Hi, I'm new to Merlins, and I have just bought 3404. I'm having some trouble setting up the single (self-launching) spinnaker pole and wondered if anyone could help me.

I've had a look on this forum and in particular the thread "Rigging Advice" which has enabled me to rig the pole correctly. Great stuff !

Now the bit I cant get. Say the pole is out on starboard and the starboard spinnaker sheet is through the ring on the outboard end of the pole. The pole is tight against the starboard clew of the sail and the port spinnaker sheet is routed back to the cockpit.

Come the gybe, how do I switch the sheets so that the pole is out on the new gybe to port and the port sheet goes through the ring on the end of the pole.

On all the boats I've sailed up to now, the outboard pole end has a piston clip which is released during the gybe, usually dipped below the forestay and then hooked up to the "new" clew on the new gybe.

Just cant see how to switch the pole over in the gybe without dropping it and rethreading. I'm sure, like everything else on the boat, its obvious once its explained, but I am being extremely dense on this one.

Many Thanks, John

Sounds like you bought a boat set up for twin poles with one of the poles missing.

I know of three basic pole set-ups:
1 - Single pole, which you 'end for end' gybe
2 - Twin poles (the dominant set up in the fleet at present)
3 - Self launching

The last is very unusual, but typically has uphaul and down haul lines fixed to the outboard (kite) end of the pole with the slack taken up by elastic soakaway on the down haul for when he pole is stowed away along the boom.  

There is a robust fitting on the mast with a pulley block attached to it.  A rope comes from the aft end of the pole, through the pulley and down (usually via a purchase) to a cleat placed handily for the crew.

The aft end of the pole also commonly has elastic attached to pull the pole back along the boom for stowage when not in use.

I believe that, unless you have twin self launching poles, you still have to have a clip at the outboard end.  The gybing sequence is:
- when ready to gybe,  crew uncleats pole.
- pole rockets back, narrowly avoiding helms eye
- crew takes old guy out of clip at pole end.
- boat gybes
- new guy into clip
- crew hauls like mad, and if it's a windy reach, gets to within 6 inches of the mast with the pole end and can't pull the pole out any more for fear of ripping the cleat and pulley off the foredeck.

With twin self launchers, you can have each 'guy /sheet' permanently through a ring at the end, as you descibe, but obviously the set-up described above has to be doubled up, with two poles, uphauls / downhauls, cleats, pulleys and purchase.

Dan Alsop had such a system on Precious (3333) many moons ago, but I'm not aware of any others.

Modern 'conventional' twin pole systems have been considerably refined, are very quick and easy, and actually simpler to rig than the system described above and are therefore favoured.  However, some people who sail where there is the luxury of long three sail reaches with few gybes (sea, mainly), like single poles, because the system is very simple, and the kite is always attached by two 'rigid' points to the boat through a gybe (head and pole end), rendering it more stable, and less likely to roll the boat than an 'un-poled' sail during a gybe on a twin-poled boat. 

It is usually considered to be slower to gybe, although it never seemed to be a problem for Robbie Sampson and Dick Batt.  I'm sure there must be more modern advocates who will praise the single pole.  Certainly a Jacko (Chipstow) single carbon pole is a thing of beauty and if I hadn't given mine away with my last boat, it would sit above the mantle piece to be admired by all - I now use twin poles! 

There should be guidance on how to rig both single and twin poles on this web site, but if in doubt, find a Merlin club and talk to the members.  They'll happily give advice.

3424 had a single self launcher. It needs a piston clip on the outboard end. 

Smasher (I think) had twin self lanchers, these had rings as per standard twins.

I very much suspect this system is either a twin self-launching system with one of the poles cannibalised or has been modified by an idiot.  You can't have a system using a ring on the end of a running downhaul that is not twinned for the two gybes, there has either to be a clip on the end of the pole to stick the new guy into or a duplicated system.  Self launching poles have not been popular as the risk of injury to the helm in the middle of a windy gybe (when there are plenty of other things to worry you) is significant.  The twin pole system is the market leader and easy to use.

Andrew 3511

Thanks for your help ! at least I wasn't going mad. It sounds like a single pole self launcher with the outboard piston end removed. The boat was sailed on a reservoir before I bought her which makes it likely that the pole never had to be gybed. With her new home at Tamesis, this set up is clearly a non-starter.

