I should tell you that I&#;ve ordered a J/105 with the Euro interior, so keep that in mind while your reading this. I&#;ll explain why at the end. Here are the advantages and disadvantages of each, as I see them.
Please visit our website for more information on this topic.
Most of the advantages and disadvantages of either configuration center around the fact that the aft 12-18 inches of the main cabin is tucked under the cockpit. You can see this if you look closely at the interior diagrams in the brochures. Also, remember that there is no standing headroom anywhere in the boat. With the companionway slide pushed forward, you can stand upright under the dodger in the back half of the cabin.
The Euro interior has the galley and nav areas forward next to the bulkhead and the settees aft. The Euro interior has large (approximately 3 x 2 feet) openings through the companionway bulkhead into the &#;cockpit lockers&#;. Zippered-mesh openings are provided to separate these areas from the main cabin.
The traditional interior has the settees forward against the main bulkhead, and the galley & nav areas aft. The traditional interior has NO INTERIOR ACCESS to the areas of the boat aft of the companionway bulkhead.
There are two basic interior options, the &#;Traditional&#; now called the &#;Optional&#; and the &#;Euro&#; now called the &#;Standard&#;. I will refer to them by the more widely know names, &#;traditional&#; and &#;Euro&#;.
A number of J/105 owners have purchased trailers from Triad Trailers Ltd. in Danbury CT. They have various options. For the J/105, the keel rides 6 inches off the ground. An optional keel box is enclosed on the front and the two sides. Among the options for the J/105 are 6,000 pound tandem axles with hydraulic or electric brakes (electric brakes are recommended), lift-off or float-off package, bow stop and ladder (included in float-off package), mounted spare tire, and two rear stabilizing jacks for ability to change the spare tire.
MY EVALUATION
With all these trade-offs considered,
I elected to order the Euro interior with a single starboard quarterberth. The
main consideration here was wanting the QB. My current boat is a Beneteau 305.
I really felt the QB helped bridge the difference in interior volume, accommodations,
and storage between the 305 and the standard 105. I really like the additional
accommodation options offered by having the QB. I have a 10 year old daughter
who will be happy to sleep there, leaving the middle of the boat free for &#;living&#;.
Also the quarterberth gives you one good seaberth, though lee-cloths can be rigged
for the settees if you get the optional SS interior handrails.
When you add the QB, JBoats offers
the option of putting a bottom on the cockpit locker to make a shallow (2&#;)
locker, or leaving the original opening into the QB. I&#;m getting the shallow
locker, which I intend to set up for my &#;above deck&#; navigation. The
single port cockpit locker is more than enough for what I want to be carrying
on the boat.
I was concerned about the decrease
usability of the cabin table, but most owners I&#;ve talked to don&#;t set up the
table down below anyway. They only use it in the cockpit if they have it on
the boat at all.
We don&#;t cook much on the boat and
I tend to navigate from the cockpit, so having the nav station and galley aft
were not important to me. On the other hand, being able to remove the cooler
without removing the companionway ladder I consider to be a big plus.
Finally, I do like the &#;look&#;
down below of the Euro interior better. With some pictures and nautical do-dads
on the front bulkhead, you can almost convince people they&#;re on a yacht, not
a very expensive daysailer.
Hope this helps you as you look
at the J/105. Its a great sailing boat with a very strong designer, builder,
and class organization supporting it. The boats are holding there value well
due to the demand for them as one design racers. If you spend most of your time
sailing rather than anchoring or at the dock, its great.
Stuart Burnett
J/105 &#;LEGACY&#;
By Stuart Burnett
In comparing a &#;traditional offshore
one-design&#; racing boat (particularly a used J/35) to the J/105 it can help
to consider the following questions&#;.
Do you currently own a boat and
have a crew? If not, how many sailing buddies do you have lined up for your
new boat? Do you prefer wheel or tiller steering? Would you enjoy a big &#;sit-in&#;
cockpit while daysailing, or are you comfortable with having people sit on the
deck? Do you like buying a big sail inventory and the challenge of choosing
the right sail for the conditions? When you&#;re daysailing do you sail short-handed?
