Jake,
I hear ya. The reason i need to bring the pole all the way back is to bring the loading securely back to where it is originating, at the back beam attachment point for the understay.
This is more a safety measure than anything else. Keep in mind that because of the pretty severe angle (i didnt dare drop the DS any lower) there is going to be alot of tension on the y-axis to get enough force down on the Z-axis. when i say alot, i mean upwards of 800+ lbs. I did not want this to simply be absorbed by the front beam, the flex from the beam alone could make tuning a bear. Instead all that force goes down the central member, to the origination point of the loads. That way it keeps the "collateral" y-axis forces isolated from the rest of the boat, and rig, while retaining the z-axis loads placed under the forestay.
Check out the GC32's, or the AC45's they did the same thing, for the same reason. with the small exception of using carbon.
I had not thought of getting trapped. perhaps i can have a sleeve sew into the tramp...
as for the lawnmower, i plan to attach a 30 foot articulating sprit to the base of the mast, supported by a boom and truss system tied to the mast head, which allows 360 degree movement using an electric motor and swivel. The "chopper" will automatically engage at the 1 minute gun, clearing a 30 foot circle around my boat, and guaranteeing me a slot to leward at the start. but i'm in touch with RC to see how this will affect my D-pn.
Do you have a Y structure rigging going back to the corners of the rear beam? The reason the AC72 and AC45 carry the rigging under the chin of the pole is to make the entire platform more rigid. It helped carry the headsail loads and control hull wracking. Most didn't actually have a center member from front beam to rear beam. That pole might help with the rotation of the beam and carry a little of the mainsheet compression loads - but not that much. The only center member they (Oracle) had was for to form an aerodynamic end plate for the wing. The pod between the main beam and rear beam was not considerably structural.
Don't get me wrong - I'm in admiration of your work and applaud what you are sharing with us. I'm just interested in the technical aspect of it and I think you can make it simpler.
Also of note...and I experienced this from helping to redesign and rebuilding the waterstays on this boat last weekend. Synthetic rigging will stretch and kick your butt in an application like this.
We still have gigantic turnbuckles to go on the rear waterstays shown here: Loads on these stays probably approach 8,000 lbs under the main beam.