suited to the bend characteristics of the D, and many top sailors are looking for ways to stay with this rig. It is apparent to many that the D with standard rigging is too soft for heavy air reaching and running. The excessive bend above the hounds cause the main to distort and take on a less efficient shape. Again, there have been no documented failures of a standard D using the LLS, but there has been at least one bent rig as of press time. This rig was straightened successfully off the water.

Two possible rigging solutions have been tested on the Proctor D in the US -the "Tuttle System" and the "Floppy Spreader System". These are relatively simple retrofits to a standard Proctor D. A few others in the US are experimenting with a Proctor Cumulus section, the SuperSpar M2, and the Proctor Epsilon.

NEW RIGGING SYSTEMS

LLS detractors might call this section the "Arms Race". LLS proponents might be more inclined to call this necessary 505 evolution to avoid becoming a victim of Darwinism. Whatever your opinion is, if you're in this game for the long haul, it's worthwhile to take a good look at these systems and make your own conclusions. All of these systems should be viewed as prototypes. They are all being refined. New and better systems that we don't yet know about may be under development right now in someone's garage.

THE TUTTLE SYSTEM

This system is being developed by Larry Tuttle at Waterat Sailing Equipment in Santa Cruz, California. It consists of an upper shroud and spreader extenders to prevent excessive side-bend and mast inversion. This system uses thin 1 by 19 wire with the bottom connected to a pin rack adjuster at the shroud pin above the turning block on the side tank. The upper shroud runs through the spreader extenders that extend approximately 4 inches aft and a bit outboard. The uppers terminate on the mast approximately 4 inches above the new spinnaker sheave location. The theory is that the uppers are basically slack upwind when sailing with a bent mast. The first prototype is pictured here and was tested by Ethan Bixby. It was determined that this arrangement was not very effective because the angle the upper shroud made with the mast was too acute. The second prototype used spreader tip extensions that pointed out to the side more, and this was reported to be much more effective at stabilizing the rig. Several 505s in Santa Cruz are using this system on the Proctor D.

The Tuttle System - used by Ethan Bixby	Australian Floppy Spreader Rig

THE "FLOPPY SPREADER RIG"

This rig reportedly first appeared on Australian 505s, and was used by Dave Porter at the Australian Nationals in January with a Proctor D. As with the Tuttle system, Porter attaches the bottom of his upper shrouds to the shroud pin. When the mast is bent sailing upwind, the floppy spreaders are unloaded and simply fold back. When the mast is loaded up downwind, the spreaders rotate out to the side as the uppers take on enough tension to support the upper mast. Dave Porter reports; "Our mast was as straight as a gun barrel. Yesterday we sailed in a 22-knot sea breeze and the mast was standing up perfectly." Howard Hamlin/Mike Martin are also experimenting with a floppy spreader rig.

Howie Hamlin reports that his floppy spreader rig has been performing admirably on his Proctor D with it set loose for upwind sailing, although they have not completed tests in heavy winds. Howie's system uses stock 14-inch Proctor spreaders, with both the upper and lower (regular) shrouds going to a Ronstan shroud adjuster (part RF2331). The lower shrouds attach to the shroud adjuster in one of the lowest holes, and the uppers attach approximately in the middle so there is room for adjustment. Howie was wary of drilling extra holes in the mast for the new spreader bracket. He crafted a custom stainless steel bracket that uses the lower shroud T-terminal rivet holes. Howie and Mike prefer not to have the extra rigging, but still feel that the Proctor D is the best mast for the Ullman sails.

TRAP LINE TWINGS

Many people outside the USA have been experimenting with trap line twings. These were first used in the 70's and 80's, and were championed by Steve Benjamin. Back then, the twings were for upwind sailing to give greater upper mast support in light to moderate winds. This system is making a comeback now, but primarily for mast support downwind to counter the extra load from the LLS. The system is quite simple. The trapeze lines are attached to the mast near the spinnaker sheave. A control line in the mast (the twing) pulls the trap line in so that it's force acts at or near the hounds for normal upwind sailing. While sailing downwind, the twing is released and the weight of the crew on the wire helps support the upper mast. This system is gaining popularity in Europe and the UK.