Would you use your boat more if you could singlehand it, or if two people could
sail it at 90% of its efficiency, or if you had a dodger to get out of the weather?
Do you like having checkstays? Would you prefer a hull that&#;s laid-up as a single
primary-bond unit with integral structural grid, rather than layer upon layer
being hand laid and secondary bonds to the internal structural elements? Do
you require or prefer shallow draft? Do you prefer a light weight boat with
a high ballast to weight ratio? These are some of the questions you should be
asking yourself.
After considering these same questions,
I&#;ve just ordered a J/105. Here are some of the reasons.
For me the number of people I have
to get together to race has, over the years, been a big deterrent to my getting
my boat (formerly a Beneteau 305) out on the course. That&#;s why I&#;ve ordered
a J/105. Competitive J/35s are racing with 8-10 people. Furthermore, the J/35
class has a maximum crew weight of lbs. vs. the J/105 class maximum of
970 lbs. Basically that&#;s ten 160 lbs. for the J/35 or 6 for the J/105. BTW,
you can race the J/105 effectively with 5 people, though with PHRF sails some
owners do prefer 6.
I believe there was a wheel option
for the J/35, but I&#;ve never seen one. The J/105 was the first J/Boat to offer
the Edson Diamond Series aluminum wheel with the lightweight custom molded GRP
pedestal as an option. Much of the fleet has been equipped with this 48&#;
wheel which allows you to steer upwind while sitting in a &#;tiller&#;
position, with your back against the windward lifelines. The wheel is, arguably,
as sensitive upwind as a tiller and much easier to handle downwind in waves
when the tiller tends to throw the helmsman around. It&#;s also better at the
start and in close quarters maneuvering where the ability of the helmsman to
move quickly from side to side makes maneuvering easier. Another advantage of
the wheel setup on the J/105 is that the GRP pedestal allows an Autohelm
Wheel Autopilot to be mounted internally with only the wheel ring visible.
My family likes the security of
a &#;sit-in&#; cockpit. The J/105 has 6.5&#; of cockpit seats. I&#;m guessing
the J/35 has 3&#;. Also the J/105 has a small coaming to divert water down the
side deck instead of having it wash over the cockpit. The helmsman&#;s areas are
similar except the J/105 has the coaming to help keep you up on the deck. There
is a note on the J/Boats J/35 web page that the J/35 has a new &#;single
level cockpit with raised 2&#; coaming to deflect water aft&#;, but I
don&#;t know how many have been built with this option.
As for headsail inventory, for J/105
class only allows a 100% jib and one 77 square meter asymmetric spinnaker. For
PHRF sailing most J/105 owners add a 155% light/medium genoa and a 110 square
meter asymmetric spinnaker (the largest A-sail allowed under PHRF for the J/105
rig dimensions). Some PHRF areas are now giving the J/105 a credit for racing
with only the one-design sails, so owners have a choice to buy the two extra
sails or not. The J/35 class allows four jibs (two genoas, a working jib, and
a storm jib) and 2 spinnakers for class racing. I don&#;t know how many jibs and
spinnakers a &#;well equipped&#; J/35 carries for PHRF racing, but just
for the jibs I would image there are light and heavy #1s, a #2, a #3, and a
storm jib.
Many J/105 owners sail the boat
shorthanded or single-handed. Remember that the standard sail is a 100% jib
on a furler. Most owners also get their PHRF 155% genoas cut to fit the roller
furler since it eliminates so much crew work. At the dock I&#;ll cover my jibs
with a zippered sock raised on the spinnaker halyard, so the racing sails have
no sacrificial UV layer to degrade their performance. When we go daysailing,
there&#;s no sails to bring up on deck, and there&#;s no pile of four or five jibs
and spinnakers down below. Of course you could add a roller furler to the J/35,
and get some cruising sails cut to fit it, and put the furler and the sail on
every time you want to go daysailing, and take the furler and the sail off every
time you want to go racing, etc. I&#;m sure some J/35 somewhere has been equipped
with a dodger for cruising, but every J/105 comes with a dodger and it is required
to be installed for class racing.
