HOGWASH ..... only valid if one is constrained by
extreme short time 'round the bouys' racing or is limited to Windward-Leeward cruising routes !!!!!!! What an arrogant misguided unknowledgeable techno-centric bloviating bunch of BS. After reading the original posting I now clearly know the reasons why Hillary Clinton will be elected. Masthead Rig Offers Advantages Over Fractional Rig In my sailing experience I have learned to prefer a Masthead rig to a fractional version, whether cruising, racing or daysailing. Here are some of the reasons why I believe that more people should be sailing boats with MASTHEAD rigs: Masthead mainsails are smaller and easier to use. A large mainsail on a fractional is a terrible sail for a cruiser. It is a pain to constantly adjust for shape, requires a lot more winch grinding, requires stonger and more complex rigging and mast sections, and takes either larger winches or more muscle to trim --- the upper terminals of backstay-forestay are unbalanced with respect to compressioal forces thus requiring complex onthefly adjustment requirement to keep the mast in column and p revent buckling failure, plus requires running backstays and multiple spreaders to avoid untowards vibrational harmonics, etc. . As the wind picks up it soon overpowers the boat, requiring reefing of the sail. A large mainsail has an inefficient aerodynamic shape especially when partially furled (reefed) i nside the mast ... as most kroozers are now favoring in-mast reefing. It has been correctly acknowledged for many many years that the mast section causes drag/and leading edge votices/turbulance to a mainsail ... thus the smaller the mainsail the less the adverse effect. A fractional requires a larger mast and a larger mast is subject to turbulence vortices that lessens the smoth flow of air, thus decreasing t he aero efficiecy of the sail and how it 'aerodynamically 'bootstraps' the headsails. The larger the mainsail, the more it has to be reefed in a breeze, and the worse the shape becomes, especially on a fractional rig where the most flexible section of the mast is typically near the top (re; flattening a mainsail by bending the mast). To make matters worse, as you reef the MAINSAIL, you end up moving forward the center of effort of the sail, giving excess healing moment for the amount of sail actually exposed to the wind. Very inefficient! On the other hand, the mastheaded mainsail is smaller to begin with and, as the breeze picks up, the headsail can be reefed/changed, an easier operation which results in a better sail shape. When it is necessary to reef the mainsail can be entirely reefed/dropped and the boat can be sailed with no extreme helm while sailed solely on the Headsail. Fractional rigs however require MORE sails: since the power of the frac rig is in the main, the headsails are smaller and you don't need as many for racing but you NEED large Gennakers/Spinnakers when deep reaching at speed as the smalller jibs on a frac. are too small to be efficient on less than a close reach. Cruisers generally dont use spinnaker poles and simply tack an assymetrical spinnaker to the center line, use chute scoops, etc. and dont really need to go to all the bother required on a frac boat because they usually carry spinnakers of nearly twice the effective sail area. If you end up with the wrong mainsail shape or reefed susrface area up on a MastHead rig, it is not as detrimental as it is on a frac rig. The total number of sails on a mastheaded-rigged boat is usually less than on a fractional because sometimes you need to go DOWN wind; otherwise youll be constrained to just a few sailing angles (windward-leeward racing only) when there are confused/dangerous sea states.. Masthaead spinnakers are larger and just as easy to handle: the biggest beast on most boats - the one that is hardest to handle - is the spinnaker. On a Frac rig if anything untowards on a frac rig happens to a mainsail .... well you simply cant sail on just a jib on a frac. A Masthead rig boat can sail on genoal alone: there are times when one would prefer to sail with one sail up, for a variety of reasons. On a frac rig boat, sailing under jib/';genoa alone is so inefficient as to be almost worthless, especially upwind OR down. So what most frac-ers do is sail with main alone, especially when it is blowing. It drives me crazy to see this: The mast of a fract is also principally in compression but MUST be additionally supported and complexly rigged to offset the different moments due to connection '[offset' of the hounds versus the backstay, etc. This offset of applied stress moments at the topmost of the mast induce BUCKLING which is the PRIME cause of mast structre failure. If compression is held strictly 'axial' or is so constrained such as in a mast headed rig the potential for BUCKLING FAILURE is much lessened. If the mast gets out of column (bends too much) while you are plowing through waves you can end up with the rig in your lap. Not much fun! The MASTHEAD rig, on the other hand, is easily sailed under genoa alone. In addition, the fractional rig becomes unbalanced when you sail with only one sail up, as you will develop too much weather or lee helm as the sail area is not centered over the keel .... and you have no idea how to re-shape the sail to affect draft locations - worse, most high end fractional boats use ultra modern laminated sails that are simply 'not stretchable' to accomplish draft/shape relocation and therefore you need a LARGE inventory of sails. Conversely Mastheaded boats predominently use woven dacron sail which are 'edge stretchable' and therefore can dynamically better SHAPE the sails on the fly