A comment was made very recently in another thread about 2005 + sail shapes....
what is different about the 2005+ sails ? is it just one specific sailmaker, or all the main manufacturers ?)
Is there a list yet of which manufacturer sails the top 10 boats used at Salcombe and the Nats ?
or are they pretty all much of a muchness ? (i.e. copies of one another) without meaning to be offensive to the sail manufacturers of course.
The reason I ask is that I am in the market for a new set of sails at the end of this season and completely at a loss on which way to go. (P&B, No.1, Batt, Speed etc)
Would really appreciate any logical and reasoned guidance from someone knowledgable on this.
We are 22 1/2 stone all up and have a superspars carbon mast on Winder Mk1 hull
Feel free to email me if you wish for privacy.
Many thanks in advance to anyone who can help....
Posted: 15/08/2006 20:37:59
I put down a list of what the top 10 used at Salcombe on the salcombe results thread if you scroll down on the forum.. This might help you decide..
Posted: 15/08/2006 22:01:58
The kit goes like this:
Warren/Robinson Winder/Chipstow/P&B(Batt kite)
Truswell/Lowbridge Driver Let it Ride (wood)/Chipstow/No.1
Bell/Williamson Winder/Chipstow/Batt (P&B kite)
Blake/Toogood Driver Let it Ride (wood)/Chipstow/No.1
Calvert/Calvert Let it Ride(mod)Driver-Jenkins/Chipstow/Alverbank
Posted: 15/08/2006 22:07:43
I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are copies, though they are all gradually coming to the same conclusions as to the fastest shape.
My newer P&Bs are significantly fuller at the top than my old ones. This has it's advantages and does flatten off with rake/kicker/cunnignham when it's windy, but is real pain in the light stuff inland becasue the sail always looks like it's hooked even though it may not be.
They were tremendous on the sea at the champs, and i understand that Tom has opened out the upper leech a bit to encourage a little more twist on the new sails so that issue should be solved.
The new Speeds look very nice and are well worth a look again.
I had a suit of Number Ones on my old boat and they were probably the best all-round sails i've had. The only problem with them was that they looked nice whatever torture you subjected them to and this made it very difficult to keep them on the sweet spot and when you did get it right they were ballistic. Also well worth a look if you can get some.
Mike Calvert goes well with the Alverbank, and John Bell with the Batts so they must be pretty good. I haven't used either for some time so can't really comment other than to say the look good on their respective boats.
Fashions with sails change like the wind. When i bought new sails for Armed Forces in 2002 (Alverbanks) the main was quite flat and the jib very full. Now with the flexible Chipstow masts full mains seem to be fashionable again.
Posted: 16/08/2006 08:49:16
By: Chris M
Thanks Guys, That is all really usefull info.
I guess my main worry is that I have a superspars mast, and if I were to go with the new thinking on sail shape, its not going to suit the bend characteristics of the stiffer superspars mast.
So I guess my next question is, would I be better to ask for the old shape to match my mast, This may not be possible with the computer cut sails.
Posted: 16/08/2006 09:34:00
I'm not sure that's necessary really.
A chipstow bends more by itself than a superspar does, and the spreaders are set accordingly.
From memory, on a chipstow spar the spreaders on a winder boat are set to 128mm (straight edge over shrouds, measure to the luff groove) and a superspar about 140mm. This is a significant differance and should result in the overall bend being about the same. What you won't get with the superspar is the dynamic flex, but it don't matter how the sail is cut you still won't get it so does it matter?
I could be talking rubbish, but it makes sense to me!!
Posted: 16/08/2006 09:44:42
By: Chris M
Thanks Chris, my limited understanding is that the top section (above the spreaders) on a software section mast will fall off to leward in a gust, so if the top section of the sail is fuller then it will de-power.
This is not the case with a stiffer section, so if you have a fuller sail at the top, specifically designed for certain bend to leward, then it will remain too powerful on a stiffer section unless you apply loads of cunningham ?
Am I right or talking jibberish !
Posted: 16/08/2006 10:06:27
sorry that should have been softer section - not software !
I agree the different spreader settings will give the same for-aft bend, but the windward-leward bend will be different.
Posted: 16/08/2006 10:08:06
I hadn't thought about that to be honest.
The way around that could be to shorten the spreaders on the Superspar mast to encourage more side bend.
The way i'm looking at it is that you have to make a Superspar do what a Chipstow does automatically.
Posted: 16/08/2006 10:15:46
By: Chris M
Out of interest, which superspars do you have? I've never really sailed with the black ones with a metal track, but my experience of the white ones was that they're a bit stiffer than chiptow above the hounds, and softer below it (particularly in the gooseneck area). What this means you should end-up doing is banging on the lowers a bit more than a chipstow. Also, lengthening the spreaders will stiffen up the whole mast side to side below the hounds, which is probably what you want, otherwise the bendier bottom section will be pushed up to windward and the rest fall off much too soon. I'm afraid the top section is what it is.
As for the sails, the new P&B's are SLIGHTLY fuller than the old ones, but a little more spreader deflection will account for that. Actually, at 22.5 stones all-up I'd be surprised if you needed to alter them at all.
What Barnsie said about the older sails being slightly flatter is true, but in reality much the greatest difference comes about from the 'crisp packet effect'. As the film on the sails flexes during use, tiny little creases appear which never stretch out again. Over time this results in the flattening of the sails. I believe the sails he was using were a couple of seasons old.
Posted: 16/08/2006 10:33:41
As a relative newcomer to the class, I must say that it's fantastic to see this level of detail being discussed openly, it's really really helpful!! Thank you both!
Posted: 16/08/2006 12:50:30
Thanks Chris, I have a superpsars white mast.
Noted in your earlier post that Stu Bilthel has a Superspars (mod)
Any idea what the mod is ?
Posted: 16/08/2006 14:50:36
I am certain that Glen Trruswell and Simon Blake were using P&B spinnakers. Butv otherwise I think that Deepy's table of gear is correct.
You could call the sailmakers in the class and ask them what they can do for you regarding your mast and we are all more than happy to tell you the advantages of our own equipment.
regards Tom Stewart
Posted: 16/08/2006 15:34:45
By: Tom Stewart
You wouldn't want to get that one wrong Tom! Very nice on a Run though.
Posted: 16/08/2006 22:06:58
By: Jim Lowbridge
Are all the Winder boats in the table above Mk5 or 4 ....
Posted: 17/08/2006 09:20:23
I might be wrong.... I believe the winder design currently goes up to Mk4
Anyway, in the top ten the only boats that are not MK4 Winders are:
3543, 3573 & 3626 all Driver 'Let it Ride' designs, with Mike Calverts 3626 having recently undergone some pretty extensive modifications (see Summer 06 MR Mag)
As for 3647 I am not sure if this boat is a Mk3 or 4 Winder but I am sure someone will put me right on this.
Hope this helps.
Posted: 17/08/2006 10:00:12
By: Richard Battey
I'm sure Dave W new boat is a mod of the MK4, making it a MK5, I stand to be corrected if there is some insider information
Posted: 17/08/2006 13:00:40
I thought Graham Scroggie's boat was the first of a new shape ....
Posted: 17/08/2006 13:17:51
well there you have it, MK5 and ever increasing!!!
Posted: 17/08/2006 13:40:59
By: Richard Battey