As for the spinnaker, the A-sail
can be loaded in a spinnaker sock to make even single-handed spinnaker sailing
possible, with the addition of an above-deck autopilot. The hardware to control
the sock, but not the sock itself, comes standard on the boat and is class required.
For racing the A-sails are generally thrown and retrieved out of the front hatch
with all lines attached and never removed (except to change sails). A retrieving
line attached to the tack of the A-sail allows a windward douse which collapses
the sail as it is pulled around the jib and down the hatch.
I don&#;t have any opinion on the
check stays issue except that the J/35 has them and the J/105 doesn&#;t. I&#;m assuming
here that the J/35 doesn&#;t require them to keep the stick in the boat. When
I&#;m racing the additional level of control of the upper mast would be nice.
When I&#;m daysailing, they&#;d be a pain. You probably make your decision on the
boat based on other issues then convince yourself that having them or not is
what you wanted anyway. I&#;m just as glad to not have to carry the extra crew
to work them.
The hull molding question is a little
bit unfair. All J/105s have been vacuum bagged. Hulls after 155 are SCRIMPed,
which is TPIs process of laying up dry glass and core material, then introducing
all the catalyzed resin at once so that the entire hull is molded as a single
primary bond with no voids due to the vacuum. Basically you&#;ll only get this
on a new J/105. On the other hand, I don&#;t think they&#;re making new J/35s, so
at least you have a choice.
The deep draft of the J/35 is 6.9&#;.
I&#;m not sure if any shoal draft boats were built. The deep draft for the J/105
is 6.6&#;, and a shoal draft option of 5.5&#; is available. The boats are designed
so the righting moment of both configurations is the same, although the deep
draft enjoys and advantage upwind in light air. In class sponsored one-design
racing, the shoal draft races with a 3 sec/mile rating credit. Most fleets have
standardized on the deep keel, while the Chesapeake Bay Fleet has gone shoal
draft, as are many of the Florida owners. About 80% of the boats that have been
built are deep draft.
According to the numbers published
on the J/Boats web site, the J/35 displaces 10,500 lbs. with 4,400 lbs. of ballast
for an excellent ballast/displacement ratio of 42%. The J/105 displaces 7,750
lbs. with 3,400 lbs. of ballast for a ballast/displacement ratio of 44%! The
J/105 has a D/L ratio of 134 vs. the J/35&#;s 174. The SA/D ratio also is in favor
of the J/105 at 24 Vs the J/35&#;s 21. This is even more of an advantage when
you consider the ease of use of the J/105s sails with the standard roller furler
and A-sail. Also this probably understates the A-sail&#;s size advantage over
a traditional spinnaker. So the J/105 is lighter for its length, has more sail
area for its weight, and has more ballast for its weight. Taken together this
is probably the difference in a boat that will plane on a reach, and a boat
that will only surf downwind. However, the J/35 will sail dead downwind, probably
at a higher VMG and with somewhat more excitement in a blow.
The J/35 does rate faster than the
J/105 under PHRF. Rod Johnstone suggests that a PHRF equipped J/105 is six secs/mile
slower than the J/35 on the standard windward-leeward courses that are so prevalent
today. On an Olympic course with some reaching the suggested rating difference
falls to 3 secs/mile. Remembering that the &#;base&#; rating of a &#;0&#;
boat is 600 secs/mile, so a 6 secs/mile rating difference represents a speed
difference of 0.9%. J/105s with PHRF sails and deep drafts rate from 71 to 84
depending on the location.
The J/35 does have an advantage
in having more head room and more interior accommodations, including a real
ice box, an optional oven, a shower, and two quarterberths. The J/105 uses a
removable Igloo cooler under the companionway steps, has no oven, and quarterberths
are optional. On the other hand, the J/105 table and settee backrests are made
to fit in the cockpit, where more people spend their time. Of course the J/35
needs the two QBs to stow those six headsails anyway. Also you&#;ll need the bunks
for those 10 crew members. (When will someone design a boat that can be effectively
raced with only the number of people for whom there are bunks?) The galley and
nav station areas are similar on the two boats, although the J/35 gets the nod
for having more head room in those areas.
I&#;d recommend you go to the J/Boats
web site at http://www.jboats.com and look
at the information on both J/Boats&#; pages and the class associations&#; pages.
