| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Spinnakers...
|
Spinnakers...
Good Question Nav...
Initially my response would be 'Yes'..... but let's face it....... I'm forced to reconsider that conclusion in so much as a moment in time might be misleading and whatever he's doing has him leading the pack. How about this one.... http://community.webshots.com/photo/...69844104bIbgHb ........my first time with a chute on Overproof. CM "Navigator" wrote in message ... | http://community.webshots.com/photo/...88888637udZpWz | | Could this spinnaker trim be improved? | | Cheers | |
Spinnakers...
Doesn't say much about the 'pack' does it?
Cheers Capt. Mooron wrote: Good Question Nav... Initially my response would be 'Yes'..... but let's face it....... I'm forced to reconsider that conclusion in so much as a moment in time might be misleading and whatever he's doing has him leading the pack. How about this one.... http://community.webshots.com/photo/...69844104bIbgHb .......my first time with a chute on Overproof. CM "Navigator" wrote in message ... | http://community.webshots.com/photo/...88888637udZpWz | | Could this spinnaker trim be improved? | | Cheers | |
Spinnakers...
Navigator wrote:
http://community.webshots.com/photo/...88888637udZpWz Could this spinnaker trim be improved? Oz, who actually knows what he's talking about, and I, discussed this some months ago. Where were you? Considering that we were ahead & pulling away in this picture, I doubt that anything you'd suggest would actually be better. DSK |
Spinnakers...
Well, I'm glad you got it up! Did you ever analyse this picture?
Cheers Capt. Mooron wrote: How about this one.... http://community.webshots.com/photo/...69844104bIbgHb .......my first time with a chute on Overproof. |
Spinnakers...
It wasn't that picture and you didn't discuss it. Oz said your trim was
bad and you (of course) said otherwise as I recall. But it's alright I know you know you are always right. Cheers DSK wrote: Navigator wrote: http://community.webshots.com/photo/...88888637udZpWz Could this spinnaker trim be improved? Oz, who actually knows what he's talking about, and I, discussed this some months ago. Where were you? Considering that we were ahead & pulling away in this picture, I doubt that anything you'd suggest would actually be better. DSK |
Spinnakers...
Navigator wrote:
Doesn't say much about the 'pack' does it? I'd give very long odds that at least half that fleet could sail rings around you. There was one past North American champ and several district champs there. Actually, it was a bit of luck that put us there, although we had to sail well enough to take it when we got it. We did win enough district races over the years that it wasn't totally a fluke. How about you, Navvie? Other than dropping out and ruining a dinghy motor, what success have you had racing? DSK |
Spinnakers...
DSK wrote: Navigator wrote: Doesn't say much about the 'pack' does it? I'd give very long odds that at least half that fleet could sail rings around you. There was one past North American champ and several district champs there. Actually, it was a bit of luck that put us there, Yes, let's put it down to luck -it may be the only real explanation. Cheers |
Spinnakers...
No, actually I never have...... would you care to have a go?
CM "Navigator" wrote in message ... | Well, I'm glad you got it up! Did you ever analyse this picture? | | Cheers | | Capt. Mooron wrote: | | | | How about this one.... | | http://community.webshots.com/photo/...69844104bIbgHb | | .......my first time with a chute on Overproof. | | |
Spinnakers...
Navigator wrote:
http://community.webshots.com/photo/...88888637udZpWz Could this spinnaker trim be improved? (Point elswhere about being ahead of the pack is duly noted...) I ain't no expert (just getting the hang of spinnakers), but it looks to me like the belly is too high - the creases suggest that the sheet and guy are pulling the bottom corners in too much. Is the pole long enough? Are the lines coming down to the rail too far forward? (They come back to the quarters on the Sonata I'm crewing on.) The leech of the jib seems to be fouling the spinnaker a little. -- Wally www.forthsailing.com www.wally.myby.co.uk |
Spinnakers...