THE PROCTOR CUMULUS RIG

The Cumulus is gaining popularity around the world as a good choice for the LLS. In fact, because of increased demand, Proctor is now making the Cumulus in lengths suitable for a 505 so no splicing is required. The Cumulus is designed to be about 17% stiffer sideways as compared with the Proctor D, but with identical fore/aft stiffness. This added sideways stiffness should help the global stability of the rig with the LLS, and this is seemingly proving out in testing in every major 505 hotbed. In the US, Hamlin and Martin have been testing a Cumulus with the LLS, and have had good results. They have no additional rigging or modifications, and it is rigged exactly like a US spec pre-LLS Proctor D. They recently won a regatta in winds ranging from 10-18 knots with this rig. It's also noteworthy that the taper on the Cumulus is approximately 250mm longer than the taper on the D.
It should be noted that independent bending tests of the Proctor D and the Cumulus yielded very interesting results. The three year old Proctor D measured was considerably softer sideways, and nearly dead on the spec fore and aft. The new Proctor Cumulus was nearly dead on the spec sideways, but slightly stiffer fore and aft. According to Barney Harris, the age differential should not have any large net effect on the measurements. The tests were performed by Jesse Falsone with a procedure prescribed by Harris. These tests were not performed in a laboratory environment with precise control over all measurements, but multiple readings were taken.

Mast Section Proctor/  D Proctor/ Cumulus Fore/Aft Stiffness, cm4  (measured) 19.8 21.2 Fore/Aft Stiffness, cm4 (specification) 19.5 19.5 Side Stifftness, cm4  (measured) 9.73 14.0 Side Stiffness, cm4 (specification) 12.0 14.0

Stiffness Comparison - Proctor D and Cumulus

This data set is obviously limited with only one of each section tested, but it's hard to dispute the results. The most significant difference is that this Cumulus is approximately 40% stiffer than this D sideways. It is not uncommon for people to report variances of measured weight and stiffness among Proctor D sections. Many contend that their oldest D's are also the lightest (some by 2 pounds!). Caliper measurements of wall thickness on older Proctor D sections suggests some irregularity and/or variability (i.e. one wall thicker than the other). According to Proctor, the D section has always been supplied at a nominal weight of 0.97 kg/m. Early published data may vary because of inaccuracies in weight calculations performed by hand. Production variations of cutting and welding each mast do account for small differences in weight, especially when performed by hand. Selden, the new owner of Proctor Spars, has upgraded their production method by using an automated welding process that produces better consistency mast-to-mast.
Mast extrusion dies are cleaned with an acid solution that removes a few microns of material after each production run. Die material is also lost due to the small amount of abrasion incurred during the extrusion process. Therefore, older dies can produce masts with slightly thicker walls. Most extrusion dies are tediously hand-crafted and repaired by welding, grinding & polishing. For all practical purposes, each die can be considered one-of-a-kind. Therefore, one new die can produce slightly different extrusions than another new die.

Ethan Bixby and Ian Pinnell have independently reached the conclusion that no alterations to their current sail designs are necessary with the Cumulus section. However, at press time, Bixby has yet to try the Cumulus. However, Ethan states that such a modification is very easy.

Barney Harris contends that the increased sideways stiffness of the Cumulus will not be the best solution because the most probable failure mode for the mast will be due to fore and aft instability. Harris has yet to sail with anything other than a standard D with the LLS.

LLS DESIGN TRENDS

The adoption of the LLS has meant that sail makers can play with clean sheet designs. As previously stated, the higher aspect designs lead to greater variability in practical foot lengths, and thus, a greater variability in area. According to Ethan Bixby, the approximate area of a converted North Chicken is 16m2, the new all-purpose LLS has approximately 17m2 , and the max-foot design is up to 19m2. The theoretical maximum area of the LLS is about 22m2. It should be stressed that these are rough numbers.

The broader reach angles of the new worlds course means less compromise in design between a reaching spinnaker and a downwind spinnaker. The demands on our old spinnaker were high, and that is why they evolved to be much smaller than the maximum on the foot. The tight reaching legs dictated that a fair amount of bias stretch on the luff was necessary to round the entry and make the chutes easier to fly (i.e. they don't collapse every time you take your eye off it). The downside to bias stretch is that it often decreases the spinnaker's competitive life span as witnessed by the eventual distortion of horizontal seams at the head. Some sailmakers are now experimenting with large radial head designs (only one or two horizontal panels in the middle) which have long been used in larger racing boats. Others, like Ethan Bixby, still feel that "a fair percentage of bias stretch on the luff is still necessary to maintain the active and dynamic luff characteristics of the spherical sail". North Sails has been experimenting with a short radial head to mitigate the negative effects of bias stretch, while still maintaining the best flying shape for reach legs.

