From: Rob
Napier
Sent: January 24, 2002
To: C. Scott Law
Cc: 505World
Subject: Re: 505world: Larger Spinnaker
Hi Scott,
Most of it has been said by others, but here is what I put in the UK circular in
September.
The distance in (5) is open to debate. I put mine at 1300mm initially (4ft 3inches), but
it seemed to be too far back in light weather. I guess somewhere between 4ft 3inches and
5ft 3inches (1600mm) is ideal. It will depend on the width of the spinnaker and the height
you put the halyard.
- Rob
New Spinnaker - Availability and Conversion
Pinnell & Bax, and doubtless other sailmakers, are offering the new
6m luff spinnaker, which becomes legal in the class on 1st October. P&B also offer to
lengthen and re-cut existing 5m spinnakers as a cheap interim alternative.
For a conversion:
(1) Remove the spinnaker halyard sheave box.
(2) Attach a mast tang with a suitable turning block maximum 850mm higher up the mast,
attached with pop rivets (or self-tappers). P&B recommend a position 750mm higher,
rather than at the maximum.
(3) Pass the halyard through the new turning block. Thus the halyard is external to the
mast from the old sheave block hole up to the new turning block. Splice or whip an
additional 1.3m of halyard at the downhaul end (or purchase a new halyard!).
(4) P&B recommend lowering the D-ring mast fitting for the spi pole (or the Spiro) by
250mm.
(5) Move the spinnaker lead blocks on the gunwale forward to 1600mm from transom.
Ian Pinnell comments:
-
Medium & M/Large spinnakers can be modified to suit the new rules by
adding a new panel. However this is not ideal because making the spinnaker longer, more
shaping is required and in doing so the spinnaker will end up narrower (this would still
be good for club racing and practising).
-
Lowering the spinnaker pole attachment point reduces inversion and
maintains a flat mainsail profile ideal for fast reaches (less drag). Now the spinnaker
clews are lower, the spinnaker pole downhaul is less effective so you may find you need to
move your twinning lines further forward especially in waves.
From:
Tony Duncan
Sent: January 23, 2002
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: 505world: Larger Spinnaker
Hi Scott
Welcome to the class - you will have buckets of fun in a five-0.
I crew on a 505 in Sydney. What Jim (my skipper) did on was position a new exit block in
the mast at max height. A standard turning block was then lashed to the old exit block,
giving the flexibility to use either the new large kite or our smaller kite, simply by
flipping the boat over and threading the spinnaker halyard through the turning block
lashed onto the original exit block before we tie the halyard off on the head of the kite.
No changes to sheeting points, spinnaker poles or anything else. Did have to replace the
halyard to make it slightly longer, but the cost of some new rope is relatively minor in
the whole scheme of things. The pole still comes back exactly where it was before and
everything works fine - take it from someone who spends all their time crewing.
on the subject of new kites....
I have been blown away by the changes and could never look back. I went from undecided
(but willing to have a go) to a convert in a few short months. The boat I sail on is 12
years old (Kyrwood hull), mast is 4 years old and have not had to refit the boat or
anything like that for the large kites. We recently sailed in the Australian nationals
that Mike Quirk mentioned and I concur with his comments about no broken gear, etc. There
are plenty of old boats in our fleet and they are holding up fine. We have two retriever
patches on our kite, so it does not come back so far in the boat. It still comes over the
bulkhead that Dave mentioned (I have not seen a Bellenger, but assume this is the vertical
surface at the rear of the foredeck - just behind the mast gate, running to the chain
plates). Some boats in Oz have a sock that guides the kite over the bulkhead which seems
to work well. Most of the boats here have a cut-out in the bulkhead for the kite (built
into the boats from new, not cut-out just for large kites). It is fair to say that
sometimes the kite is not as easy to get into the chute as the old ones, but once it gets
wet, no problem (e.g. on the way out to the start of the race). It has not been a problem
for us during the race. Some boats in our fleet have been using large kites for close to
12 months, with no broken mast attributable to the new kites. There was a 80+ knot gale
during a regatta where some masts were broken, but there weren't too many kites up - small
or large does not matter in that sort of breeze!!!!!
