Cockpit traveler

[Jackdaw]

If you sail in moderatly boisterous conditions, the boom deflection imposed by mid-boom sheeting underpowers the sail in just the wrong way, slowing you up more than easing the sheet and/or slacking the vang. This is especially evident in light air where mid-boom sheeting can't pull the boom tightly to centerline without pulling down on the mast...which is quite the opposite of what you want to do. With mid boom sheeting, once you get the end of the boom inside the transom your sheeting angle is more down than horizontal and the boom comes down as you sheet in further. (How many times have you pulled the traveler all the way to windward and then had to ease the sheet?) Mid-boom sheeting thus provides vanging power only when beating, maybe to a tight reach. (If you want shape control off the wind, you'll still require a vang.) Sometimes one can get the worst of both worlds by having end-boom sheeting then run to mid-boom and down to a block and cam cleat on the centerboard trunk, sole, compass pedestel etc. Now the middle of the cockpit can be as cluttered as the back.

On really small boats - skiffs, dories, wherries and such - there's much to be said for keeping the center of the boat as clear as possible. Such a boat is most often single-handed anyway so end-boom sheeting that either comes conveniently along the tiller perhaps to a little cutely carved jam cleat or double ended coming to jam cleats on each gunnel are good. You don't really want to have a small boat's main cleated in such a way that you can't ease or trim instantly (which is what happens when your mainsheet jam cleat is just above the cabin hatch, like in my boat).
In short, mid-boom sheeting introduces problems and is suitable only when it's problems are less than problems inherent in the more mechanically elegent end-boom sheeting.

End boom sheeting is indeed better for reasons that are mostly practical in nature.

But the 'technical' reasons you put forward here are simply nonsense. And assuming the boom is strong enough, moving the sheeting toward the mast only increases the mechanical advantage needed to control it.

And the claim that "worst of both worlds by having end-boom sheeting then run to mid-boom and down to a block and cam cleat on the centerboard trunk" is pure bunk. This is a widely accepted way to separate the traveler from mainsheet controls and is done on some of the world highest performing sailboats.

 

[DianaOfBurlington]

Do you still have the old traveler parts? If so, and you want to get rid of them, would you send me an e-mail? Thanks

 

[Capt jgw]

Whether mid boom sheeting causes trim problems would depend on the boom. On my 1982 Columbia 8.7 I considered mid boom to make way for a cockpit enclosure, but that model has a spindly little boom that looks like it came off a dinghy. Didn't want to replace the boom so I didn't do the enclosure. My current Columbia 36 has a huge boom that I don't think would bend no matter what you did to it. Went to mid boom and can't see any difference in sail shape, but it is harder to pull. Also had to ditch the roller boom furling and put reef points on the sail, but I would have done that anyway as that system is pure crap.

 

[braol]

End boom sheeting is indeed better for reasons that are mostly practical in nature.

And the claim that "worst of both worlds by having end-boom sheeting then run to mid-boom and down to a block and cam cleat on the centerboard trunk" is pure bunk. This is a widely accepted way to separate the traveler from mainsheet controls and is done on some of the world highest performing sailboats.

For one, I don't know of any modern racing boat with mid boom sheeting... Just because a particular sheeting arrangment is widely accepted doesn't make it the most efficient way of doing it.

Secondly, I already mentioned that "...on a H27 like I have it is a bit like splitting hairs...we're talking about a sheet point at 10.5 feet (end) vs. 7 feet or so (mid). Now I don't know if a 33% closer to the mast sheeting point equates to a 33% drop in sail shape efficiency (probably not)." But it cannot be disputed that in a typical mid-boom arrangment as the boom moves closer to the center of the boat the main force generated by the sheet tends to pull more down than in...in essence flattening the sail (it does this in an end-boom system too, just not as much) and a flat sail in light wind conditions is NOT what we want.
In fact, that there is a traveller at all only confirms this: what is the point of a traveller???? The point is to allow the boom to be brought to the centerline of the boat without oversheeting (aka, pulling down on the boom). Why is the ideal sheet-to-boom angle directly above the traveller straight up and down, as opposed to being angled towards or away from the mast? To limit the vanging effect of the sheet when the boom is midline. My only argument is that mid-boom sheeting only exaggerates this down-pulling force to an extent not seen with the end-boom system.
Ask yourself this: if mid-boom sheeting is so great then why don't we see end-boom vanging??? It's because it's not the ideal way to do it.