In particular you should read over the J/35 class rules (23 pages) vs. the J/105
class rules (2 pages). You can see the effect the &#;pros&#; had on the
J/35 class in the &#;80s. The J/35 class has had to specify everything you can
and cannot do to the boat. The J/105 class rules benefited from J/Boats experience
with the J/35 and J/24 classes. They basically say, &#;You can&#;t change the
boat unless these rules specifically allow it, period, the end.&#;
The J/35 has been the premier offshore
one-design fleet in the US if not the world. I believe approximately 360 boats
have been made since its introduction in or approximately 25 hulls per
year. The J/105 has sold 198 boats since or 40 hulls per year. Some people
will never be comfortable with the J/105&#;s style of sailing, the small jib,
or the A-sail. For them the J/105 will never be a replacement for the J/35.
For the rest of us who just want close racing in large boats without hassles,
the J/105 may be the next premier offshore one-design.
I hope this biased view was helpful
in outlining some of the issues and tradeoffs between these two great boats.
Really, the J/35 is a great boat as are most of the J/Boat designs. I&#;m just
suggesting you also look at their latest successes&#;
Stuart Burnett
J/105 &#;LEGACY&#;
By Stuart Burnett
I&#;m not an engineer, but this is my
understanding of the difference between hand lay-up, vacuum bagging, and SCRIMP&#;.
In both hand lay-up and vacuum bagging
the initial process is the same. The fiberglass is laid up and wetted out by
hand. That is, gel coat and other &#;liquid&#; layers are sprayed into
the mold and allowed to cure until tacky then layers of laminate (fiberglass
cloth of different types) are hand &#;wetted&#; or saturated with resin
which already has catalyst in it and laid into the mold. The cloth is smoothed
with squeegees, and more resin is added until the cloth appears to be completely
and thoroughly wet through with resin. Any dry spots result in voids which can
blister and provide no adhesion between the laminate layers. This process continues
layer after layer, until the entire &#;outer&#; hull is finished. As long
as the underlying layer of laminate is not completely cured, a PRIMARY BOND
is created with the next laminate layer. That is, their resins &#;co-mingle&#;
and harden as a single structure. I do not know if this can all be done in one
day. If at anytime the construction process stops long enough for the previous
laminate layer to completely cure, then a SECONDARY BOND will be created between
that layer and the next layer to be added. After the outer hull is laid up,
sheets of balsa coring are fitted carefully into the hull. I imagine these sheets
are compressible, so they are just tightly hand laid next to each other, while
the outer hull is still tacky. After this the &#;inner hull&#; is laid
up over the core material using the same process that was used on the outer
hull. Again the laminate layers are saturated with resin until completely wetted
out. Some structural stringers may be laid into the hull near the end of this
process, but most interior structures are added after the hull &#;shell&#;
is completely cured. At this point a hand-lay-up hull is left to cure. After
it is cured, it is removed from the hull mold, placed in a rolling jig, and
moved into the assembly process where additional structural components are added,
etc.
With vacuum bagging, when the last
of the layer of laminate has been added to the inner hull, the entire hull is
wrapped with plastic and a vacuum is applied. As the air is evacuated from the
bag, the external air pressure squeezes the laminates together. This applies
uniform pressure to the laminates and I think may result in &#;squeegeeing&#;
some of the surplus resin out of the uncured sections of the hull. This is captured
by a filter at the vacuum points.
TPI describes the SCRIMP&#;
method (an acronym for Seemann Composites Resin Infusion Molding Process)
as follows:
As I understand it, pre-cut and stitched
laminate layers are placed in the mold DRY. (The gel coat and barrier coats have
already been sprayed in as before.) The core is placed in, also dry, then the
inner hull and many structural components are built up. Finally the mold is vacuum
bagged as above, but this time a controlled amount of catalyzed resin is introduced
to the bag (probably from many points). The resin is pulled through the laminate
and core structures by the vacuum, thoroughly wetting out the laminates and core
while all the air is removed from the structure. The entire hull and included
structures cures as a single PRIMARY BOND. There are no secondary bonds between
laminate layers, core layers, or interior structures (like keel stringers). Also,
the amount of resin is very precisely metered, yet all laminate is completely
wetted. This is how the glass:resin ratio is increased. Remember, resin has no
strength, it just serves as a bonding agent for the layers of glass. As long as
the laminate layers are properly bonded, the lower the resin content, the lighter
the structure. A SCRIMP&#; hull should be lighter for the same strength, or stronger
for the same weight.