to readajust for the dynamics of sailing on a single sail up. On the MASTHEAD rig the mast is far enough aaft so as to provide better balance of sail area over keel, for an easier helm. The masthead rig spar is farther aft in the boat, meaning that its' position relative to the logical location of the forward main cabin bulkhead is better, with the result that it is less intrusive in the cabin, plus the mass of the mast is better carried by the wider hull sections instead of a narrow bowwed frac which tends to plunge and hobbyhorse if the bow is too heavily loaded. The Mathead rig mast is less easily bent, producing more sail shape stability. .... the frac rig needing runners, jumpers, babystays, etc. to keep the mast in column and without adverse harmonics developint. The loads on the Masthead g spar are generally less, as the compression load generated by the sails is usually matched to the load bearing ability of the usually sstiffer spar. The backstay on a masthead race boat is often tensioned to the point that it puts terrific loads on the whole rig, causing flexing of the boat and associated problems --- and usually results in expensive and more frequent rigging replacments due to fatigue of the metallic components. The MaSThead rig backstay is never tightened to the same high loads, which is easier on the structure, as for example the frac rig when properly tensioned for mast rake/bend, etc. for a full beat may be experiencing backstay tensions of 30% of the ultimate tensile strength of the rigging and base components .... and that allows stress levels to increase well above the "endurance limit of fatigue" and most prudent designers/engineers would normally avoid. The result is that the fractional rig require total rigging replacment more often than a masthead. I think Masthead rigs are more easy to sail. The genoa is more fun to (correctly trim, you have more shape control, yet the mainsail are a lot easier to use because its smaller. If something goes wrong on a masthead rig it is usually easier to control. If you are caught in a blow, or your furler jams, or your boom breaks &^ starts to go over the side, the smaller mainsail on a masthead rig causes less of a fire drill than the larger fractional mainsail will cause ... as usually when a mmainsail goes', so does the ENTIRE rig. So why are so many cruising boat built today with masthead rigs? For one reason they are simple and cheap, dont require a large and complex crew. .....AND that most long distance cruising is usually off wind ie.:" a reach. The mast is usually just a straight un-tapered extrusion .... so that there is less need for constant adjustment to keep the mast from breaking . For another reason, builders seem to be reluctant to change, a problem in our industry that has stifled growth and innovation ... thats right all the builders and designers from the BIG BANG until the advent of Wednesday night beer can racing on a strictly windward-leeward course were just simply stupid. The masthead rig is largely an anachronism left over from days when the racing rules gave favored treatment to boats with masthead rigs. soooo I guess if the racing rules changed so that mast would be favored laying flat across the deck, you'd be one the first to advocate that too . Most design of boats since Jonah have been influenced adverssely by the rules .... AS RULE BEATERS ... just as the grotesque fractional rigs are today. This still continues to be the case, but very sadly cruising boat design was adversely influenced for years by handicap rules, even though most crusing boats never WANT to see the starting line. VERY SADLY, the situation is starting to change. I think Hunter is stupid for the use of the B&R & frac rig on their boats, and from much personal use i can say that their rigs are designed for STUPID and unknowledgeable sailor who just want moveable waterfront property and be able to impress their friends with a mechanism of elegant dockside entertaining. Tayana, Valiant, Halberg-Rassey, Baba, Tashiba, Sweden, Pacific SeaCraft, Hinckley, Morris, Hylas, etc. etc. etc. etc. also uses mostly masthead rigs, and they are known for making boats where sailing SAFETY and sea kindliness (speed, ease of use, efficiency and fun) is paramount. The Beneteau Oceanis series boats, also long distance cruising oriented, are mastheadrigs. If more people would avoid silly leeward-windward racing on short courses that never arrive at any destination and frac rigs they would find that it is indeed a step forward in convenience, performance, longer lasting, more seakindly, able to carry more stores, able to sail on the designed waterline when loaded, able to carry a load. less prone to fatigue failure, stonger build .... fracs. that race typically are built at only 3:1 factor of safety while 'real cruisers capable of ocean crossings' are typically built at 5:1 or 6:1 factor of safety .... inotherwords TWICE as strong and built to do the job intended and not falsly marketed nor touted by brazen bravado .... my father is bigger than your father, our high school quarterbacks are smarter than your highschool. my car is shinier than your car. I have both a frac which I race (short legged leeward-windward) and a long distance cruiser (mast headed cutter .... oh my double horrors according to the original post) passagemaker .... Id be a blathering fool to tout that one is better in the design venue of the other. From the apparently very biased self promoting content and underlying 'attitude' of the original post I can nothing less than assume that the original poster seems to have the same 'teeney-weeney' problem that most cigarette boat drivers have.
