I admit that I am stirring the pot, but I think this question MUST be asked. In the latest Sail Magazine there is an ad for the Hunter 450. The ad specifically points out the B&R rig. There is a little blurb in the upper right hand side of the page. It SPECIFICALLY promotes the B&R because since it is backstayless one can fly a large mainsail with lots of roach. I'm cool with that. It is a benefit. BUT! But the picture of the 450 shows a B&R rig with a roller furling mast. The mainsail has no roach, in fact it has a hollow leech. Further down the blurb the extol another virtue of the B&R rig. The design combined with struts allows for a lighter mast section. Great! Get rid of weight were you want it least. Up high. BUT! But the roller furling mast leaves the weight of sail up high, and the roller furling gear up high, and the mast must be larger to accomodate the sail furled inside. I don't get it. I understand the advantages of the B&R rig, but what is the point if you don't actually make use of the advantages? As it stands in the picture you've got less sail area and more weight aloft than a "traditional" rig. Advertising mistake or are they selling a "pet rock". Is this innovation?
- Status
Innovation is Optional...
...just like in-mast furling???? Great Question you pose Justin. My question is about the "design combined with struts allows for a lighter mast section" part. For that to be true (which it is I suppose) the struts and additional rigging must weigh less than extra strength provided in the mast. How much lighter is the BandR mast as compared to standard mast with less rigging? To get all the benefits of roller furling sail, BandR Rig, full-roach main, and no backstay boom furling is the only option? Boom must be bigger and a second track is usually installed up the mast but at far less weight than the in-mast furling system. This keeps the weight lower on the vessel. OTOH, is the new technology of boom furlers any good? Does it work? etc? Just curious. Another question for all: Anybody figured out the purpose of the shape of the boom on the HC50? I'm waiting for the sales brochures to show up in my mailbox and tell me all about it, but thought many of you might clue me in on this one.
...just like in-mast furling???? Great Question you pose Justin. My question is about the "design combined with struts allows for a lighter mast section" part. For that to be true (which it is I suppose) the struts and additional rigging must weigh less than extra strength provided in the mast. How much lighter is the BandR mast as compared to standard mast with less rigging? To get all the benefits of roller furling sail, BandR Rig, full-roach main, and no backstay boom furling is the only option? Boom must be bigger and a second track is usually installed up the mast but at far less weight than the in-mast furling system. This keeps the weight lower on the vessel. OTOH, is the new technology of boom furlers any good? Does it work? etc? Just curious. Another question for all: Anybody figured out the purpose of the shape of the boom on the HC50? I'm waiting for the sales brochures to show up in my mailbox and tell me all about it, but thought many of you might clue me in on this one.
A guess about the HC50 boom
The higher the gooseneck, the more leverage the boom vang has, and the less upward pull on the sheet. At the extreme, wishbone booms are self-vanging and impose smaller sheeting forces. But I'm just guessing.
The higher the gooseneck, the more leverage the boom vang has, and the less upward pull on the sheet. At the extreme, wishbone booms are self-vanging and impose smaller sheeting forces. But I'm just guessing.
As I understand it
Alot of the advantage of the B and R is lost with a furling main. the roach being the big problem. Also, the furling main does not come with the struts, so I presume that the mast section is no lighter. both of those benefits would seem to be true with an, "old fashioned" full batten main. I think it's just a bad choice of photos on the part of Hunter. The whole premise of the rig is better w/o the furling main, but a lot of folks sure want furling mains now.
Alot of the advantage of the B and R is lost with a furling main. the roach being the big problem. Also, the furling main does not come with the struts, so I presume that the mast section is no lighter. both of those benefits would seem to be true with an, "old fashioned" full batten main. I think it's just a bad choice of photos on the part of Hunter. The whole premise of the rig is better w/o the furling main, but a lot of folks sure want furling mains now.
- Status