request picture of spin halyard cleat

I am moving the spin halyard cleat from the side of the mast to the front beam on a VWM Blade. I am planning to use a stand-up block and a standard swivel cleat on the front beam. I do not want to use a Spinlock.

If anybody has a similar setup on their Blade and could take a picture, that would be super cool. I'm particularly interested in how far away you placed the cleat from the mast and what cool things you used for a riser.





Thanks,
Blade 729

I made the change about a year ago. I think the block placement depends on if you will sail 2 up or not. If you will not you can put the cleat fairly close to the mast and the block can go on the spin pole. If you will be using the jib, the cleat is placed just outside the jib traveler and the block goes on the beam under the jib traveler. I used a new spinlock and it has worked flawlessly mounted directly to the beam. I have a picture but have no idea how to attach it to this post.

Are you runnig a seperate tack line or does this halyard go out to the tack as well? If you're not running a seperate tack line then reverse the system that is rigged at present so the halyard goes from the cleat to the tack line then back to the beam and up the mast.

Thanks for the info. I would love to see that picture! I think you can attach by clicking the "File Manager" link at the bottom of the posting form.

Good idea. I am running a separate tack line. I'd like to go with a single line system like you describe, but I don't think I have enough halyard length to do it right now.

Picture attempt.

A little bigger.

Maybe a zoom in.

Chris, I am running basically the same rig, except I do not have the grommet further up the tramp as you have. My spin line runs through the rear tramp grommet. What's the benefit of running through the grommet closer to the cross-beam?

Teh benefit is that you are always facing forward and pulling from in front whenever hoisting/dousing teh spin.

Also, abrasion may damage your tramp (on the under side). It is possible to run the halyard over (aft)of the rod that supports the tramp, resulting in abrasion damage. Don't ask me how I know.

Personally, I have just a (non-swiveling) cleat on my mainbeam. Used only two large stainless screws to secure it to the beam and it has never failed on me. Using just Parker screws is also what AHPC did for years when fitting a spi halyard cleat. Seems to be sufficient.

I actaully have the cleat on the beam where the traveller rail is as well. The two don't not seem to interfere on my boat.

Wouter

Sounds interesting. But I don't completely understand. Would you elaborate on what you mean by "traveler rail" in this context (or draw me a picture)?

Is this benefit when sailing two-up? I'm typically pretty far aft hoisting the spin sailing uni.

I mean dousing, not hoisting.

I personally still have teh line running to teh back beam also so I can't speak from experience. My mark roundings are relatively traffic free as I am Portsmouth racing against mostly monohulls. With teh douse line running to the back beam you would probably still end up with your body axis oriented slightly aft. Not having your head in a position to be watching forward could lead to issues at mark roundings. At teh least, you probably drop early, in recognition of all teh high-speed traffic and how you need your head up.

If you can be kneeling on teh tramp, hauling line like crazy and still have your peripheral vision watching port and starboard, would both be safer and allow you to drive closer to teh mark.

GeoffS,
Having been out of the loop, so to speak, for a while would you mind telling me if your boat came with the spin cleat mounted on the mast. If so, what was the reasoning and why are you moving away from that? I am doing a little revamping on my Blade and planning on adding an additional cleat on the mast and replacing the spinlock on the main beam with something I can operate in light air.
Thanks,
Will Lints

The boat - a 2007ish VWM Blade - came with the cleat on the mast and neither I or my co-owner like it there. The cleat on the mast is frequently rotated away from you (i.e., on the wrong side of the mast) when you need to get to it. I think if we had been given the choice at the time we bought the boat, we would have asked for the cleat on the beam, but we didn't think about it. Additionally, this boat is almost always sailed single-handed and I always thought the cleat-on-the-mast thing was more for double-handed sailing.

