After a couple of season of sailing my masthead rig Endeavour 32 using mostly the 130% roller genoa, I've been astounded to find out how much better it goes to windward with the small working jib. In winds strong enough to need some rolls on the genoa and a reef in the main, there is nearly a knot of difference in speed due to the cleaner leading edge and better shape. In lighter winds, the boat doesn't go much faster but feels better and steers more easily.

The downside is losing the increase in speed when the sheets are eased. I miss that feeling of rocketing away on a reach. Instead, the boat just maintains about the same speed as it was going to windward.

I'm going to sail a lot more with the working jib and am having a leach doubling sewn onto it this winter so I can leave it up more often without suffering sun damage. A cruising spinnaker was low on my list because I was pretty happy with the performance under the genoa for cruising and didn't think I wanted to deal with getting a downwind sail out of the bag and up. Now that I've seen how well the working jib is for windward work, I'm re-thinking.

I end up doing a lot of beating to windward. If I carry the genoa as my primary headsail, I'm now going to want to switch to the working jib for any long windward legs if there is any real breeze. That's an involved operation. Carrying the working jib as the primary headsail and getting an asymetrical spinnaker out for long reaching and downwind legs might be more fun and less work.

--
Roger Long

Roger Long wrote:
After a couple of season of sailing my masthead rig Endeavour 32 using
mostly the 130% roller genoa, I've been astounded to find out how much
better it goes to windward with the small working jib. In winds strong
enough to need some rolls on the genoa and a reef in the main, there is
nearly a knot of difference in speed due to the cleaner leading edge and
better shape. In lighter winds, the boat doesn't go much faster but
feels better and steers more easily.

The downside is losing the increase in speed when the sheets are eased.
I miss that feeling of rocketing away on a reach. Instead, the boat just
maintains about the same speed as it was going to windward.

I'm going to sail a lot more with the working jib and am having a leach
doubling sewn onto it this winter so I can leave it up more often
without suffering sun damage. A cruising spinnaker was low on my list
because I was pretty happy with the performance under the genoa for
cruising and didn't think I wanted to deal with getting a downwind sail
out of the bag and up. Now that I've seen how well the working jib is
for windward work, I'm re-thinking.

I end up doing a lot of beating to windward. If I carry the genoa as my
primary headsail, I'm now going to want to switch to the working jib for
any long windward legs if there is any real breeze. That's an involved
operation. Carrying the working jib as the primary headsail and getting
an asymetrical spinnaker out for long reaching and downwind legs might
be more fun and less work.

--
Roger Long

What brand of furler and is your sail set up with the luff foam or rope?
Thanks
Gordon

It's a 1980 vintage Harken furler which works great. The sail has the foam in the leading edge and the shape is pretty good. If the boat is a bit over pressed and I roll up about a foot and a half of sail, I'll see the speed go up. Shape degrades as the sail is furled further but it still looks like a sail when half rolled up. I think the big roll at the leading edge is more of a detriment than the shape change. Still, it's not as good a shape as the working jib when rolled to the same size.

The main flattens very nicely with the first reef. Two reefs and working jib in 25 - 30 knot winds and she is just a joy going to windward. For a none too stiff and wide sheeting base boat with a shoal keel, she makes surprising progress.


-- Roger Long

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 16:01:13 +0000, Roger Long wrote:

After a couple of season of sailing my masthead rig Endeavour 32 using
mostly the 130% roller genoa, I've been astounded to find out how much
better it goes to windward with the small working jib. In winds strong
enough to need some rolls on the genoa and a reef in the main, there is
nearly a knot of difference in speed due to the cleaner leading edge and
better shape. In lighter winds, the boat doesn't go much faster but
feels better and steers more easily.

The downside is losing the increase in speed when the sheets are eased.
I miss that feeling of rocketing away on a reach. Instead, the boat just
maintains about the same speed as it was going to windward.

I'm going to sail a lot more with the working jib and am having a leach
doubling sewn onto it this winter so I can leave it up more often
without suffering sun damage. A cruising spinnaker was low on my list
because I was pretty happy with the performance under the genoa for
cruising and didn't think I wanted to deal with getting a downwind sail
out of the bag and up. Now that I've seen how well the working jib is
for windward work, I'm re-thinking.

I end up doing a lot of beating to windward. If I carry the genoa as my
primary headsail, I'm now going to want to switch to the working jib for
any long windward legs if there is any real breeze. That's an involved
operation. Carrying the working jib as the primary headsail and getting
an asymetrical spinnaker out for long reaching and downwind legs might
be more fun and less work.

Interesting. This shows how shape matters, and sail area isn't everything.

With the working jib, are your leads closer to centerline (in degrees),
than with the genoa? This could make a big difference in your pointing
ability and speed. Also, is your working jib simply newer, or otherwise
better than your genoa?

Cruising spinnakers are great, but definitely more work than jibs.
Screachers on roller furlers (detachable) are almost as easy as a jibs,
but don't go deep downwind as well as spinnakers. However if you're happy
with a genoa as a downwind sail, a screacher may be a good compromise.

Also, sorry to be a pain, but your last two wonderful messages were
almost unreadable with a text-only newsreader. There were no line breaks,
so I had to scroll horizontally. Outlook Express is famous for such
problems. I recommend turning HTML off and posting text-only, plus maybe
using an add-on like OE-Quotefix. Or changing newsreaders.

Matt O.