TPI had a newsletter on the SCRIMP&#;
methodology at the &#;95 boat shows. If I can find it I&#;ll check my description,
but I&#;m pretty sure the general idea is correct. All the J/Sprit boats except
the J/105 have been SCRIMPed. [J/105s have been SCRIMPed since hull 155, ed.].
I always perceived it as a downside to the 105. I didn&#;t think they&#;d be able
to make such a big change and keep the class one design. I didn&#;t realize however
that the boat was already being vacuum bagged, which is pretty close to the
same method. I understand they&#;ve done a lot of engineering work to keep the
boats the same. For example, the original and Euro interiors were designed to
result in the same fore and aft weight distribution, so neither configuration
would have a speed advantage. Their commitment however is to manage the speed
controlling factors, not factors effecting longevity. I think J/Boats have always
had a history of being long-lived boats, however. They don&#;t design them so
light that they fall apart, neither are they so heavy that the sailing forces
break them down.
Again, this is my understanding
of these processes. I&#;m sure there are variations in the actual practice from
my descriptions.
Stuart Burnett
J/105 &#;LEGACY&#;
By you!
For more information, please visit MOTEC.
Please send to:
By Wes Herdman Ladysmith BC on Wednesday,
October 6, &#; 01:01 am:
I have cruised my j105 (#30) ever
since We got her 5 years ago. We have spent as much as 2 months at a time on
her. Primarily just myself, my wife and one elementary school age child. We
have at times also cruised for up to two weeks with a second couple on board.
Our cruising area is the British Columbia coast (Canada). We have a factory
installed 2 burner alcohol stove for cooking and have used an ice box or a portable
12 Volt cooler. The electric cooler is an energy hog, but we do not have to
restock with ice every 3 days. With some adaptations in eating habits we can
reduce electrical loads. It is amazing how long yogert will last compared to
milk (or use UHT). Our boat also has a factory installed head with holding tank.
I have made some modifications to the plumbing in order to simplify it.
We as a family find it to be a very
cruisable boat, easily sailed shorthanded (ie only 2 people) under a wide variety
of conditions. If you only race you are missing out on half the fun!!!
More?
Please send to:
PS readers sometimes comment on our seemingly profligate ways: trying one thing, getting rid of it if it doesn&#;t perform perfectly, replacing with something else, repeating the cycle. This criticism fails to recognize the manner in which we use our boat.
Calypso is a Practical Sailor test platform. As such, we are never satisfied with things the way they are. Instead, we experiment, discard, and replace in a manner that is sometimes costly and often unnecessary. Our goal is to save other cruisers money, not necessarily to do things that are the most cost-effective for us. In fact, using our boat as a test bed&#;and keeping it in top condition&#;probably doubles the cost of our cruising.
A perfect example is the recent replacement of almost our entire sail inventory in New Zealand.
Calypso&#;s original Doyle inventory was built several years before her launch, in part because we thought the boat was going to be finished years before it actually hit the water. Our relatively large (137%) roller reefing genoa was built in the belief that we would see a lot of light air in our trip around the world, when the additional sail area would pay off.
The fairly heavy, flat mainsail was intended to be bulletproof, rather than powerful. Likewise, the small, hank-on staysail was designed to be flat and strong, our heavy-weather headsail.
Both the rig and our needs have evolved significantly over three years and almost 15,000 miles of ocean sailing, and our original sails, although still in reasonable condition, no longer suit our sailing style.
The big, low-cut headsail simply proved to be too large in most conditions, and was usually used in a partially reefed configuration. In common with reefing headsails in general, it had poor shape when reefed, with the draft too far aft either for effective upwind sailing or good helm balance.
The small staysail was re-cut even smaller when we switched to a reefing inner forestay two years ago. The shape of that sail was altered so drastically during this re-cut that it really was pretty useless.