What and openly critcise your sail trim? I mean even the main needs a
bit now did I say that???? Never! Cheers Capt. Mooron wrote: No, actually I never have...... would you care to have a go? CM "Navigator" wrote in message ... | Well, I'm glad you got it up! Did you ever analyse this picture? | | Cheers | | Capt. Mooron wrote: | | | | How about this one.... | | http://community.webshots.com/photo/...69844104bIbgHb | | .......my first time with a chute on Overproof. | | |
Spinnakers...
Yes and there's more.
Cheers Wally wrote: Navigator wrote: http://community.webshots.com/photo/...88888637udZpWz Could this spinnaker trim be improved? (Point elswhere about being ahead of the pack is duly noted...) I ain't no expert (just getting the hang of spinnakers), but it looks to me like the belly is too high - the creases suggest that the sheet and guy are pulling the bottom corners in too much. Is the pole long enough? Are the lines coming down to the rail too far forward? (They come back to the quarters on the Sonata I'm crewing on.) The leech of the jib seems to be fouling the spinnaker a little. |
Spinnakers...
Yes, and look at the foot -way too curved and uneven
Cheers OzOne wrote: On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:16:40 +1200, Navigator scribbled thusly: http://community.webshots.com/photo/...88888637udZpWz Could this spinnaker trim be improved? Cheers I queried Doug about that a while back. His answer was along the lines of "Hey we're in front so it must be OK" Hard to ignore that though it all looks a little saggy to me. Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. |
Spinnakers...
It's to cut down wind resistance!
Cheers OzOne wrote: Tee Hee, I'm a little worried about the main being cranked on :-) On Mon, 3 May 2004 23:18:42 -0300, "Capt. Mooron" scribbled thusly: No, actually I never have...... would you care to have a go? CM "Navigator" wrote in message ... | Well, I'm glad you got it up! Did you ever analyse this picture? | | Cheers | | Capt. Mooron wrote: | | | | How about this one.... | | http://community.webshots.com/photo/...69844104bIbgHb | | .......my first time with a chute on Overproof. | | Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. |
Spinnakers...
519 is better but pole should be back a bit further too. I'd say Dougs
pole is too high and too far forward. The sheet is too tight and the jib has not received appropriate attention. They've balanced the boat OK but the man standing up should be watching the spinny not playing with Doug. Cheers OzOne wrote: On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:16:40 +1200, Navigator scribbled thusly: http://community.webshots.com/photo/...88888637udZpWz Could this spinnaker trim be improved? Cheers I queried Doug about that a while back. His answer was along the lines of "Hey we're in front so it must be OK" Hard to ignore that though it all looks a little saggy to me. Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. |
Spinnakers...
See now... there's that darned "moment in time" thingy again. Since it was
my (and the crew's) first time ever putting up a chute I decided to get the main out of the way so as to allow the crew better access and a cleaner line of sight so they could hear me yell at them that they were doing it all wrong! ;-) Unfortunately they were so impressed that the spinnaker went up and started drawing without a hitch that 2 of them jumped into the dinghy and sped out to take a photo or two. The rest of us were so darned proud that we just had to have a brew in the cockpit to celebrate. Now for the trim on the chute itself...... there wasn't any. I preset both guy and sheet and hoisted the chute to the max. That's the way it set without any adjustments. Amazing Eh??!! Have no fear though... we eventually got over our sense of pride and eased the main to draw again later on...... with absolutely no increase in speed of the vessel. Go figure!! CM "Navigator" wrote in message ... | It's to cut down wind resistance! | | Cheers | | OzOne wrote: | | Tee Hee, I'm a little worried about the main being cranked on :-) | | On Mon, 3 May 2004 23:18:42 -0300, "Capt. Mooron" | scribbled thusly: | | | No, actually I never have...... would you care to have a go? | | CM | | "Navigator" wrote in message | ... | | Well, I'm glad you got it up! Did you ever analyse this picture? | | | | Cheers | | | | Capt. Mooron wrote: | | | | | | | | How about this one.... | | | | http://community.webshots.com/photo/...69844104bIbgHb | | | | .......my first time with a chute on Overproof. | | | | | | | | | | Oz1...of the 3 twins. | | I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. | |
Spinnakers...
