Overlapping headsails and small main

[MisterBaxter]

Does anyone know of any research or figures (or even anecdotal experience) on the amount of extra drive added by the overlapping section of a big genoa? In other words, the last 40% of a 140% sale or whatever.
As I understand it, the masthead / huge Genoa rig emerged from rating rules that measured the fore triangle not the foresail area, so that the overlap was in effect 'free' in rating terms; intuitively I wouldn't expect it to add drive in proportion to its area, given that it's at the back end of the curve of the sail so it runs almost parallel to the centreline.
I suppose I'm wondering, is it possible to quantify the loss of power from using a 100% foresail on a masthead rig that could take a 140%?

 

[Chiara’s slave]

Yes. We were the unfortunates who attracted the wrath of a seagull, who did it's business into our just bought jug of Pimms....

Very kind of the bar to replace it for us!

Very sorry about our bastard gulls. I walked past you after the XOD race finished. I was on X156.

 

[RupertW]

Thanks for your reply .My solution might be a new Genoa with no overlap,set on the furler and later add a code one type sail,much of the ria sailing is reaching in the rias

This is close to what we have - a high footed (see photo) non-overlapper so we can easily see under it when fully rolled out and a cruising chute for light winded downwind. That is so much easier to handle and only leaves the gap of light wind upwind -and probably lose less than a knot then anyway as calm seas means the boat is easily driven. But lumpy seas and a light headwind mean the compromise of the engine.

 

[Buck Turgidson]

A

Does anyone know of any research or figures (or even anecdotal experience) on the amount of extra drive added by the overlapping section of a big genoa? In other words, the last 40% of a 140% sale or whatever.
As I understand it, the masthead / huge Genoa rig emerged from rating rules that measured the fore triangle not the foresail area, so that the overlap was in effect 'free' in rating terms; intuitively I wouldn't expect it to add drive in proportion to its area, given that it's at the back end of the curve of the sail so it runs almost parallel to the centreline.
I suppose I'm wondering, is it possible to quantify the loss of power from using a 100% foresail on a masthead rig that could take a 140%?

top sailmaker with CFD software could tell you. At the time it will have been trial and error testing but they all did it so it must work.
And it’s not important the angle at the tail end but the overall camber and chord length that will define the coefficient of lift. x 1/2 rho x Vsquared x area that will give total lift for one sail but then you have to factor in the other sail and their interactions which are a bit complicated

 

[KeelsonGraham]

This is close to what we have - a high footed (see photo) non-overlapper so we can easily see under it when fully rolled out and a cruising chute for light winded downwind. That is so much easier to handle and only leaves the gap of light wind upwind -and probably lose less than a knot then anyway as calm seas means the boat is easily driven. But lumpy seas and a light headwind mean the compromise of the engine.

Wow! Am I the only one NOT looking at the sail in that photo!? That’s some sea state.

 

[RupertW]

Wow! Am I the only one NOT looking at the sail in that photo!? That’s some sea state.

And if I say that photos always flatten and calm you wont be surprised that firstly it was very noisy and secondly that I was in deep admiration that my wife should keep us going with hot drinks and full meals day after day until it subesided.

But the sail plan worked well.

 

[MisterBaxter]

A

top sailmaker with CFD software could tell you. At the time it will have been trial and error testing but they all did it so it must work.

Yes - clearly the overlapping bit will add drive, but if the arrangement was borne out of racing designs it might not add that much, just enough of an advantage to be worth doing.
There are a lot of things in life where to get the best possible outcome, you need to put a whole lot more resources in than if you're happy with simply very good. If to the last 20% of foresail area at the leach only gives you 5% more drive, us non-racers might dispense with it and gain a lot of advantages in exchange.
I note that contemporary sailmakers, with access to computer modelling, are making a lot of blade jibs and very few big overlapping genoas...

