Fractional to masthead conversion
Moderators: sderby, Tim Bosma, Tom Elsen
Fractional to masthead conversion
I want to add a spinnaker halyard on the masthead of my fractional S2. How do I do this? What PHRF penalty will I take? I sail on Western Lake Erie.
Penny Naber
#435 "Cheap Thrills"
#435 "Cheap Thrills"
-
Tom Elsen
- Site Admin
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 5:42 pm
- Location: Minneapolis, MN & Chicago, IL
Hi Penny
I'd suggest that you take this up with your local PHRF guys before you do anything. Remember (as we have seen all too often in the last couple of years) ---
"ALL PHRF IS LOCAL PHRF"
There's no set PHRF adjustment for your masthead conversion...or for anything else. None. They can decide to dock you anything they want, just like they can force you to sail with the board down at all times without giving you any (credit) adjustment.
I'd suggest that you take this up with your local PHRF guys before you do anything. Remember (as we have seen all too often in the last couple of years) ---
"ALL PHRF IS LOCAL PHRF"
There's no set PHRF adjustment for your masthead conversion...or for anything else. None. They can decide to dock you anything they want, just like they can force you to sail with the board down at all times without giving you any (credit) adjustment.
Best wishes,
Tom
Tom
-
Guest
Out in the Pacific NW, the Vancouver BC based boats have all gone to MH spinnakers. Basically, due to the construction of the MH, they used a large size s/s pad eye either tapped or riveted onto the MH with a single swivel block attached – the MK halyard typically runs externally and in some cases used some plastic fairleads to lead it back down the mast without getting tangled up.
The upside to this system is that it is easy to remove and restore it to OEM/Class an important consideration for the 7.9. In this region MH kites used were tall and skinny – typically 33’ on the luff and 17’ on the girth. The penalty in our PHRF region (BC Sailing) is a –3 sec.mile hit. The boats have done exceptionally well under PHRF so hard to argue against this setup.
On our boat we are trying a different setup. We decided to go back to a fractional hoist, however decided to go with a more modern raised hoist frac. Kite. We installed a Ronstan sheave box at 32’ and ran a permanent kite halyard internally – it is much easier to put an internal box in at this point than tying to sink something into the MH. We also run with an oversize pole – longer by 6â€.
Our kite target kite is 32’ on the luff and 18’ on the girth – basically a shorter, fatter kite, but more stable and easier to fly. Last weekend we had a great chance to test this setup against a class 7.9, in our tests, we had enough horsepower to catch a class 7.9 from behind and thanks to the overlength pole we could decisively “outdig†the class boat to the point we got enough inside separation we were actually able to get by and get a lead inside overlap at the leeward mark.
In short, we are happy with this setup thus far and think it is a very viable option to a full on MH spin. Good Luck
The upside to this system is that it is easy to remove and restore it to OEM/Class an important consideration for the 7.9. In this region MH kites used were tall and skinny – typically 33’ on the luff and 17’ on the girth. The penalty in our PHRF region (BC Sailing) is a –3 sec.mile hit. The boats have done exceptionally well under PHRF so hard to argue against this setup.
On our boat we are trying a different setup. We decided to go back to a fractional hoist, however decided to go with a more modern raised hoist frac. Kite. We installed a Ronstan sheave box at 32’ and ran a permanent kite halyard internally – it is much easier to put an internal box in at this point than tying to sink something into the MH. We also run with an oversize pole – longer by 6â€.
Our kite target kite is 32’ on the luff and 18’ on the girth – basically a shorter, fatter kite, but more stable and easier to fly. Last weekend we had a great chance to test this setup against a class 7.9, in our tests, we had enough horsepower to catch a class 7.9 from behind and thanks to the overlength pole we could decisively “outdig†the class boat to the point we got enough inside separation we were actually able to get by and get a lead inside overlap at the leeward mark.
In short, we are happy with this setup thus far and think it is a very viable option to a full on MH spin. Good Luck
Fractional to Masthead Conversion
Thank you for the information, I'll pass it onto my husband. Unfortunately, we have not had the opportunity to race class yet. We have the boat, we have the trailer, but the Honda Civic just won't pull it. So for now, we're happy with racing PHRF on Lake Erie until our "dream truck" comes in.
We did check into the penalty for a longer spinnaker pole and decided it wasn't worth it for us. This is our first boat of any kind, although we have crewed for boats since the end of the 2000 season, but our crew are all green (they are hooked and coming along nicely though
), so we must choose our penalties wisely.
Anyhow, we have many questions, even more to learn, and dues to pay. It would be great to race class someday.
Thanks again for your comments and may we have a short winter!