Oh, I hadn’t thought about the cleat sometimes being on the wrong side. I sail single handed as well, my thinking is that sometimes I like to let out a little extra halyard and prefer it being pulled up instead of letting the spin hang down on the spin pole. This I use in light air and flattening it as much as possible so I can ‘reach’ a little higher. The other idea is that in strong wind the boat wants to nose dive and I think if I could have the sail pulled up high on the mast and let the bottom part (tack I think) run out significantly I think the sail might lift the bows up and let me push it harder.

Mission accomplished. See photos. I found the riser for the elliptical beam in the Catsailor store. I am sure Wouter will detect some geometrical issue with this installation that I have failed to consider. I haven't yet sailed the boat with the relocated spinnaker halyard cleat, but I think it is going to make single-handing much more enjoyable. Now... if I could just keep the thing from pitching so easily...

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.

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.

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.

That is close. The only difference mine had was:

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).

t

Like this?

I'd still like to see how waynemarlow configured part of the system inside his pole.

That is how mine runs (back to back block on the tack). I understand the Viper and F17 run a single block on the tack.

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.

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.

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...

I use a back to back block and have no excess spi halyard whether up or down. It is a little trickey getting the tack line the exact length.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Perhaps Klaus can give us a quick estimation on that. My guess, it is just psychological and nothing else.

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.

Yes Pepin saw me mucking about before the Weds night last and indeed I rigged a 2:1 uphaul, it works a treat but and it is a big but.

At our club we tend to race triangles and often the spinnaker is uphauled on a reach which means that it is real tough haul to get it the top with 2:1. Dead downwind as a more normal windward leeward cat course its works well. Downside is that it leaves ( and I won't describe in words why ) more halyard on your tramp, one would have to make the retreive a 2:1 as well before things would equalise.

I want to persevere for a while with the 2:1 uphaul as it means I can use D12 which won't put those irritating little burn holes in my spinnaker which I occassionally get as its quite a naturally oily and slipperry feeling rope. I've tried to have D12 as the entire halyard but as yet have not found a way for the cleats to jam on it, out on the wire on maximum strain the cleats ( including a spinlock ) eventually let the halyard ease through.

You are right, it is not a 1:2, I was mistaken. The only reason for this system on the viper is to move the cleat onto the mast while still keeping it a one line operation.

The way I was thinking about it you can probably do a 1:2 on the halyard:

* You set the halyard from the head of the spi, to the top block, down a bit around another floating block (let's call this the "spi halyard block") and up the mast to a fixed point somewhere. The block should be as high as possible but still allow the head of the spi to enter the snuffer. This can be a stripped line as it will never see a cleat or a hand.

* you set a single line from the spi tack, to the front of the pole and then back along the pole to finish in a single block ("the spi tack block"). This block should be almost touching the main beam when the tack of the sail is at the pole end. Again, a stripped line.

* You then route a third line starting from the spi halyard block, down to the main beam pulley, forward along the pole, around the spi tack block and then back to the beam cleat. Followed by a little circle around the trampoline and into the snuffer to the three patches.

Now when you pull you have a 2:1 on the tack and a 1:2 on the head. This should give you half the distance snuffer/top pulley plus twice the length snuffer/end-pole for the retrieval line. The issue there is I'm not sure it is long enough to allow for the spi to go all the way up, some additional length on the trampoline when the spi is down may be needed. If you put a back to back block on the tack line, like I'm assuming Wayne has (I didn't look wednesday Wayne, I have no clue what you were doing it is even worse, as it will be a 1:1, and you 'lose' one length snuffer/pole for the retrieval line. To compensate the missing length should be on the trampoline when the spi is down.

As for the burns on the spi, I have some too. I'm using a regular dyneema line with a polyester cover. I don't know what to use to avoid the burns while keeping the line nice on the hands...

You are sort of describing the system I have but the real problem is not in the uphual and the outhaul but the retrieval line, we need to figure out a way to get that 1:2 to equalise things out a bit plus its getting the spinnaker down quickly enough to prevent the sheets going undr bows etc.

By the way what is the convention 2:1 or 1:2 for a rope that pulls 2 metres for every 1 metre it is pulled ?

Your main sheet is a 7:1. What you describe is the opposite, so a 1:2.