Yes but if you take the halyard foward to a pulley attached to the outhaul of the spinnaker and then back through the cleat you can then outhaul and uphaul at the same time, far easier as a single hander
Yes but if you take the halyard foward to a pulley attached to the outhaul of the spinnaker and then back through the cleat you can then outhaul and uphaul at the same time, far easier as a single hander
I am thinking of doing that in the future. (a) I didn't want to have to get a longer spinnaker halyard right now and (b) I was wary of doing something that might obstruct the jib since we do sail the boat double-handed on occasion. Do you run your spinnaker halyard forward to the tack line block over or under your jib traveler track?
I sure miss end-pole snuffers. I hate dealing with the tack line. It seems like a huge hassle to move the hoop back a few feet.
Re: request picture of spin halyard cleat
[Re: GeoffS]
#181298 06/08/0903:48 AM06/08/0903:48 AM
The halyard goes under the jib track simply by lowering the pulley slightly on the beam. In my case I have the outhaul and its associated 2:1 pulley system within the pole exiting simply through a hole drilled in a Aluminium plug, I don't seem to get pulley and rope failures that way.
You need surprising little spare halyard laying on your tramp as a single hander, effectively if you have more than 2 metres spare you will probably be able to have enough to run it foward to pick up the tack. I have now only about a 2 metre loop between the bag tail and the cleat ie it only sits about 1 metre along the front of the tramp.
...In my case I have the outhaul and its associated 2:1 pulley system within the pole exiting simply through a hole drilled in a Aluminum plug...
When you have a moment, it would be awesome if you could post a drawing of this. I have attached what I thought these single line retrieval systems looked like, but based on what you are saying I may have it wrong.
1. the pully between the red and teal line is a back-to-back set of blocks. 2. The teal line goes through the aforementioned back-to-back blocks and dead ends back at the end of the pole (I tied mine to the eyestrap that was on the pole).
I have both system: with a single block on the 5.2 and with the back to back pulley on the F16. I prefer the simplicity of the first one as there is no need for a purchase there. I may retrofit the F16.
Re: request picture of spin halyard cleat
[Re: GeoffS]
#181480 06/09/0904:32 AM06/09/0904:32 AM
Exactly as per your drawing except instead of a back to back block, put a line between the block of approx. 1/3rd of the length of pole. The front block and out haul goes inside the pole, the rear block and halyard goes outside of the pole, the interconnecting line goes through a hole in the tube.
I simply made a 10mm hole in the ali tube, stuck the shank of the drill in the hole and then bent it toward the rear of the boat, it made a very neat flare in the tube which doesn't cut the rope.
Just be careful on the lengths as its all a bit tight to how far you have to outhaul but on a 2:1 system then you probably only need < 1.0 metre of length. as most snuffers are not 2.0m back from the tip of the pole.
The main reason I put it inside my pole is I had "snared" a laser sailor in my local club racing whereby my outhaul had become tangled in the rear of the boom of the sailor when he very unsportingly decided to turn in front of me dispite the very large difference in speed between us, took some time and a bit of bickering to get ourselves untangled. Sad fact was technically I probably was in the wrong. But when you are faced with a line of 10 lasers all going at the same speed and they simply will not let you through despite totalling screwing your race it can be a bit frustrating.
Re: request picture of spin halyard cleat
[Re: pepin]
#181491 06/09/0907:21 AM06/09/0907:21 AM
I have both system: with a single block on the 5.2 and with the back to back pulley on the F16. I prefer the simplicity of the first one as there is no need for a purchase there. I may retrofit the F16.
When retrofitting, does your spi' halyard length need to change?
USA 777
Re: request picture of spin halyard cleat
[Re: tback]
#181495 06/09/0908:31 AM06/09/0908:31 AM
I have both system: with a single block on the 5.2 and with the back to back pulley on the F16. I prefer the simplicity of the first one as there is no need for a purchase there. I may retrofit the F16.
When retrofitting, does your spi' halyard length need to change?
It may need to be a little longer, depending on the length of the 2:1 system and the distance between the snuffer and the end of the pole. In my case I am lengthening the pole to accommodate my new spi, so I'm going to have to change all of them probably as the distance snuffer/pole-end increases.
Another way to see the needed halyard length is to look at the length of halyard left on the trampoline. With the spi up, there should be no difference between the two system. Bringing the spi down is going to consume some length of halyard to let the pulley travel forward along the pole. The single line system will travel 2 times the way a back-to-back pulley line would do, so it's going to remove from the trampoline an additional pole-end/snuffer length.
Depending on your perspective, the single line system will clean up you trampoline more when you snuff down or the dual pulley system is not going to let as much halyard on your trampoline when the spi is up...