We did check into the penalty for a longer spinnaker pole and decided it wasn't worth it for us. This is our first boat of any kind, although we have crewed for boats since the end of the 2000 season, but our crew are all green (they are hooked and coming along nicely though
), so we must choose our penalties wisely.Anyhow, we have many questions, even more to learn, and dues to pay. It would be great to race class someday.
Thanks again for your comments and may we have a short winter!
Penny Naber
#435 "Cheap Thrills"
#435 "Cheap Thrills"
-
LarryE-old
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:06 pm
Mast head kite
I also have thought of doing this for PHRF. However my history with PHRF has been that if you change anything, from an ODR specs. they can screw with the rating. If you sail strickly ODR they seen to leave you alone, somewhat.
I was told by the PHRF handicapper once, if you customize the boat, ie, change anything, we can give you any rating we want.
I don't like PHRF, but its the only game in town.
I was told by the PHRF handicapper once, if you customize the boat, ie, change anything, we can give you any rating we want.
I don't like PHRF, but its the only game in town.
Purr-Fect
262
262
-
Tom Elsen
- Site Admin
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 5:42 pm
- Location: Minneapolis, MN & Chicago, IL
PHRF
The PNW PHRF adjustment of -3 sec / mi seems very fair to me. If I sailed in an area where there was (1) No other game in town (2) Absolutely no other game in town and (3) Predominantly W/L courses in lighter air, I'd likely use the set-up that Rudeman suggested. (I've seen it before and it works well.)
However, you have to consider the 'can of worms' syndrome. Remember that your local PHRF board can do just about anything they want. So if you change to a masthead chute AND you improve your helm/crew skills at the same time, you can bet that you're going to take a penalty which reflects BOTH. And once in place, forget ever 'getting some of it back'. That just isn't happenin'.
However, you have to consider the 'can of worms' syndrome. Remember that your local PHRF board can do just about anything they want. So if you change to a masthead chute AND you improve your helm/crew skills at the same time, you can bet that you're going to take a penalty which reflects BOTH. And once in place, forget ever 'getting some of it back'. That just isn't happenin'.
Best wishes,
Tom
Tom
Masthead Spinnaker
I'm sure that many of us have been interested in this particular modification for years, but haven't done it for all of the obvious reasons previously mentioned.
Maybe its time for the class to look at this. Not to change the one-design aspect of the boat, but to standardize the mod for those who want it, so that the PHRF committees can apply a standard penalty. (not that they will, but it would give us an arguement of support.)
It wouldn't take much for us to come up with a standard sail measurement, and standard halyard specs for such a modification, especially since everything can go back to one-design spec quickly.
Maybe its time for the class to look at this. Not to change the one-design aspect of the boat, but to standardize the mod for those who want it, so that the PHRF committees can apply a standard penalty. (not that they will, but it would give us an arguement of support.)
It wouldn't take much for us to come up with a standard sail measurement, and standard halyard specs for such a modification, especially since everything can go back to one-design spec quickly.
-
Tom Elsen
- Site Admin
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 5:42 pm
- Location: Minneapolis, MN & Chicago, IL
Barry
The basis of your (very reasonable) suggestion is that such thing as a "standard PHRF penalty" exists. It doesn't. All PHRF is local PHRF. The local guys can do WHATEVER they want. You can appeal, and appeal, but your appeal is yours alone. No other local board needs pay any attention at all to the outcome. So, unfortunately, no standard is even possible.
The basis of your (very reasonable) suggestion is that such thing as a "standard PHRF penalty" exists. It doesn't. All PHRF is local PHRF. The local guys can do WHATEVER they want. You can appeal, and appeal, but your appeal is yours alone. No other local board needs pay any attention at all to the outcome. So, unfortunately, no standard is even possible.
Best wishes,
Tom
Tom
Tom,
Your'e quite right, local PHRF committees can do anything they want, and I undestand there is no such thing as a standard penalty for anything, but, over time, some ad hoc standards have evolved for certain things, such as fixed props, roller furlers, etc, that are sort of uniform across the country.
My suggestion was, that the class establish parameters for masthead chutes, than at least our members could lobby their PHRF committees from a common data base. It might not result in a common penalty, but at least we would have a common arguement for one.
Your'e quite right, local PHRF committees can do anything they want, and I undestand there is no such thing as a standard penalty for anything, but, over time, some ad hoc standards have evolved for certain things, such as fixed props, roller furlers, etc, that are sort of uniform across the country.
My suggestion was, that the class establish parameters for masthead chutes, than at least our members could lobby their PHRF committees from a common data base. It might not result in a common penalty, but at least we would have a common arguement for one.