The extra power you now have for chasing waves downwind is awesome. Because of the halyard
arrangement mentioned above, we measured in one large kite and one "original"
small kite for the recent national titles - just in case the wind really honked. But I
seriously doubt we will use the little kite again. Give it a go, you will be (pleasantly)
surprised by the extra grunt your boat has.
One the subject of sails, Jim had an extra panel put in an old kite first, until we got
our crew work, etc sorted out, then bought a new large kite. There are lots of
experimental big kites here in Oz, so I suspect the same for the USA. It can be a cheap
way to take the opportunity to sort out the non-equipment side of things (like
crew-work!!), let the designs of large kites settle down and then take advantage of the
developments.
Perhaps we will see you in Perth? Good luck with getting a new fleet together in Oklahoma
City.
Cheers
Tony (crew) AUS8273
From: Mark Angliss [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: January 23, 2002
To: C. Scott Law; 505world
Subject: Re: 505world: Larger Spinnaker
Scott,
Welcome to the 505 class. For those who are not aware, Scott is a "principal" in
establishing a new 505 fleet in Oklahoma City, USA.
For your question, I believe that you have seen the contraversy that surrounds the B.S.
world wide. It is adopted, approved .... yet experimental. Much of the fun with this class
is to play with new ideas.
I bought a "blank" Proctor D last year & mindfully wrestled where to make
the correct holes. The new spin halyard height is well into the tapered portion. (a bit
scary) I also considered that in Colorado it either sucks or blows. This poses the
situation of flying a chicken or the B.S. Here's what I did:
- The spin halyard mount is at the new height 85 CM above the old.
- I placed a small thru-mast sheave at the old location.
- At the old location, I have a "flying sheave" attached to 1/8" Spectra
that the spin halyard threads through. It is on a simple in-mast shock cord system that
allows the halyard to hoist to the maximum height or be restricted to the "old"
position.
- I kept the spin pole ring mount "original" & added another ring 22 CM
lower as an experimental pole position for the B.S.
(I have a trolly system, not the Spiro. I like it!)
When it thaws out in the spring, I'll see how it works.
Welcome to the wonderful world of 505's where the class rules allow us to experiment,
share ideas & continue to make this a great class.
....... Mark USA3827, USA5859
From: Michael Quirk
Sent: 23
January 23, 2002
To: 505world
Subject: RE: 505world: Larger Spinnaker
I'm sorry. I can't help myself. I told myself I would no longer take the
bait but there is a need to keep everything balanced so here are some
thoughts to balance those of Dave Eberhardt.
Like everyone I have opinions on the long luff
spinnaker but following are
facts not opinions:
Here in Australia we just completed our National Championships in windy
conditions (15 to 25 knots generally)and very challenging sea conditions.
There were no broken masts.
No one appeared to have any difficulty with the
spinnakers. There were almost
no retirements.
No one had difficulty getting their kites into the shutes. Many of us just
pulled it back over the top of the bulkhead and left it swimming around in
the boat.
Most of us did not even bother changing anything on the mast except the
spinnaker haliard exit point. Poles were left exactly as they have always
been and, as far as I know, no one changed sheet attachement positions on
the hulls.
All the spinnaker poles when stowed were level with the goose neck.
A few people had double spreaders, haliard exit points lower than maximum
and poles attached to the mast lower than in the past but the fastest boats
had none of these things.
Everyone seemed to enjoy the sailing.
Some of us will experiment and change things because that is just the way we
are. The rest of us do not need to stress out about anything. Just move the
haliard exit block and give it a go.
(I did not even replace the haliard. I just started rigging the retrieval on
the inside of the kite and went to a single patch. As far as getting a
spinnaker to use there are so many of the long luff kites around now that
unless you want to you should be able to borrow one or buy one for next to
nothing.)