 

[Daydream believer]

Not every cruising sailor is going to want to hoist different sails for different wind angles. Especially on shorter legs. Some of the posts have been centered around sailing hard on the wind. But that is not always the case & once one comes a few degrees off the larger genoa comes into its own.
I would also put it to sailors that cruising chutes are not always a good solution. At least in my case, as I sail single handed.
My one needs the foot to be flown off the deck & adjusted to get the luff curve correct. In very light, lumpy conditions the shaking of the mast head keeps collapsing it. I cannot pull the foot down tight as it curls the rounded luff. It has to be flown at an angle to the wind. I cannot run dead down wind without poling it out & that defeats the object of a cruising chute over a spinnaker. So I sail at an angle & at 15 kts of windspeed the boat soon becomes overpowered in the gusts.Unlike a spinnaker that can be held up dead down wind in much stronger winds.

The point of all the above is that if I did want to use it ( I rarely do as I sail SH) my 140% genoa is so much more useable. It can be poled out down wind. It does not overpower the boat in 15kts. It works in all wind angles. It works on its own, without the mainsail. It can be partly furled.

I have been told by owners of the same boat as me that a code zero on a furling torque line off a bowsprit transforms the boat. But how many want to go down that course of expense. Particularly if they do not already have facility for said bowsprit.

I do not use my genoa as I have a self tacking jib. It is almost impossible to change sails single handed. I have a big main. I can fly the ST in winds up to F8 without furling & it suits me. But if I always sailed with a crew I am pretty certain I would use the genoa more often. Blade sails will help windward sailing, but one does not sail to windward all the time.

 

[flaming]

You would hate my boat. You can only see speed at the driver for selecting a boat because you race.
Cruising isnt like that. You would hate it

Actually, you're very wrong here. I grew up cruising, I've lived aboard for months at a time. It's really only in the last decade or so, with the decline in health of my dad that forced the sale of his boat that the amount of cruising I've done has been overtaken by the amount of racing. I know what I want in a cruiser not because I race, but because I both have been one and will be one again. For the moment my limited cruising is being done in a race boat, because that's what I have.... It won't always be that way though.

I've sailed boats like yours, I haven't hated it at all. It's a boat, driven by sails. It beats being almost anywhere else. Would I buy one? No, probably not, even if going long distance. But I recognise the appeal and the value that you and others place in them for your use.

The point I think you're missing is 2-fold. Firstly that what you view as preferable in a bluewater cruiser is, in my view, not as ideal for a coastal cruiser. The reality for coastal cruising is that deadlines have to be kept, and that very often that means either making progress to windward, or downwind in not much wind. It also means wanting to sail in the brief windows of time when your land life allows you to. And too often in this country that means lovely weather but no wind, or rather too much wind on the nose. Which is a very big part of why I would not recommend a boat with a big overlapper as a coastal cruiser. When you have a sail that is designed to be all things, a light winds drifter and a deep rolled heavy airs sail it's necessarily badly compromised in all areas. Because you need it to do duty in 30kts it's far too heavy when the wind drops below about 7-8 knots, especially when not hard on the wind, and when you roll it up the shape is awful.
A minimal overlapper, say 105% or so is a much, much better sail for cruising. Especially when paired with a code sail on a furler for long light wind reaches. Gives away very little upwind in lighter airs, is fine in a 15+ reach, and fine polled out downwind in 15+ too. Lighter than that is kite flying time.
Again, I know this not because of some racing theory but because I've done a lot of coastal cruising miles with exactly that setup.

And the second point I think you're missing is that the sort of boat you really like, the big heavy bluewater cruiser.... They're just not being made any more. Only a few yards even offer that sort of boat now, and they are enormously expensive. Right now there is a decent supply of second hand boats, but the supply at the top of the food chain of that sort of boat is really drying up. If I decided to sell up and sail in 20 years when the kids are at uni.... Those Trintellas, Westerlys, old school HRs etc... They'll be 50+ years old. I don't see much being built now that would be your sort of boat that I could buy in 20 years...

 

[flaming]

Does anyone know of any research or figures (or even anecdotal experience) on the amount of extra drive added by the overlapping section of a big genoa? In other words, the last 40% of a 140% sale or whatever.
As I understand it, the masthead / huge Genoa rig emerged from rating rules that measured the fore triangle not the foresail area, so that the overlap was in effect 'free' in rating terms; intuitively I wouldn't expect it to add drive in proportion to its area, given that it's at the back end of the curve of the sail so it runs almost parallel to the centreline.
I suppose I'm wondering, is it possible to quantify the loss of power from using a 100% foresail on a masthead rig that could take a 140%?