The mainsail held up well, with only some minor chafing at the batten pockets and the reef points. Its flat shape proved to be satisfactory, but contributed to our helm balance problems. I should stress that these sails were designed, built, and modified according to my specifications. Both sail design and cruising sail technology have evolved significantly in the years since these sails were built, and my own understanding of what constitutes a good cruising sail has changed as well.
During our sojourn in New Zealand, we went to Chris &#;Curly&#; Salthouse of North Sails, New Zealand for a new inventory.
There is a story behind this particular matchup. During the - Whitbread race stopover in Brazil, I had told Curly, sailmaker and crew on a Whitbread 60, that I was sailing my own boat to New Zealand for the America&#;s Cup. &#;Come see us at North if you make it,&#; he joked, &#;and we&#;ll take care of you.&#; Sure enough, two years later I was knocking on his door for a new suit of sails.
Ironically, we had met Salthouse&#;s father-in-law on his cruising boat in Tahiti six months earlier. He and his wife were wrapping up a five-year circumnavigation on a fast 54&#; sloop that he had designed and built in New Zealand. The serious cruising community is indeed a very small place.
A New Genoa
While Dacron is still the preferred sailcloth for most cruisers, we decided that the additional shape stability of a laminated fabric made sense for an all-purpose cruising headsail. At North&#;s recommendation, we chose their NorLam Mylar/polyester laminate, rather than the more expensive Spectra SR laminate. The Spectra SR laminate is stronger and more dimensionally stable for a given weight, but is significantly more expensive.
Because the new headsail is just a little over 500 sq. ft. in size, North suggested that the additional cost of the Spectra sail was not justified. In effect, he was saying that the extra strength was not needed in a small sail.
Our old genoa was a low-cut, 600-sq. ft. Dacron sail. Our new genoa is more of a hybrid sail, with a clew about 6&#; off the deck. This higher clew helps equalize the tension on the sail when it is reefed, giving a better all-around shape.
The radial panel layout of the new sail has resulted in a dramatic improvement in shape compared to our old sail. The new sail has a fairly full entry and a straight exit, more like the shape of a racing sail. The additional stability of the laminated fabric yields a good shape throughout the sail&#;s wind range.
We expected a loss of performance in light air, both upwind and downwind, but haven&#;t seen it. The only time we think there might be a slight loss is when close-reaching in light air, but it&#;s a small price to pay. Upwind, it&#;s like night and day. The boat has absolutely come alive.
Downwind, our 20&#; spinnaker pole controls how much headsail can be effectively poled-out. Even with the old, larger headsail, we had only a little more projected area downwind than with the new, smaller sail.
North has a variety of luff options for reefing headsails. We chose Rope Luff, a tapered bundle of Spectra ropes sewn inside a Dacron luff sleeve, rather than the more conventional foam luff padding. While this arrangement probably has more drag in light air, it seems to control partially reefed shapes better than our old foam luff, because it does not compress significantly under load.
The smaller overlap of the new sail&#;115% as opposed to 137% for the old sail&#;eliminates the need for spreader patches, at least for the lower part of the sail. We may add patches for the upper spreaders, but have not felt it necessary so far.
The higher clew of this sail makes it much more forgiving of errors in jib lead position as the sail is reefed, a big plus. The fact that the sail is smaller has also made it a little easier to reef, a significant bonus.
Mainsail
Our old mainsail was a conventional, full-batten cruising mainsail. The new main is different.
The new sail is slightly larger. We are constrained in the amount of roach the sail can have by our long boom, which places the leech very close to the backstays. In fact, both our old and new mains had to be re-cut to keep them from fouling the backstays, since sailmakers cannot believe how little room there really is.
We re-used the old Battslide luff fittings, as they were still in good shape, if looking a little ratty. The new main has externally adjustable batten tension for fine-tuning shape. The new full-length battens are pultruded fiberglass, and are substantially stiffer than the old flat fiberglass battens. Batten pockets are protected by a chafing strip where they come into contact with the aft lower shrouds when sailing off the wind.