Mike Quirk
aus 8280
From: Dave & Sheryl Eberhardt
Sent: January 23, 2002
To: C. Scott Law; 505world
Subject: RE: 505world: Larger Spinnaker
Dear Scott: Speaking as the owner of Ballenger #6570, one of the strongest reasons for my
well-known opposition to the BS sail was the fact that many older boats (including older
Ballengers and nearly all older Parkers) will have great difficulty accommodating the
sail. That was confirmed by our experiments with a couple of BS sails on #6570. We also
found that except in the narrow range of conditions for which the new sail is intended, a
properly-designed maximum-size 5-meter sail is nearly as effective.
Your first obstacle will be the position and design of the Ballenger's aft thwart. The
launcher patch of a maximum-size "real" 505 spinnaker (5-meter luffs) reaches
all the way to that thwart, so many new 6-meter spinnakers won't pull all the way into the
launcher unless you pull them over the top of the thwart or cut a hole in it (and it's a
structural element, with control lines mounted on and above it on most older Ballengers.)
You can, of course, just leave a foot or so of sail hanging out of the launcher. If you
do, make sure you have a cleat on the douse line to keep the sail from being washed out of
the launcher. That cleat will have to be aft on the center spine, or perhaps at the
transom facing forward so you can release it for hoisting. Fortunately, most Ballengers
have a large enough launcher-tube diameter to avoid the frustration of the small-tubed
Parker owners.
You're not allowed to increase the pole length beyond 99 inches, and probably will not
want to decrease it. However, the scuttlebutt seems to be that you'll want to lower the
entire pole, including the mast fitting. That will, of course, destroy the pole-lift
geometry. The outer end will no longer swing neatly to the gooseneck location, since
there's no room below the headstay to move the lift any higher. Also, the angle of the
downhaul becomes so steep that downhaul forces will be extremely high unless the mast ram
is moved to a deck-level slide to leave room for proper triangulation of the pole downhaul
(or, of course, one could use a circular track on the foredeck!) The pole downhaul could
be rigged with a very high mechanical advantage, but that still would produce very high
compression loads in the pole and make pole breakage and adverse mast bending much more
likely. You may want to get a stiffer, larger-diameter pole. Changing the ram location, of
course, would alter mast-bend adjustment response and might require reshaping of the
mainsail luff or redesign of the sail.
I have also seen several claims that the new BS sail will require moving the spinnaker
sheeting points farther forward. That's easy to do (only a couple of new lead blocks) but
the new location (once it's determined by experiment) is sure to be unsuitable for
existing spinnakers.
Moving the halliard up, of course, is NOT the simple thing the BS advocates claimed; the
normal procedure for a fair lead without danger of chafing the halliard would be to
install another sheave box and a longer halliard (existing ones won't reach.) Leave the
old sheave box in place, since that will decrease somewhat the weakening of the mast. If
you run the halliard out the old hole, you should use an upward-facing exit plate; if
possible, drill it to match the holes in the old sheave box (it may help strengthen the
mast there.) If you leave the hole open, cracking and breakage at the corners of the hole
is almost certain in time. Wait a while before committing, since the optimum height is
still being determined by experiment. Of course, the new halliard and pole positions also
will be very wrong for your existing spinnakers. It's a one-way transition; convert the
old sails or toss 'em.
We await the likely rash of broken or mis-bending masts in heavy air, which may well
compel us to redesign the entire standing rigging. It seems possible that the existing
Proctor D masts, nearly universal for decades, may need to be replaced with a
yet-to-be-designed new section (and sails and rigging redesigned for it.)
Sadly, nearly all of the problems we predicted (and which were scoffed at) seem to be
coming true already. The best solution, if your boat is a classic, might be to stay with
the classic 505 spinnaker and hope for all classic 505's to retain it as well. (Changing
the sailplan is a betrayal of the very intent and definition of a classic 505.)
The 505 in all its dimensions was designed around the 5-meter-luff spinnaker. Cramming a
6-meter sail onto it, especially on an older boat, requires so many adaptations and
compromises that selling the older boat and buying a newer one (like those owned by the
selfish, short-sighted folks who rammed through the change) might cost less in the long
run (though you'd still need to buy a new spinnaker and likely a new mast.) The entire
issue is a classic "fallacy of composition," a logical fallacy usually
illustrated by considering a person watching a parade while standing on a chair to see
better. It works for a few, but when everyone has a chair, nobody sees better. The only
gain is to the chair-sellers, everyone is burdened by having to buy and carry a heavy
chair, and the worst losers are those who can't afford one.