On the Elan we went from circa 130% overlappers to 105% blade, but crucially we also added inhaulers.

In the very light, there was a noticeable loss. But to be honest here I'm talking 5-6 knots or less. Conditions when very few cruisers are trying to sail. In about 8 knots the smaller jib was only very slightly slower. I'm talking 5.8 knots target speed upwind not 6. By 12 knots there was no noticeable speed loss,

 

[Tranona]

I have been told by owners of the same boat as me that a code zero on a furling torque line off a bowsprit transforms the boat. But how many want to go down that course of expense. Particularly if they do not already have facility for said bowsprit.

Why does that become an issue in this situation when only a couple of weeks ago you were telling me that cost should not be an issue when I was explaining why I did not buy a battened furling mainsail.

In fact for exactly the same reasons your fellow owners give. I bought a cruising chute on a torque rope that cost well over £3k - far more than the additional cost of battens in the mainsail (even if they would actually have fitted!).

Why? the answer is simple the battens offered no material advantage and the chute did exactly what it was designed to do. Fond memories of fast offwind passages single handed with the chute up, confident in my ability to handle it and particularly deploy and retrieve it from the cockpit with the autopilot engaged so that I could pull the furling line and control the sheet. Money well spent.

 

[Wansworth]

As Op winds in theSpanish rias go from zilch in the mornings to a good 4/5 in the afternoons a nicely cut furling 105% Genoa will be quite alright inthe summer.the autumn and winter winds unless a gale are variable and steady,in many ways a nicer time to sail without the heat from the sun.

 

[geem]

Actually, you're very wrong here. I grew up cruising, I've lived aboard for months at a time. It's really only in the last decade or so, with the decline in health of my dad that forced the sale of his boat that the amount of cruising I've done has been overtaken by the amount of racing. I know what I want in a cruiser not because I race, but because I both have been one and will be one again. For the moment my limited cruising is being done in a race boat, because that's what I have.... It won't always be that way though.

I've sailed boats like yours, I haven't hated it at all. It's a boat, driven by sails. It beats being almost anywhere else. Would I buy one? No, probably not, even if going long distance. But I recognise the appeal and the value that you and others place in them for your use.

The point I think you're missing is 2-fold. Firstly that what you view as preferable in a bluewater cruiser is, in my view, not as ideal for a coastal cruiser. The reality for coastal cruising is that deadlines have to be kept, and that very often that means either making progress to windward, or downwind in not much wind. It also means wanting to sail in the brief windows of time when your land life allows you to. And too often in this country that means lovely weather but no wind, or rather too much wind on the nose. Which is a very big part of why I would not recommend a boat with a big overlapper as a coastal cruiser. When you have a sail that is designed to be all things, a light winds drifter and a deep rolled heavy airs sail it's necessarily badly compromised in all areas. Because you need it to do duty in 30kts it's far too heavy when the wind drops below about 7-8 knots, especially when not hard on the wind, and when you roll it up the shape is awful.
A minimal overlapper, say 105% or so is a much, much better sail for cruising. Especially when paired with a code sail on a furler for long light wind reaches. Gives away very little upwind in lighter airs, is fine in a 15+ reach, and fine polled out downwind in 15+ too. Lighter than that is kite flying time.
Again, I know this not because of some racing theory but because I've done a lot of coastal cruising miles with exactly that setup.

And the second point I think you're missing is that the sort of boat you really like, the big heavy bluewater cruiser.... They're just not being made any more. Only a few yards even offer that sort of boat now, and they are enormously expensive. Right now there is a decent supply of second hand boats, but the supply at the top of the food chain of that sort of boat is really drying up. If I decided to sell up and sail in 20 years when the kids are at uni.... Those Trintellas, Westerlys, old school HRs etc... They'll be 50+ years old. I don't see much being built now that would be your sort of boat that I could buy in 20 years...