It's simply too early to predict what spinnaker shapes and sizes will be best. Some might assume that the largest spinnakers will be the quickest in light air. While size does matter, so does flying shape. Larger spinnakers tend to be heavier, and this extra weight makes filling the spinnaker more difficult in light air. Some people theorize that the biggest spinnakers will have legs in moderate air when the spinnaker can easily fill to it's optimum shape, and the extra area pays dividends while sailing very low angles. Others are of the opinion that the largest spinnakers will be best suited to heavy air and big crews.

The equation probably gets a bit more complicated in heavy air, especially heavy air reaching, when stability is limited by crew weight and buoyancy. Large gains on the first reach were always possible sailing the old worlds course. Boats that could quickly get into a high lane often prospered. Now, with two runs and only one reach triangle, some people contend that the spinnakers will need to be optimized for downwind sailing. The theory is that the fastest boats will want to separate from the bulk of the fleet on the first beat and the following run, leaving the reach as the "hang on to your position" legs. Undoubtedly, the new course will cause the fleet to be more spread out by the reach leg, so fewer passing opportunities will be available on the reach. However, the fleet will be much closer down the first run and big gains and losses may be possible.
So, like mast sections, not much is known yet about LLS spinnaker designs. More than any other sail, spinnaker design may be ultimately dependent on sailing style. The teams who are best at wire-running may prefer one design for closer apparent wind angles, while those who prefer to sail low angles may be fastest with a different design. Once again, crew size may also prove to be a huge factor.

OTHER RIGGING MODIFICATIONS

Spinnaker Sheave Height - Most people are advocating maximum or near maximum height. The higher the spinnaker, the less it will interfere with the flow on the mainsail and jib, and the better the visibility for the helmsman. However, higher spinnakers will also produce more heeling moment, and will cause more mast deflection. Ali Meller successfully modified Dina Temple-Rastons Lindsay 505 for a lower hoist, and this seems to work well for a team sailing quite light with a Proctor D. The International 505 Web Site has a nice video production of this system in action.
Pole Fitting Height - Boats sailing with maximum hoist spinnakers might be tempted to leave their pole fitting height alone. The old "standard" height was about 760mm from the boom band. In this position, the outboard end tends to droop down below horizontal slightly with the LLS spinnaker flying correctly.
Moreover, the higher pole fitting retains the downhaul (foreguy) geometry, and this prevents the pole from "bouncing" excessively.
Recently, sailors in the US, France, and Australia have been mounting their pole fittings at about 560-610mm above the boom band. The advantage to this is that the pole remains horizontal when the spinnaker is flying, and lower poles take less time to deploy whether you're using a Spiro fitting or a trolley system. Another advantage to a lower pole fitting is the compression on the mast causes less inversion since the force acts closer to the gooseneck. On the downside, lower Spiro fittings cause the launcher line to wrap around the mast at an angle that increases friction. It should be noted that people have been using lower Spiro fittings for years, so this is not a big concern.
Lower pole fittings also upset the geometry for pole storage and the foreguy tends to pull back on the pole more rather than down. However, there are solutions.

Topping Lift - The stowage geometry of a lower pole fitting can be helped by simply relocating your topping lift sheave just below the jib halyard sheave. The easiest way of doing this is to simply attach an eyemount (P-strap) to the lower screw or pop-rivet of the jib halyard sheave. Place a small swivel on the eyemount and run the topping lift to this new location externally from the original sheave hole. Some teams simply dead-end their topping lift at the eyemount because they rarely adjust it anyway. You can also improve the geometry of the topping lift by moving the eyestrap on the pole further aft. There are a couple of ways to have the pole raised by shock cord so that it stores alongside the boom. Ethan Bixby suggests a simple shock cord take up system, with a ball stop shown in. The positive downhaul sets the pole position. Some people have rigged a simple shock cord system to keep the pole up when stowed. Simply tie some shock cord to your pole fitting, then tie a loop around your pole at the correct height.

Ethan Bixby's Pole with Shock Cord

Foreguy - If you lower the pole fitting, you might also want to consider re-rigging the foreguy. Many 505s have a foreguy system that runs up the partner and through a block on top of the ram track so it doesn't interfere with the ram strut. These are fixed-length systems with shock cord and positive stops so the pole doesn't sky. Re-rigging the foreguy to exit on the deck just in front of the partner is a good option for lower poles because it increases the downward tension that keeps the pole from bouncing. You will have some minor interference with the ram strut. Another option is to run the foreguy to a small block mounted on the ram strut itself. The downside to this is that the foreguy will then tend to pull the pole forward a little when it's stowed, but sufficient pole launcher retractor shock cord tension should prevent this.