Re: request picture of spin halyard cleat
[Re: pepin]
#181498 06/09/0908:46 AM06/09/0908:46 AM
Yes. That is how my Blade was configured. I ran the retrieval line down through the grommet in the tramp for the mast rotator, instead of to the back beam. Kept me facing forward when uni and dousing.
The Viper has the back-to-back blocks running up the mast. It goes like this: Dyneema ties off to the forestay sheave (?), down the mast, through the back-to-back block, up to the block for the spin halyard and to the head of the spin. A separate line runs from the the spin tack, into the pole, exits the main beam end of the pole on a block inside the spin pole, up the mast, through the back-to-back block, down the mast, through the mast mounted halyard cleat, through a small block on the main beam, back through a ring on the tramp and back forward through a hole on the tramp and into the spin snuffer.
The spin lines for the Viper came stripped in all the right places, so I am going to stick with that system for a while. It requires some thinking when rigging, but seems to work fine one set up.
I apologize for the layman's terms, but it is all I know (there is probably some fancy word for back-to-back block).
Tom
Re: request picture of spin halyard cleat
[Re: pgp]
#181503 06/09/0909:38 AM06/09/0909:38 AM
This is a little bit difficult to explain but if you're worried about your existing spi halyard being a bit short with a 1:2 tack line then one of the easiest ways to maximise the length is NOT to tie the tack line off at the end of the pole. I use back to back pulleys, one end is attached to the spi foot/tack and the other in the case of the blades 2 up Stealth's at the connection between the compression strut and pole. This has the added benefit of shorten both the tack line and spi halyard. The distance between the front beam and roughly mid spi pole is ample for the single line back to back pulley system to work.
MP*MULTIHULLS
Re: request picture of spin halyard cleat
[Re: tshan]
#181509 06/09/0909:55 AM06/09/0909:55 AM
The Viper has the back-to-back blocks running up the mast. It goes like this: Dyneema ties off to the forestay sheave (?), down the mast, through the back-to-back block, up to the block for the spin halyard and to the head of the spin. A separate line runs from the the spin tack, into the pole, exits the main beam end of the pole on a block inside the spin pole, up the mast, through the back-to-back block, down the mast, through the mast mounted halyard cleat, through a small block on the main beam, back through a ring on the tramp and back forward through a hole on the tramp and into the spin snuffer.
Nice... A 1:2 on the halyard instead to have it on the outhaul. The spi must go up really quickly with such a system, one pull get the tack in place, two pulls and it's up? Not to mention that everything up the mast could be single braid dyneema as you never pull on it... Nice! The only disavantage I see is that it uses more line and one more pulley if you want it on the front beam.
Now you got me thinking about some hybrid, with a loop up the mast, another along the pole and a third line going from one to the other, then to the tramp and back to the snuffer... Some thinking is in order... I'm not sure this will leave enough line for the retrieval line.
Last edited by pepin; 06/09/0909:57 AM.
Re: request picture of spin halyard cleat
[Re: pepin]
#181510 06/09/0910:01 AM06/09/0910:01 AM
Hans has taken it all a step further with a 1:2 purchase on the halyard running up the forestay and therefore keeping the airflow over his carbon wingmast ultra-clean!
John Alani ___________ Stealth F16s GBR527 and GBR538
Re: request picture of spin halyard cleat
[Re: Jalani]
#181513 06/09/0910:23 AM06/09/0910:23 AM
Hans has taken it all a step further with a 1:2 purchase on the halyard running up the forestay and therefore keeping the airflow over his carbon wingmast ultra-clean!
Well, I do use my jib from time to time with my son. So, that's not an option for me.
Re: request picture of spin halyard cleat
[Re: Jalani]
#181531 06/09/0911:35 AM06/09/0911:35 AM
A 1:2 needs more muscle to pull up/down, especially if the kite partially fills. However, Kathleen seems to manage OK on Gill's Blade which has a 1:2 spi halyard. But like you said more rope alongside the mast does affect the airflow and in Gills case contradicts the internal downhaul. I wonder how much performance is lost in real terms with having the spi halyard up the mast compared to the windage factor with a 1:2 system on the forestay? not even measurable I would imagine but more psychological.
MP*MULTIHULLS
Re: request picture of spin halyard cleat
[Re: Mark P]
#181547 06/09/0912:43 PM06/09/0912:43 PM
Slow down. That is not a 1:2 halyard described by T-shan because it is a back-to-back block.
I always wanted to see 1:2 halyard system because the coinciding retrieval line would also need to be 1:2 or some other way to carry the extra line. Most likely the retrieval 1:2 block would have to partially enter the chute sock and the retrieval would most certainly run through a block on the rear beam.