"Matt O'Toole" wrote

Also, sorry to be a pain, but your last two wonderful messages were
almost unreadable with a text-only newsreader. There were no line breaks,
so I had to scroll horizontally. Outlook Express is famous for such
problems. I recommend turning HTML off and posting text-only, plus maybe
using an add-on like OE-Quotefix. Or changing newsreaders.



Sorry, I didn't realize, and wonder why, anyone would still be using a plain
text only reader. Seems like those who want to cling to the Gutenburg age
should perhaps make the adjustement instead of everyone else posing to the
lowest technology denominator. I appreciate being able to click on links
provided in these posts and you can't do that in plain text. Isn't there
something you can click to force word wrap?

I'm sure there are many opinions out there on this and I'd be interested in
hearing them.


-- Roger Long

Roger Long wrote:
:"Matt O'Toole" wrote

:Also, sorry to be a pain, but your last two wonderful messages were
:almost unreadable with a text-only newsreader. There were no line breaks,
:so I had to scroll horizontally. Outlook Express is famous for such
:problems. I recommend turning HTML off and posting text-only, plus maybe
:using an add-on like OE-Quotefix. Or changing newsreaders.



:Sorry, I didn't realize, and wonder why, anyone would still be using a plain
:text only reader. Seems like those who want to cling to the Gutenburg age
:should perhaps make the adjustement instead of everyone else posing to the
:lowest technology denominator.

USENET is a text-only medium. Keeping it so keeps it efficient; using
a text-only newsreader, I can keep up with groups with much less work
and expenditure of time.

If you want flashy crap, go somewhere else. There are plenty of
mostly worthless web fora that will allow you to have flashing text
and animated smileys.


:I appreciate being able to click on links
rovided in these posts and you can't do that in plain text. Isn't there
:something you can click to force word wrap?

Being able to click on links is a function of the newsreader software,
or perhaps the terminal emulator software.

"David Scheidt" wrote

If you want flashy crap, go somewhere else.

Wraping lines of text is flashy?

-- Roger Long

Roger Long wrote:
:This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

:------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C71209.4488F360
:Content-Type: text/plain;
: charset="iso-8859-1"
:Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

: "David Scheidt" wrote=20

: If you want flashy crap, go somewhere else. =20

:Wraping lines of text is flashy?

The html bloat is certainly crap. I've left intact the text/html
section of your response. For your 32 character response, the html
and mime requires 1331 bytes.

:-- Roger Long

:------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C71209.4488F360
:Content-Type: text/html;
: charset="iso-8859-1"
:Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

:!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"
:HTMLHEAD
:META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
:charset=3Diso-8859-1"
:META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=3DGENERATOR
:STYLE/STYLE
:/HEAD
:BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff
:DIVFONT face=3DArial
:BLOCKQUOTE=20
:style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
:BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
: DIV>"David Scheidt" <A=20
: "dscheidt@panix. com/A> wrote =
:/DIV
: DIV /DIV
: DIV>If you want flashy crap, go somewhere else.  /DIV
: DIV /DIV/BLOCKQUOTE/FONT/DIV
:DIVFONT face=3DArialWraping lines of text is =
:flashy?/FONTBRBR-- Roger=20
:Long/DIV
:BLOCKQUOTE=20
:style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
:BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"FONT=20
: face=3DArial/FONT /BLOCKQUOTE/BODY/HTML

:------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C71209.4488F360--

That's very interesting and it certainly does seem inelegant and wasteful
although I can't imagine bandwith is really a problem with all the video's
being sent around.

I agree that attachements, embedded pictures, animated signatures, etc. have
no place here. It's odd though that the only complaint I've gotten about
posting since signing up as the twelth internet user in Maine (outside of
educational institutions, anyway) was for my line feeds producing broken up
text. The concensus then was, "leave the line wraps to the reader".

I recently had to reinstall Windows and OE. I don't know at this point what
format I was posting in previously. I've set it back to plain text to see
how it works. I'm curious though how it handles links like this one:

http://home.maine.rr.com/rlma

-- Roger Long

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:11:55 +0000, Roger Long wrote:

"Matt O'Toole" wrote

Also, sorry to be a pain, but your last two wonderful messages were
almost unreadable with a text-only newsreader. There were no line
breaks, so I had to scroll horizontally. Outlook Express is famous for
such problems. I recommend turning HTML off and posting text-only, plus
maybe using an add-on like OE-Quotefix. Or changing newsreaders.

Sorry, I didn't realize, and wonder why, anyone would still be using a
plain text only reader. Seems like those who want to cling to the
Gutenburg age should perhaps make the adjustement instead of everyone
else posing to the lowest technology denominator.

Tell Microsoft! OE creates bad HTML that doesn't display properly in
other clients. It also doesn't handle newline characters (word wrap)
properly. This is bad enough with plain text messages, but it really
makes a mess with HTML.

I appreciate being able to click on links provided in these posts and
you can't do that in plain text.

Most "plain text" news and mail clients will display clickable links.

Isn't there
something you can click to force word wrap?

Not usually, and with good reason. It would screw up any pre-formatted
content.

I'm sure there are many opinions out there on this and I'd be interested
in hearing them.

I've created my own share of unreadable messages with OE. OE's text
editor bugs are well-known among programmers, webheads, and other
e-communications professionals. Since Microsoft doesn't seem interested,
people have tried to solve these problems with OE add-ons like
OE-Quotefix. I used these too for awhile.

Matt O.