Please keep in mind too that all this is still splitting hairs in the cruising world that most of us live in. I admit as much. I am only discussing ideals, and even then it only really matters in a cruiser vs. race situation. In day to day circumstances in my beamy H27 with a low-tech bottom job, loads of food and beer on-board, and middle-aged dacron sails I am about as efficient as a log-jam. But if I wanted efficiency I'd own a J-boat...or a catamaran.

As far as "practicality" is concerned, there are three strong reasons for a cruiser boat to have a mid-boom sheeting and none of them related with sailing efficiency:

1- Safety/comfort for passengers in the cockpit.
2- Uncluttered cockpit.
3- Bimini.

 

[Jackdaw]

I don't know of any modern racing boat with mid boom sheeting...

As far as practicality is concerned, there are three strong reasons for a cruiser boat to have a mid-boom sheeting and none of them related with sailing efficiency:

1- Safety/comfort for passengers in the cockpit.
2- Uncluttered cockpit.
3- Bimini.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. My comment was about your dubious statements regarding the negative effects of mid-boom sheeting. Are you trying to defend those or making another point?

I can think of LOTS of modern raceboats that have their mainsheet controls mid-boom. Melges 24. C&C 30 One Design, Melges 32. The list goes on.

 

[braol]

(*Note: I edited my last comment)

Both the C&C and Melges 24 designs have the traveller attached to the boom at the end...the sheet controlls are simply run forward to the mid-boom area and down so that they may be more easily controlled in the cockpit. I don't recall the arrangment in the Melges 32. Having the traveler located end-boom is just more efficient sail-shape wise than mid-boom.
Perhaps this discussion should be titled "Mid-boom vs. End-boom Traveler Location."

 

[braol]

Perhaps this discussion should be titled "Mid-boom vs. End-boom Traveler Location."

I think there is some confusion due to the subject matter at hand. We are, of course, talking about Cherubini Hunters with a traveler and sheet control co-located either cabin-top or just inside the cockpit aft of the companion-way stairs. When refering to the merits/drawbacks of mid-boom vs. end-boom "sheeting" I am mostly referring to this boom/traveller attach point set-up. Getting into the particulars of the countless options in the routing of the controls going forward of this (or aft, who's confused now?) can get dicey.

 

[Jackdaw]

(*Note: I edited my last comment)

Both the C&C and Melges 24 designs have the traveller attached to the boom at the end...the sheet controlls are simply run forward to the mid-boom area and down so that they may be more easily controlled in the cockpit. I don't recall the arrangment in the Melges 32. Having the traveler located end-boom is just more efficient sail-shape wise than mid-boom.
Perhaps this discussion should be titled "Mid-boom vs. End-boom Traveler Location."

That was not an edit, it was a wholesale change! ;^)

I'm just trying to understand your points.. and when I do, you change your story. Regarding this sheeting arrangement on the well regarded Melges and C&C boats, you originally called it the 'worst of both worlds'. Is that your position?

Sometimes one can get the worst of both worlds by having end-boom sheeting then run to mid-boom and down to a block and cam cleat on the centerboard trunk, sole, compass pedestel etc. Now the middle of the cockpit can be as cluttered as the back

 

[braol]

By worst of both worlds I was referring to line/control clutter not sail shape. Clutter at both the back and the front. At least on the Cherubini Hunters we have all our clutter in one place.

 

[braol]

Regarding this sheeting arrangement on the well regarded Melges and C&C boats, you originally called it the 'worst of both worlds'. Is that your position?

The Melges and C&C sheeting (many others too) is primarily an end-boom system with a control line routed to the center of the cockpit for ideal access. Only about 1/4-1/5 of the total sheet load is transferred to the control line (I do not know how much purchase is at the end), much less than a pure mid-boom system like in a Cherubini Hunter. I didn't want to venture into control line routing because I am not 100% sure on the breakdown of the physics of running the end of the sheet through a block midboom for control purposes. If the control sheet is experiencing only 1/4-1/5 the total sheet load...does it have only 1/4-1/5 the total vanging effect when compared to a boat whose traveler and all controls are all mid-boom? It must have some vang effect...but the trade-off in control/access must be so great as to offset the small vang effect. Any deviation from a pure end-boom arrangment will have some trade-off....heck, even a Ferrari is an excercise in trade-offs: They could make a Ferrari lighter, and thus faster, but they would have to eliminate the driver...and then what would be the point?

Again, a pure end-boom system will always be more efficient than a pure mid-boom system, particularly in light airs at high points of sail because a mid-boom system acts like a vang at tight sheeting angles.