I don't disagree with any of that. If I was coastal cruising we wouldn't have a bluewater go anywhere cruising boat. The deep draft does us no favours back in out home waters either.
Interestingly, I suspect that there will be a good selection of 50 year old HRs, Trintellas, etc still in fantastic condition in 20 years time. We watched a very expensive refit of a HR49 in Curacao a few years ago. Also friends just done a major refit on their Trintella 45 in New Zealand. There are people like us that see the value in such boats for the lifestyle we have adopted and will keep our 40 year old boats in far better condition than many 20 year old AWB.
The OCC for sale page have such boats that come on the market from time to time.
You also have to remember that boats like mine were always enormously expensive in 1980.

 

[Daydream believer]

Why does that become an issue in this situation when only a couple of weeks ago you were telling me that cost should not be an issue when I was explaining why I did not buy a battened furling mainsail.

In fact for exactly the same reasons your fellow owners give. I bought a cruising chute on a torque rope that cost well over £3k - far more than the additional cost of battens in the mainsail (even if they would actually have fitted!).

Why? the answer is simple the battens offered no material advantage and the chute did exactly what it was designed to do. Fond memories of fast offwind passages single handed with the chute up, confident in my ability to handle it and particularly deploy and retrieve it from the cockpit with the autopilot engaged so that I could pull the furling line and control the sheet. Money well spent.

There is a difference between one of the main driving forces for the boat, ie the mainsail & an ancilliary sail, ie a code zero. For a mainsail one might want the best one can get, to get best performance. At the time we were discussing in mast sails. I was suggesting that by having vertical battens it allowed a claimed extra 20% to the sail area. It helped form a roach on an otherwise shapeless leech, thus making it a more efficient sail. You clearly did not agree. That is your perogative.I am not changing my view that additional area & a better shaped leech makes for a more powerful mainsail.
You just seem intent on arguing the opposite. Most sailmakers & competitive sailors would suggest that you are wrong. Possibly you are not a good enough sailor to make use of the extra performance. That is not unusual & might explain why you cannot accept the point.
But I am not bothered either way. You have your opinion. I have mine. Nothing wrong in that.

In this post I am making the point that many might not want to go down the course of installing a bowsprit & furling code zero for a more limited use, when it actually costs a lot amount of money. Some Versions of the Hanse 31 series have a short bowsprit pre installed. My friend in Belgium has one, so fitted a code zero. He uses it regularly in week evening racing at the RNSYC with greatly improved success. For me to fit a bowsprit it would involve some considerable surgery.(to the boat that is)

 

[geem]

There is a difference between one of the main driving forces for the boat, ie the mainsail & an ancilliary sail, ie a code zero. For a mainsail one might want the best one can get, to get best performance. At the time we were discussing in mast sails. I was suggesting that by having vertical battens it allowed a claimed extra 20% to the sail area. It helped form a roach on an otherwise shapeless leech, thus making it a more efficient sail. You clearly did not agree. That is your perogative.I am not changing my view that additional area & a better shaped leech makes for a more powerful mainsail.
You just seem intent on arguing the opposite. Most sailmakers & competitive sailors would suggest that you are wrong. Possibly you are not a good enough sailor to make use of the extra performance. That is not unusual & might explain why you cannot accept the point.
But I am not bothered either way. You have your opinion. I have mine. Nothing wrong in that.

In this post I am making the point that many might not want to go down the course of installing a bowsprit & furling code zero for a more limited use, when it actually costs a lot amount of money. Some Versions of the Hanse 31 series have a short bowsprit pre installed. My friend in Belgium has one, so fitted a code zero. He uses it regularly in week evening racing at the RNSYC with greatly improved success. For me to fit a bowsprit it would involve some considerable surgery.(to the boat that is)

With these posts everybody looks at the issue from their perspective and struggles to understand how somebody with a completely different set of circumstances can have a totally different view. What is right for a Hanse 31 is likely to be wrong for a Golden Hinde. Why is it so hard to see?