Good luck...
--Dave Eberhardt, USA 6570 etc.
From: Thomas Hurwitch
Sent: January 22, 2002
To: Ali Meller
Cc: 505world
Subject: Re: 505world: Larger Spinnaker
Scott & All,
We have had a number of discussions about the merits of the height of the new
spinnaker halyard sheave and the pole launcher/bail fitting. What came out of
months of talks was the realization that, at least in our minds, the D is
going to be too soft, regardless of the new halyard height. We developed a
fitting which will prevent us from cutting any holes in our D's and which will
be slightly adjustable so we can 'play' with halyard height.
We think it also
may act to reinforce the tip of the mast-preventing some power loss in a
puff-allowing us bigger sailors to accelerate!
As an alternative, we just ordered a pile of Superspar M2's because a number
of articles have recently been published (including large spinnaker trials)
which emphasize the greater stiffness/strength of the section. We plan to
experiment with M2's this spring and report back to the American section with
our results. We're expecting the spars in early March.
As Ali said, this is a period of experimentation. Probably nobody has gotten
it right yet-and as evidenced by the double spreader rigs in Australia there
will be a lot more experimentation before things start to get settled.
Best of luck building a fleet out there in Oklahoma-let us know if there's
anything we can do to help.
Tom Hurwitch
WitchCraft Boats, Inc.
From: Ali
Meller
Sent: January 22, 2002
To: 505world
Subject: Re: 505world: Larger Spinnaker
Scott,
I don't think the fact that your boat is an "old Ballenger" changes anything at
all with the long luff spinnaker setup. Everyone, regardless of which builder built there
boat, and when, is dealing with the same issues.
My impression is that a lot of people are still experimenting with the best way to setup
the boat for the long luff spinnaker. We'll know who "won" the first round of
this development cycle, after we race the worlds in Perth in December. I don't expect all
development to cease at that point, either.
So far it is my understanding that both Pinnell & Bax in England and North Sails Gulf
Coast, are recommending NOT going quite to the new maximum spinnaker halyard height.
Some of the Australians were trying upper spreaders at the recent Australian National
Championship. Others were using the Proctor Cumulus section mast.
What I have done is take the spinnaker halyard sheave out of the mast, file the opening
such that a line can run out of the mast through it without wearing, and run the spinnaker
halyard out of the mast through the slot, and up to a block on an eye strap near the new
maximum height. The eyestrap is attached to the mast with bolts into tapped holes in the
mast. I have drilled and tapped several sets of holes, so I can try different heights.
I am also going to lower the spinnaker pole fitting on the mast, but have not yet done so.
How much I choose to lower it depends in part on what halyard height I decide to go with.
Certainly the outboard end of the spinnaker pole is carried lower than it used to be.
So far this on my Proctor D mast. I also have a Superspar M2, which I believe is stiffer
in the tip, that I want to try.
Since the outboard end of the pole is lower, the twings can be a little shorter. My
spinnaker sheet leads have always been more forward than most US 505s (not sure what
everyone else is doing).. they are on the rail, just forward of where the front end of the
tiller crosses the rail when I push the tiller over (and I use the full length Waterat
tiller) I do not know if I will go further forward from there.
The only rules the membership voted to change were the maximum spinnaker halyard height,
the spinnaker luff length and the half height measurement. Spinnaker pole length has not
changed.
I believe the next issue of Tank Talk (The 505 American Section newsletter/magazine) may
have an article with ideas on rigging for the higher spinnaker halyard and long luff
spinnaker.
Regards,
Alexander Meller
505s 8263, 7200, 8776, 7080
I am in the process of re-rigging an older Ballenger. Does the new
Larger spinnaker require any change to the pole length?, spinn turning blocks placement
aft?, or anything else that I might be over looking?
Thanks in advance,
C. Scott Law