Looks like an upgrade to twin pole set up is the right way to go. Perhaps Santa will oblige.....

Many Thanks again !

If you have a good launcher (e.g. spiro, with a good ball and socket), the single pole works pretty well on the river, it can be very fast and the crew doesn't need to move around too much, also very useful if you have small light children as crews, as they don't have to be strong or tall to get the pole out. Twin pole systems can be a bit of a struggle for small people without strong arms, especially if you havn't got room to bear away onto the run (i.e. restricted room on the river) to help get the kite balanced after the gybe.

I would get a piston end for a few quid before and try it before investing a new setup.

Andrew, not sure about the risk of injury to the helm during the gybe if the sequence is done properly, trip the guy, the single pole is dipped half way back, no where near the helm, gybe, clip on new guy, launch. 

I suspect that the injury would come if the pole is dropped all the way back during the gybe, but there is no need, and half dipping the pole makes it easier to grab the new guy and attach.

Alan, Sounds like good advice, Santa (ie the wife) balking at the cost anyway !

Many Thanks again !

Just incase you neet it, the rigging set up. The up-haul down haul should be attached to the outboard end. The piston I think, is better facing upwards, with a trip string running all the way inboard.

I was thinking of Guy Wood's broken nose a few years ago with a self-launching pole system and a bit of shock-cord to bring it back in.  You are right, probably done on the drop not the gybe, but I still worry about how controllable it all is.  You did have a set-up that more-or-less worked on Mark's Bucephalus 3424.

Re twin poles and small crews, 2 things help this immensely, the first being a 2nd ring set lower on the mast to fix the pole onto, you lose very little effective length for a big reduction in force and angle required, and 2ndly a tweaker/tensioner/snodger system (call it what you will) which not only works well at tensioning the downhaul but runs pretty freely when you let it off

Bucephalus' worked well, although the elastic from the spiro ball to the back of the boom did give a fast return of the pole and I did suffer a slight black eye from it once on the drop. But then I have also suffered from standard twin poles being thrown back.

It has occured to me now, that you could easily rig the self launcher pole's return using the same system as twin poles, i.e. elastic from the mid mast to the boom and a ring on the inboard end of the pole, it would give a gentler return.

Single alloy poles can be had very cheaply - I made my 1st set from a 5m length of aluminium section from a metal merchants in Tooting, cut in half by them so I could get 2x2.5m bits home on the bike and then the end fittings are not that expensive, the piston ends being the pricy bit (but I had an old pair off some 6ft poles).  The outboard fitting is a filed down lined deck bush and you need a couple of small deck clips.  I ran my DIY set down the shockcord with a stainless steel ring and it was no worse than a block.  In truth the really expensive bit is the string because nothing short of Vectran really measures up for the downhaul IMHO as there is a big load and you cannot afford any stretch.  Couple that with some low-stretch tapered spinny sheets and it makes the £15 for the alloy section a bit laughable.

Andrew

SorceressII (nee Smasher) 3236 did have twin alloy poles but were changed to a single carbon auto return (elastic in/one string out) system because (a) the alloy poles were the old short style & (b) the crew were old 505 sailors and just used to it. Ok then one is also cheaper than two and very simple! It was further simplified by fitting a 'fork' end which for the unsure are two 4mm stainless curved forward facing bars that hold the guy. The guy is simply pushed into them on the hoist & it auto-magically comes out when the pole is let in, you then gybe place the new guy in & pull the pole out. The operation can be carried out by either crew or helm or both, your choice, but importantly very quickly!! It was pionered by one Steve Benjamin who went on to win the worlds with it! Like any system the secret is getting the gap just right in relation with your sheets. Incredibly simple but not to simple for the majority ( thats Life!) We still have 3503 which has twins and are without doubt the biggest cause of cockups known to mankind! I sold 3236 a couple of months back but I took a load of photos some showing the system which I'll happily send on to anyone wanting to steel a march on the herd!
ps my apoligies if your refering to another 'Smasher'  regards Barry (playing with an IC at presant)

Guy owned Smasher for a few years and it was either the system on Smasher which lived up to its name with the nose incident or the identical system his father had on Del Boy (3365?)