 

[Tranona]

There is a difference between one of the main driving forces for the boat, ie the mainsail & an ancilliary sail, ie a code zero. For a mainsail one might want the best one can get, to get best performance. At the time we were discussing in mast sails. I was suggesting that by having vertical battens it allowed a claimed extra 20% to the sail area. It helped form a roach on an otherwise shapeless leech, thus making it a more efficient sail. You clearly did not agree.

You did not read all of my reasons (or maybe ignored them!). For a start I said many times that none of the sailmakers including the one who makes the original sails for Bavaria recommended battens for the simple reason that the mast section did not have sufficient space inside to furl it properly. The difference in area with the battened sail using the available technology was in the order of 10% - that is approx 1.3sqm rather than the claimed 205 of the new Elvestrom sail you linked to. Even if it had been available it would not have fitted my boat. As it was Kemps and I spent a lot of time considering how to improve the sail, both by a small amount of additional area and crucially creating a more stable leech using Vectran and Kevlar tape reinforcement. It worked well and led to a significant improvement in performance of the boat.

Please give me some credit for both understanding what is involved and and making an informed choice. Money was never a problem - I bought the best that was available for my boat. If I had an HR 34 I would be faced with an entirely different set of choices and would again try to make the decision that maximised the value to me. My comment about buying the spinnaker was just to illustrate that I am quite prepared to spend money if it buys me value. Just nonsense to compare the expenditure on an offwind sail with a mainsail. They are different and choice criteria are different

 

[Tranona]

With these posts everybody looks at the issue from their perspective and struggles to understand how somebody with a completely different set of circumstances can have a totally different view. What is right for a Hanse 31 is likely to be wrong for a Golden Hinde. Why is it so hard to see?

Actually it was for my Bavaria which is not dissimilar to the Hanse in the benefit that can be derived from an offwind sail on a torque rope.

As it happens I am spending as much on the new sail plan for the GH as on the mainsail and chute for the Bavaria. However on completely different things. Additional furler for 2 headsail rig, new working jib for inner stay and recut genoa for outer. Tides Marine track and new mainsail. Plus all the hardware to take the lines back to the cockpit. Once again all designed in conjunction with Kemps to achieve the best with the boat I have.

 

[flaming]

I don't disagree with any of that. If I was coastal cruising we wouldn't have a bluewater go anywhere cruising boat. The deep draft does us no favours back in out home waters either.
Interestingly, I suspect that there will be a good selection of 50 year old HRs, Trintellas, etc still in fantastic condition in 20 years time. We watched a very expensive refit of a HR49 in Curacao a few years ago. Also friends just done a major refit on their Trintella 45 in New Zealand. There are people like us that see the value in such boats for the lifestyle we have adopted and will keep our 40 year old boats in far better condition than many 20 year old AWB.
The OCC for sale page have such boats that come on the market from time to time.
You also have to remember that boats like mine were always enormously expensive in 1980.

I just think there will come a point where the logic of spending big money on a refit of a 50 year old boat just won't look as attractive as refitting an HR49 does now. And the number of 30 year old boats of the same type is going to be a lot lower, as they just aren't getting made now and haven't really been for some time.

Especially if in the intervening 20 years more and more stories of good cruising happening in more modern boats come out. Then the cruisers of 20 years time will be looking at either an expensive refit on a 50 year old boat, or a 10 year old JPK/Pogo etc needing little work for similar cash, and may well make a different decision from today.

It's a rare sailor for whom budget isn't a serious part of the decision process, and at some point the overall value proposition of the older boats is going to slip.

 

[Tranona]

Agree with that. The refitting of quality 30 year old boats has been common over the last few years, partly because rising prices of good newer boats has created a gap. However, refit cost have rocketed recently (as I have just discovered) and suspect that unless they are carried out in low labour cost countries it will become uneconomic. Also for every one of those boats being refitted there are dozens that are not. Of those many will be languishing unused because owners don't have the funds to keep them going.

 

[Daydream believer]

What is right for a Hanse 31 is likely to be wrong for a Golden Hinde. Why is it so hard to see?

Did anybody suggest that it was?