OzOne wrote:
Hmmm, 519 looks a little straight in the middle luff. Either way, they're dreadful looking kites, creases, seam puckers,bulges and bumps everywhere. That's partly due to the sailmakers working the shape to get every possible inch of area, and partially due to the sheeting angle. I'd say that #519 has their pole too far down & too far forward. On our boat, the pole may be a bit too far back since the foot of the spinnaker is tight against the jib & forestay. Good call on the boom vang being too tight, at this point we're still dressing up from the hoist and other than easing the sheet, I haven't done anything... the backstay was probably never pulled in these conditions... but it's a bit of a job to get the centerboard up, that's probably what I am doing in this picture. Even though the middle crew/spinnaker trimmer is looking down at the moment, there is a hint of curl in the upper luff. One problem with these boats is that they are a spaghetti factory, the crew spends at least 1/3 of their time stripping out lines and clearing tangles. Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
Spinnakers...
Wally wrote:
(Point elswhere about being ahead of the pack is duly noted...) I ain't no expert (just getting the hang of spinnakers), but it looks to me like the belly is too high - the creases suggest that the sheet and guy are pulling the bottom corners in too much. Is the pole long enough? Are the lines coming down to the rail too far forward? (They come back to the quarters on the Sonata I'm crewing on.) The leech of the jib seems to be fouling the spinnaker a little. The length of the pole is limited by class rule, almost any boat would be faster (all else being equal) with a longer spinnaker pole. Also the sheet leads are determined by the boat's length & beam, yes they are at the quarters. The guy is run down to a reaching cleat just aft of the windward chainplates, that is cast off in a gybe and the new guy socked down. As you and Oz1 suggest, the jib is somewhat in the way (although I could point out that it is also more sail area, and it's pulling) and usually they are snugged down to the foredeck. But at the point when this picture was taken, the spinnaker had just been hoisted and we had other priorities. With the luff curl up high and the creases from the clew, the spinnaker is pulling quite well. I generally carry it the pole higher than most people (except in light air) and find that if you can keep the sail stabilized, it's faster. Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
Spinnakers...
Navigator wrote:
It wasn't that picture and you didn't discuss it. Oh really? Sorry to tell you, but the Google archive disagrees http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e... t%26rnum%3D27 ... Oz said your trim was bad and you (of course) said otherwise as I recall. But it's alright I know you know you are always right. No, but on most occasions I'm right when you disagree. DSK |
Spinnakers...
"Capt. Mooron" wrote 2 of them jumped into the dinghy and rowed out ahead of us to take a photo or two. |
Spinnakers...
On Tue, 4 May 2004 11:52:59 -0400, "Scott Vernon"
wrote: "Capt. Mooron" wrote 2 of them jumped into the dinghy and rowed out ahead of us to take a photo or two. ....and if you look closely enough, you can just make out the tow line..:) |
Spinnakers...
"felton" wrote in message ... On Tue, 4 May 2004 11:52:59 -0400, "Scott Vernon" wrote: "Capt. Mooron" wrote 2 of them jumped into the dinghy and rowed out ahead of us to take a photo or two. ...and if you look closely enough, you can just make out the tow line..:) Right, Navsprit. |
Spinnakers...
Nav,
Could it be improved? Do you mean for looks or for speed? The sheet does look tight, but it is forcing the air up higher, where it seems to be more effficent. Could it look prettier? Yes. Could it be faster? Don't know? It's hard to fault 1st place. The better looking Chutes are behind. Just maybe, at this time, a bit of over trim is what is needed. I don't know. Do you? I'm surprised that there are no "Star Cuts." I believe they would give the extra lift that the lead boat seems to have. OT |
Spinnakers...
Thom Stewart wrote:
I'm surprised that there are no "Star Cuts." I believe they would give the extra lift that the lead boat seems to have. Many Lightnings do use star cuts, they are flat reaching or heavy air 'chutes. For running & light air, the old fashioned cross cut is better. It can be cut with deeper shape, bigger shoulders, and it's lighter because there is less seam per unit area. Anybody out there using tell tales on spinnakers? Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
Spinnakers...