I wonder why no-one else has tried the single-pole-fork-end system?  If it is set up correctly the twin pole system works very well but a lot of boats do not have the right lengths of string or a good tweaker system and like anything else if it is windy it is very hard to push a pole out against a flogging spinny on a tight reach

Andrew I think youve hit the answer fairly on the head! If either system is set up correctly they both simply work. Our one single pole was and our twin isn,t..............yet!    regards Barry.

It must be remembered that most wooden boats (Even later ones) have been through 3 generations of spinnaker changes, probably without much modification except of the poles and immediate rope fittings such as vangs and sheets.

The loads of the new kites are much higher than the old big size kite, and bear no resemblance at all to the older 6ft pole and Midi size!! The sheet loads are not all that this affects.

The reason spinnaker pole systems on new boats work better than onn most older ones is because they have been designed around the current system. If you have an older boat and are struggling it's worth checking the amount of purchase you have on your pole vang (Snodger / downhaul)which should be about 4:1 and allow sufficiant travel (A real problem on a lot of wooden boats) to give some slack at the outboard end of the pole for easy attachment. On my boat i have to pull on about a foot at my end.

It's also worth checking the quality of the blocks and how well the system is routed becasue any friction is deadly and can prevent you getting the sheet ring tight to the end of the pole - it's not fast to have the ring flapping around with 2 inches of slack pole vang!

Very true, Chris, and Heaven Sent has been through the 3 changes.  My present system works really well at last, after spending ages staring at the area round the king-post then trying to sort out a good place to put a cleat all without having to make holes in any of the beautiful internal woodwork.  I only have a 2:1 purchase and there is enough room between underside of deck and the mast foot to allow the block to travel.  I have led the string (and this is the neat bit that I am really pleased with) through the gap between the 2 attachments for the turning blocks for the control lines to a cleat on the little bit of wood they are screwed to at the join of the centrecase and hog, utilising the existing holes.  Then to a turning block near the aft end of the case.  As you are pulling upwards when you whack it on 2:1 is easily enough, though you do have to grovel about in the bottom of the boat to get it off again.

I think I had better go home...I'm losing it and I need a beer!

Andrew

Ahhh so thats what that turning block is for! Thanks Andrew ! All coming together now - just got to get out there and try it all out. 

Frustrating morning as it looks wonderful out there after last nights storm and I wish I was out on the river, but I've got to work :(

I have just been out in my ok, what a handfull that was i think i would of struggled in my old merlin

weve just had two 50knot gusts here in Cowes, a centurian 34 has broke his sternlines and a Humpreys 22 has tried to leave the marina unasisted!
Merlin in shed!!

The boss i sometimes crew for blew over flatso the mast was under the boat, turns out it snapped the space frame, looks bloody exspensive wouldnt be so bad if it wasnt only third party insured!!

Nice to see 2 of my old boats mentioned 3424 and 3365 both keeping there original names!

Ian

Does anyone still use a single pole set-up? Being a cheap-skate really as trying to reduce the costs of refurbishing our boat ...... !

Andy, 

I'm planning to keep my single pole set up mainly on the grounds of costs. Its going to me much cheaper to get it to work properly rather than go the twin pole route. I also like the idea that its easier for smaller crews and in particular young children as I am hoping to sail with my son in time.

Hearing some of the stories I dont feel so bad about missing yesterday....

I believe Jon Bell & GGGGGGGG still use a single pole set up to great effect on 3652 or 3! 

Go with what you and your crew feel comfortable with. Too many waste oodles of cash  following a trend with little or no real effect on their performance. 

Just enjoy the Merlin and your sailing.

RB is absolutely correct! Like sex if it works for you in a particular way then enjoy it. There is no rule book just guidelines.

Have always used single pole with end-to-end gybing but have now bought a second merlin (3434) with all sorts of things we've never had before - twin poles, lowers, a mast ram and 7ft 2in to get across when tacking. Having read the web library and the forum I'm still confused especially as our lowers are fixed and everyone else's seem to be adjustable. Is this normal?

Pat 2121/

If Andrew M is reading this I suspect he might be able to answer this one as from memory he owned this boat quite some time ago.....and certainly prior to the introduction of lowers on 3434 i'm sure!!

