[Rhodes22-list] Rummy is right, but I may still need a 110

[Joseph Hadzima]

Peter you heard that the Cutty Sark was set a blaze, I
assume?


--- Peter Thorn <pthorn at nc.rr.com> wrote:

> Wally,
> 
> Yeah, I agree with you about furling.  You really hit it
> on the nose and
> your comments agree with what most sailmakers have told
> me.
> 
> But what about tacking?  1988 R22 Raven came with a 1988
> Lee 175 sail -- 
> similar to Rummy's  I guess.  It's almost 5 oz cloth and
> it so sturdy and
> heavy it will likely wear forever.  In really light air,
> the stuff many
> people won't sail in but I often race in right before the
> RC cancels the
> racing for lack of air,  it collapses.  Anyway, tacking
> Raven's 175 is like
> tacking the "Cutty Sark" compared to tacking the high
> clew Doyle 135 that
> also came with the boat.  Clean, quick tacks.  If the
> wind is over 8-10,
> that is definitely my preferred headsail.
> 
> PT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "TN Rhodey" <tnrhodey at gmail.com>
> To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list"
> <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 1:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Rummy is right, but I may
> still need a 110
> 
> 
> > David,
> >
> > Once your start furling any sail the shape and
> performance is negatively
> > effected. This is a fact. You can not furl the leading
> edge flat. Anyone
> who
> > tells you a partially furled sails does not have a
> negative effect on sail
> > shape is in denial. A 175 furled down to 125 is going
> to have pretty poor
> > shape regardless of vendor. Ask the vendor and they
> will tell you the same
> > thing (if they are honest). Yes you can make
> adjustments to limit the
> > problem but facts are facts. A 155 furled to 125 will
> pull better than a
> 175
> > furled to 125. A 155 at 135 will pull better than a 175
> furled to
> > 135......So up to conditions that call for 155 or less
> the 155 will be the
> > best sail.
> >
> > Now is a 175 furled to 160 better than a 155?
> Maybe.....maybe not. This
> may
> > depend more on point of sail than anything else. Some
> say the 175
> maximizes
> > potenital but in my eyes it is the wrong sail more
> often than it is the
> > right one. It does seem to me that those that like the
> 175 sail have never
> > tried anything different and typically don't race their
> boat.
> >
> > I don't have a 110 (or a 175) but if you really want a
> smaller sail for
> > heavy weather I would consider the 125 or 135. I have a
> 155 and a 125. The
> > 125 is the max size that can fit fully unfurled inside
> the shrouds. It
> comes
> > just short of hitting spreaders. This furls down to
> about a 110 and still
> > holds shape ok. I have flown a friends sail that looked
> to me like it
> would
> > be close to a 165/175. Great sail off the wind in
> steady light/med
> > winds... but really was too heavy for light winds and
> too much sail for
> > heavy winds. Many others on this list have complained
> about the 175 in
> very
> > light winds....too heavy and will not hold shape.
> Another common complaint
> > with 175 is lee helm.
> >
> > It really depends on your own preference and sailing
> conditions.
> >
> > Fair Winds,
> >
> > Wally
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5/24/07, David Culp <daculp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Rummy:
> > >
> > > No doubt the 175 maximizes the potential of the boat
> design and
> therefore
> > > is
> > > the correct sail for the boat for the majority of
> owners.  On my narrow,
> > > long and winding lake with its fickle winds, I very
> rarely get to enjoy
> it
> > > fully unfurled for long periods.  It has happened on
> a few days and it
> was
> > > great.  When I can get a steady enough wind to keep
> it filled but not so
> > > strong as to require reducing its size I have been
> impressed with
> > > performance and have learned to tack it fairly well. 
> The terrain around
> > > here also causes many wind direction changes and the
> result is almost
> > > constant sail trimming.  You can be drifting one
> minute in 6 kts, and
> then
> > > around the next bend be reefing in 20.  This is not a
> sailing lake, at
> > > least
> > > not for boats with big gennies or spinnakers.  In
> fact, in 5 years I
> have
> > > only seen one spinnaker flown and it was me flying it
> from a friend's
> > > Flying
> > > Scot.
> > >
> > > You're right, I for one, admit that I do not know how
> to use the 175
> > > properly and if I ever want to really learn how, I am
> going to have to
> > > trailer to a better locale where I can get on some
> steady runs and
> > > experiment with it.   This year is my second season
> and I am really
> > > working
> > > the traveler a lot more and that has been a help with
> it.  I am going to
> > > get
> > > a pole and attach it to the shrouds as you suggest. 
> This will help me
> > > greatly on light wind days to keep the sail presented
> properly to the
> > > wind.
> > > In moderate winds, I usually have no problems wing
> and wing.
> > >
> > > It might be better for me in my locale to change out
> the furler to the
> CDI
> > > which allows sail changes because I would not want to
> give up having the
> > > 175
> > > for those special days.  I'm guessing a 110 would be
> the most useful and
> > > also guessing that it would furl out to just past the
> upper shroud area.
> > > Anyone have a 110 and can tell me where the clew
> extends to when fully
> > > unfurled?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 07:46:08 EDT
> > > From: R22RumRunner at aol.com
> > > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Genoa size and usage
> > > To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
> > > Message-ID: <d36.8802f0d.3386d500 at aol.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> > >
> > > David,
> > > Instead of attaching the whisker pole to the special
> eye on the front of
> > > the
> 
=== message truncated ===