Twings - Some people advocate moving the twings forward a few inches to assist in keeping the pole from bouncing. This modification does require more holes in the side of the boat and some additional rerigging to your twing system. Moving the twings too far forward can result in the crew having a difficult time reaching the guy to pump it downwind, so be careful.

Spinnaker Lead Blocks - Depending on the height of your spinnaker sheave and the reaching angles, moving the lead blocks forward might be beneficial. There is little data on this modification at this time.

Retrieval Patch Location - For those people with Waterat hulls, Barney Harris suggests relocating the retrieval patch to a location 9'4" (2845mm) from each clew. This results in the sheet and guy becoming snug just as the patch reaches the aft thwart when doused. The head is only an inch or two inside the bow launcher, so there is about two feet less travel in the halyard making for quicker maneuvers. This arrangement also removes the need for spinnaker clean-up cleats. The downside is that the head of the spinnaker may blow out of the launcher tube.

INSTANT LLS

Modifying your current rig for the LLS is indeed quick and easy. Ethan Bixby prescribes the following procedure for a basic modification.

1) Remove the spinnaker halyard sheave box.

2) Locate the new sheave location. Assuming your spinnaker location was legal, we recommend that you move the sheave up 30 inches. This will place it about 3 inches below the maximum.

3) You have two easy options regarding the new sheave.
a) I just cut a new hole and installed the existing sheave box at 30 inches above the old location. Use a piece of wire to fish through the halyard, and feed in through the sheave and mount the sheave.
b) You can also attach an eye strap with a suitable turning block at the same location, attached with pop rivets or short self-tapping screws. The halyard is external to the mast from the old sheave block hole up to the new turning block. Clean up the old exit hole with a fine file to prevent chafe on the halyard.

4) The halyard will need to be lengthened. Splice or whip an additional 5 feet of halyard at the downhaul end, or purchase a new halyard at about 65 feet. The length should be set to about 12 inches short of touching the ends together. 
For bag boats, contact [email protected] for the recommended halyard arrangement.

5) We recommend lowering the Spiro fitting or D-ring fitting for the spinnaker pole to a position about 24 inches above the boom band.

6) Check your dousing sock and see if it is long enough, and large enough at the back end. You do not want it to come out the back of the sock, as it then tends to get stuck. The distance from the head to the dousing patch is now about 11'2 ". You can check your boat with a tape measure down the launcher. On a Waterat, if the sock can come to the back thwart you will be fine, but minimally it needs to extend to about halfway between the main cam and the thwart.
Ethan further suggests that use of a ram pre-bender might be more important with the LLS because of increased compression and tendency to invert. Others have suggested that using more vang will help keep the upper section from assuming an undesirable bend.

TANK TALK LLS RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on many conversations we've had with the best 505 sailors in the world, Tank Talk is offering these recommendations for rigging the LLS:

1. Basic LLS Conversion - Starting with your current mast, relocate your spinnaker sheave (or mount a block) to near maximum depending on your comfort level and prevailing sailing conditions. Lower your pole fitting to 610-660mm above the black band. Be careful that your new holes won't be too close to your old ones. Raise your topping lift as prescribed. Convert a good 5 meter spinnaker to a 6 meter spinnaker. Go sailing.

2. Intermediate LLS Conversion - Same as basic, but consider going to 610mm on the pole fitting. Re-rig your foreguy to the pass through a block on your strut to help keep the pole from bouncing. If you are modifying a D and frequently sail in a lot of wind, consider rigging the Tuttle System, Trap Line Twings, or Floppy Spreaders for greater mast support. Buy a new LLS. Go sailing.

3. Advanced LLS Conversion - Start with a new mast section, and pay close attention to minimizing the number of holes you drill in it. Use the same rigging as intermediate, but consider adding an adjustable foreguy so that you can control the height of the pole more effectively. Used a fixed-length topping lift with the shock cord take-up system. Move the foreguy to the existing topping lift cleat with a shock cord take-up system. If you are rigging a stiffer mast section, like the Cumulus, Epsilon, Stratus, Antares, or M2, rig the mast without extra rigging (Ed - all disclaimers apply here). Buy a new LLS and go sailing.

Regardless of the upgrade you decide to use, make certain that your standing and running rigging can handle the added stress. Inspect your shrouds, forestay, and related tackle to ensure you won't have an unexpected failure.

• More long luff spinnaker information
  

TANK TALK - SPRING 2002