My comment dovetails with that regarding twin poles...... We see alot of the word 'everyone else's'this and that. Pat, if your lowers work and are functioal then stick with it although reading between the lines if you have a mast ram I suspect the mast on 3434 is hog stepped? If this is the case then lowers will serve little purpose other than provide lateral support to the mast at goosneck height.

Lowers only really come into their own when used in conjuction with deck stepped boats. It sounds like another case of a past owner realising everyone else has lowers, so I better had too, without really understanding the engineeing functionality behind their purpose.

I had Elusive 3347 for a bit.  In her original form she had a mast strut, fixed transverse lowers (running directly across the boat, not angled back like modern ones) and adjustable shrouds on quadrant levers, although most of this had gone by the time I bought her.  The idea was to give transverse support to the mast at gooseneck level with the soft sections that were then coming in - probably a Proctor C.  If you have a stiffer mast (Proctor D or Superspars M7) you dont need the transverse lowers, if you have a soft section and a deck stepped mast they aren't adequate support and you need to go the whole hog and have adjustable lowers and a puller.

It's not like sex at all - you use twin poles to make the manoevre FASTER!

Since I am not a conventional Merlin Crew (wifee's helming), strength is not a factor, so thinking of using a single pole which is stowed prior to the gybe (on the leeward side). Used tis system quite effectively on a 505.

Ho hum, something else to think about during the Christmas holidays!!!!!!

3434 is a deck stepped. I think it's a D section as it looks the same mast as 2121, (but shorter). I wondered if it had been adapted as the mast support post appears to also be mast section. The previous owner couldn't cope with a fast boat on a small pond with a junior crew. I don't know if it works or not yet as we've only managed a quick half hour sail in gusty conditions and we've yet to try the twin pole setup.

Surely smoothness of the operation is more important?

I could never get the twin pole system on my nsm4 3374 set up properly. i never had another merlin with twin pole system near me to get an idea of how to set it up correctly.  If i had of kept it i would of changed to a single pole system again as i am used to that and never had any problems in the past. Therefore myself and the crew would find it much much quicker and easier to use and obviously that makes my sailing allot quicker.  I think that becasue my merlin had had all 3 kite rule changes it wasnt set up for the newer poles & kite size properley and it needed someone that knew what they were doing to get it spot on

I've just forwarded photos of the 'fork' end single pole set to Mags to add to the 3236 file on the rigging guide for those interested (no pressure!). These were taken just prior to selling the boat, therefore I cant take any others in finer detail. The end fitting used was a Z-spar or superspar gizmo which I sourced a couple of years back from Northampton sailboats although it wasn't in their cataloge. Once I described it they were very helpful and on to it in a flash. I hope that helps, regards Barry

3404 was Steve Leney's boat and i'm sure it had twin poles.

Hi Chris,

It figures, there are two pairs of holes either side of the end of the boom that look as though they were for the runner eyes on each side. Only one single cleat arrangement for the downhaul though and no sign of any filled holes where another one used to be. Weird.

When I bought her she only came with one pole which from its appearance, was probably only one half of the set up. However I've ordered the correct pole end and I am going to give the single pole a shot for the time being.

I have the first owner in the log book as Robin Misstear and I bought it off one Kevin Casey, no other owners listed.

Cheers, John

MR 3434 (Love Over Gold) was sailed at Hollingworth by it's builder Bruce Mager for many years, it was changed to a deck stepped setup (an M1 from memory) and then went through a couple of fleet sailors at the club, though Richard Whitworth proved a couple of years ago that it's still got some pace about it during some club racing.

It has had Twin poles from the outset, a setup that I feel is a very good one for the training of crews and beyond.

PS the lowers (unadjustable) were added when the boat was deck-stepped.

It was definately Steve's boat, he's now sailing 3639.

He had the boat for quite a while and added some rather "unconventional" ideas to it!

His number will be in the yearbook if you want to speak to him about the boat, he'll no doubt be pleased to hear it's gone to a good home.

Thanks Stuart. I'm looking forward to trying the twin poles as I've often fancied that setup. The fixed lowers actually connect to the gooseneck and I'm very unsure about that fitting! Very much a case of try it and see.
It's very nice to know 3434 can go well. We're heavyweights hence the choice of design. Hopefully we'll get some sailing in Christmas week - just need some suitable weather.