"Navigator" wrote in message ... http://community.webshots.com/photo/...88888637udZpWz Could this spinnaker trim be improved? Not much! It appears that a gust has hit the sail high up, and pushed out the top of the sail, which has resulted in the bottom half getting pinched. The boats behind seem to have better spinnaker shape, and yet they are trailing. As this is a one design race, I would assume that the photo must have been taken at an unfortunate time. There is no way, in a one design fleet, that a boat with such a badly trimmed spinnaker could be so far in the lead. Can you offer a better explanation? Regards Donal -- |
Spinnakers...
"Donal" wrote in message ... Can you offer a better explanation? There's a tug, out of the picture, that's pulling them. SV |
Spinnakers...
Could it look prettier?.
Spinnakers always look ugly on fractional rig boats. S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster" "No shirt, no skirt, full service" |
Spinnakers...
DSK wrote: Navigator wrote: It wasn't that picture and you didn't discuss it. Oh really? Sorry to tell you, but the Google archive disagrees http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e... t%26rnum%3D27 It wasn't that picture -it was another picture where you claimed to be roaring up places in the fleet. Why lie about it? Oh I forgot -you were at the back of the fleet as per usual! No, but on most occasions I'm right when you disagree. No you are always right. Cheers |
Spinnakers...
Scott Vernon wrote: "Donal" wrote in message ... Can you offer a better explanation? There's a tug, out of the picture, that's pulling them. On Doug's heartstrings! Cheers |
Spinnakers...
Are you taling about a radial cut?
Cheers DSK wrote: Thom Stewart wrote: I'm surprised that there are no "Star Cuts." I believe they would give the extra lift that the lead boat seems to have. Many Lightnings do use star cuts, they are flat reaching or heavy air 'chutes. For running & light air, the old fashioned cross cut is better. It can be cut with deeper shape, bigger shoulders, and it's lighter because there is less seam per unit area. Anybody out there using tell tales on spinnakers? Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
Spinnakers...
Lucky windshift.
Cheers Donal wrote: "Navigator" wrote in message ... http://community.webshots.com/photo/...88888637udZpWz Could this spinnaker trim be improved? Not much! It appears that a gust has hit the sail high up, and pushed out the top of the sail, which has resulted in the bottom half getting pinched. The boats behind seem to have better spinnaker shape, and yet they are trailing. As this is a one design race, I would assume that the photo must have been taken at an unfortunate time. There is no way, in a one design fleet, that a boat with such a badly trimmed spinnaker could be so far in the lead. Can you offer a better explanation? Regards Donal -- |
Spinnakers...
OzOne wrote: On Thu, 06 May 2004 09:41:18 +1200, Navigator scribbled thusly: Are you taling about a radial cut? Cheers Nope, different beast. Star cut is all radials, no crosscut section like the radial head or triradial. Star cut is a reaching and heavy air spinnaker. I'm referring to Doug's talk about cross cut spinnakers. Try to keep up Oz! Cheers |
Spinnakers...
Navigator wrote:
I'm referring to Doug's talk about cross cut spinnakers. Try to keep up Oz! Actually Oz1 just seconded pretty much the same thing I said about star cuts. Have you been studying reading comprehension under Jax again? DSK |
Spinnakers...
OzOne wrote: On Thu, 06 May 2004 10:40:09 +1200, Navigator scribbled thusly: OzOne wrote: On Thu, 06 May 2004 09:41:18 +1200, Navigator scribbled thusly: Are you taling about a radial cut? Cheers Nope, different beast. Star cut is all radials, no crosscut section like the radial head or triradial. Star cut is a reaching and heavy air spinnaker. I'm referring to Doug's talk about cross cut spinnakers. Try to keep up Oz! Cheers I'm keeping up quite well thanks. Here is what Doug said "Many Lightnings do use star cuts, they are flat reaching or heavy air 'chutes. For running & light air, the old fashioned cross cut is better. It can be cut with deeper shape, bigger shoulders, and it's lighter because there is less seam per unit area." Just to clarify, I believe that when he talks about a running spinnaker that is "old fashioned cross cut" he would be refering to a radial headed x cut as it most common. So you've never seen a cross cut spinnaker? Cheers |
Spinnakers...
