Paul wrote:

LC's foresail is still the best setting sail I ever did and the variants that I've done based on it have been similarly successful. Low stress and sets well and possibly even more importantly, it was easy to get it set well.

Paul wrote:

David wrote:

Here’s a rough and ready approximation of what I’d do for a new suit of sails for Taiko, starting with a clean sheet. The main yard is 4m instead of 5m, at an angle of 45˚ - 50˚ instead of 70˚. Similarly, the fore yard is 80% of the length of the old one. As you can see, this does not reduce the area. To keep the halyard close to the mast, the sail is rotated through 2˚ - 3˚ about the tack. This brings several more benefits with it, as the angles of THP and LHP are much improved, making them much more effective and less heavily loaded. The yard is lighter and under less bending load. Also, the centre of area moves forward, which helps with reducing the weather helm. I’ve put in two unsheeted battens so that the compression and bending load on each is reduced. These battens would probably not be hinged, but the lower ones would have hinges at their centre, at an angle of articulation of +/-12˚, with just a little barrel camber in the sail panels forward of the hinges, but not aft of them. 

Those are of course pretty much LC's foresail.... I'd not put three upper panels in the foresail. Two panels is enough and it worked very well for LC.

Indeed, that's true, Paul. I think it's because we were both designing a rig intended for extended passage making, with lower stresses on the rig and lower demands on the stamina of the crew in our minds. Things that I don't believe to be high on Arne's priority list.

I agree, two head panels would probably have been enough for the foresail, except that aesthetically, I prefer both sails to look the same. Just possibly the three smaller head panels might be a reassurance when running under them in a F9, though.

Martin Simmons wrote:

Arne,

Presently I am seeking advice as to what may be alternatives for Taiko. No decision will be made until we get back to NZ where the availability of materials will be better than in French Polynesia .

Certainly the wooden yards and battens need to be replaced and, if we are to retain cambered panels, some reworking of the rig will need to be made at this juncture. We liked the way Tystie’s  articulated battens popped backwards and forwards with each tack. I am uncertain if our masts are tall enough to use such system without the loss of sail area, which cannot be afforded. We will have to wait and see what those of greater knowledge consider best suited to our mast configuration.

One thing is certain; we must have camber to sail well.

Martin

Martin.
I wonder if you would let us know more details about your problems with the present sail? The couple of photos of your boat seem to indicate that the rig is not far from OK. However I am unsure of how you have rigged the YHP and LHP (THP?), how the sheets are configured and if you have now fitted Hong Kong parrels.
It would be most useful if you also could show us the sailplan.

I think the choice of using wood for boom, battens and yards is an unlucky one, so when you get access to aluminium, I suggest you switch to that material. Wood is too heavy, stiff and brittle for battens (..which I’m sure you have found out by now...).

Btw, what sort of keel and rudder has your boat?

Arne

Arne,

Presently I am seeking advice as to what may be alternatives for Taiko. No decision will be made until we get back to NZ where the availability of materials will be better than in French Polynesia .

Certainly the wooden yards and battens need to be replaced and, if we are to retain cambered panels, some reworking of the rig will need to be made at this juncture. We liked the way Tystie’s  articulated battens popped backwards and forwards with each tack. I am uncertain if our masts are tall enough to use such system without the loss of sail area, which cannot be afforded. We will have to wait and see what those of greater knowledge consider best suited to our mast configuration.

One thing is certain; we must have camber to sail well.

Martin

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As for Martin Simmons(?) and his Taiko, I have no idea. I don’t know his boat and have never been contacted by Martin.

Arne

 At some point it would seem Martin found your notes Arne.

"I can say now that If I had read all of Arne Kverneland's published files from the outset it would have saved me much angst." - Martin Simmons

Quote lifted from his blog here.

I then set about building cambered sails of the same dimensions as our flat sails in order to use the same battens and yards. What I did not appreciate was that the loads on the yards would be so great and that aTHP, under enormous tension, would be necessary. Arne’s files that would have saved me angst were his later additions of fixes and improvements. The same could be said of Paul Faye’s account of changing to cambered panels. I remain unhappy with the tension in the upper sections of the sails, though Paul Thompson’s idea of creating drift by moving the standing part of the halyards aft, has ameliorated the problem. It must be said that Taiko is sailing well under her current rig, she is no slouch if she is able to cover a thousand miles in  one week of SE trade wind sailing. Furthermore, there have been no problems with the sails themselves, only running rigging and mast chafing and yard failure.

More will be written about our experience on our eventual return to NZ.