The new main is about a foot longer on the luff, and 6&#; longer on the foot compared to the old main.
We went with a loose-footed main. Coupled with our custom Harken outhaul car, fabricated by Metalmast when the rig was built, this gives us much better shape in the lower part of the sail than a captive foot.
The new sail is very easy to power up in light air, with a much fuller shape than our old sail. We primarily flatten the sail with outhaul tension as the wind increases, but also had a Cunningham fitting installed in the luff if it proves necessary to flatten things even more.
The leech line of the new main dead-ends at the clew, then runs up through a block at the head of the sail, then down the luff. This new arrangement is infinitely easier to adjust either upwind or downwind, with no more precarious perching on the rail while trying to calm a fluttering leech.
There is no headboard. North suggested 8.8-oz. Dacron for the sail, and we had it triple stitched with UV-resistant thread as a precaution.
Staysail
Our new staysail is radically different from the old one. At just under 150 sq. ft., it is similar in size to the old sail as originally built, but is quite different in shape. The new sail, of 8.8-oz. Dacron, is longer on the foot than the old sail, with a higher clew. This allows it to sheet farther aft on the staysail track, and reduces the necessity of shifting the lead if the sail is reefed.
Yes, this new sail is reefable. It is a full-size ORC (Offshore Racing Council) storm headsail for our rig dimensions, but is larger than would be desirable for winds much over 40 knots. Fitted to an oversized Furlex system that is suited for a genoa of about 800 sq. ft., we are not concerned with the strength of this setup in very heavy going.
The old staysail was very flat, which is desirable in heavy air. The new sail is cut more with the shape of a racing #3 genoa, with substantially more shape. The fact that we can sail effectively upwind with this sail in lighter winds has radically altered the way we sail the boat.
The old regime for increasing breezes close-reaching or upwind was as follows: First, reef headsail at about 17 knots true. Next, reef mainsail at about 20 knots. Next, reef headsail more. Then, take second reef in main at about 25 knots. At 30 knots, switch to staysail and double-reefed main.
Now, it&#;s full main and genoa to about 20 knots. Then, a small roll in the headsail, or switch directly to the staysail if it looks like the wind might continue to build but the seas are still flat. The mainsail stays unreefed to about 22 knots, and the second reef goes in at about 27 knots. With a smaller genoa and a more powerful staysail, we have much more flexibility and power in the middle wind ranges. The staysail gets much more use as a headsail, thanks to its shape.
We also have re-tuned the rig, substantially increasing the pre-bend by carrying much greater tension on the inner forestay and forward lower shrouds, and less tension on the aft lowers. Coupled with more running backstay tension in heavier air, we go upwind in a breeze much, much better.
Balance
The biggest change has been in the balance of the boat. Having a fuller main and a smaller genoa with a full entry and straight exit has completely changed the balance of the boat. Our lee helm is gone, and the boat points substantially higher in all conditions.
The new main is easily flattened, so we have no balance problems as the breeze increases.
Improved balance allows us to sail the boat more aggressively, because we do not feel so overpowered as the breeze comes on. No longer do we struggle to balance the boat and keep her on her feet.
All these sails were designed by Burns Fallow of North Sails, New Zealand. Not coincidentally, he also designed the winning North mainsails and headsails for Team New Zealand in the recent America&#;s Cup.
Other Changes
We also had an entire horizontal panel removed from our North Gennaker. This sail was too long in the luff, too big, and too difficult to use. We have yet to experience suitable conditions in which to give the altered sail a real test.
We replaced our polyester genoa halyard with one of low-stretch Vectran, the same material used for sheets and halyards on many America&#;s Cup boats. We replaced the main halyard, staysail halyard, spinnaker guys, and headsail furling lines with low-stretch Spectra, which is substantially cheaper in New Zealand than in the US. The old Dacron running rigging was still usable but getting very stiff and tired in spots.
But the biggest improvement has been the new sails. And what did these wonderful new sails cost? Thanks to the strong US dollar, the sails were roughly half the cost of the same sails in the US. With another 15,000 miles to sail over the next two years, I&#;d call this a pretty practical choice.
If you are looking for more details, kindly visit NEW SAIL Auto Spare Parts.