OzOne wrote: On Thu, 06 May 2004 11:18:56 +1200, Navigator scribbled thusly: OzOne wrote: On Thu, 06 May 2004 10:40:09 +1200, Navigator scribbled thusly: OzOne wrote: On Thu, 06 May 2004 09:41:18 +1200, Navigator scribbled thusly: Are you taling about a radial cut? Cheers Nope, different beast. Star cut is all radials, no crosscut section like the radial head or triradial. Star cut is a reaching and heavy air spinnaker. I'm referring to Doug's talk about cross cut spinnakers. Try to keep up Oz! Cheers I'm keeping up quite well thanks. Here is what Doug said "Many Lightnings do use star cuts, they are flat reaching or heavy air 'chutes. For running & light air, the old fashioned cross cut is better. It can be cut with deeper shape, bigger shoulders, and it's lighter because there is less seam per unit area." Just to clarify, I believe that when he talks about a running spinnaker that is "old fashioned cross cut" he would be refering to a radial headed x cut as it most common. So you've never seen a cross cut spinnaker? Cheers Where did I say that? But the answer would be No, not that I recall. Well Doug raised the term cross cut and I wondered if he was confused (giving him the benifit of the doubt you see) and really talking about radial heads. Cross cut spinnakers largely disappeared years ago but check this out: http://www.schurrsails.com/fscross.htm Cheers |
Spinnakers...
OzOne wrote:
Just to clarify, I believe that when he talks about a running spinnaker that is "old fashioned cross cut" he would be refering to a radial headed x cut as it most common. On bigger spinnakers, yes. The Lightning is 300 Sq Ft, and it's cross cut all the way up. I think the Etchells is something like 475 (?) and benefits from radial panels. They put radial heads on Lightning runners for a while, back in the early 1990s or so, but decided it wasn't worth it. BTW there is an Etchells fleet in Oriental NC and some of them went to one of the big championships... now they're swanking it up with bow numbers ;) |
Spinnakers... Navvie really doesn't know
Navigator wrote:
... Cross cut spinnakers largely disappeared years ago Really? That must be why the current North and Sobstad runners on Lightnings (and a few other one designs I believe) are all cross cut. If you look at the panels on the spinnaker you've been criticizing for a week, you'd see plainly that it is cross cut. DSK |
Spinnakers...
DSK wrote: Navigator wrote: ... Cross cut spinnakers largely disappeared years ago Really? That must be why the current North and Sobstad runners on Lightnings (and a few other one designs I believe) are all cross cut. If you look at the panels on the spinnaker you've been criticizing for a week, you'd see plainly that it is cross cut. I said 'largely' and even gave a URL (read the post) to all cross cut spins Doug. So what are you trying to get at, are you saying that radial cuts are not the most common running spinnaker by far? Cheers |
Spinnakers...
Navigator wrote:
...So what are you trying to get at Can you not read plain English? DSK |
Spinnakers...
OzOne wrote: On Thu, 06 May 2004 11:47:42 +1200, Navigator scribbled thusly: Where did I say that? But the answer would be No, not that I recall. Well Doug raised the term cross cut and I wondered if he was confused (giving him the benifit of the doubt you see) and really talking about radial heads. Cross cut spinnakers largely disappeared years ago but check this out: http://www.schurrsails.com/fscross.htm Cheers Yep, I know what tey look like. Just can't recall ever seeing not using one except maybe waaaaaay back in '60/61 in Manly Juniors. They may still use x cut spinnakers which also double as handkerchiefs. Well your experience tallies with mine but that's not Doug's opinion and he's getting quite stroppy about it. Cheers |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:06 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com