Results 1 to 7 of 9
3rd May 2012, 08:50 AM #1
Sailworks Retro 8m on Tush 490 mast - rigging advice please?
For some time I've been struggling with an 8m sailworks retro. Most of my masts are tushingham as they are readily available 2nd hand and cheap. So I'm currently rigging it on a 490 45% CC 28 IMCS sdm. The sail has an IMCS range of 28-30.
I bought this sail nearly a year ago, and I have had some good sessions using it. However particularly on saturday (28th - inland on reservoir) I was really struggling with it. It felt really unbalanced in my hands when it was powered up. I was adjusting my harness lines a lot, but just couldn't really find the sweet spot. I'd find it was more difficult than it should be to sheet in, and when it was fully sheeted in and I was planing the slightest drop in the wind strength meant that it would be a struggle to stay planing.
At no time when I was planing did I feel that I could relax really, which was quite frustrating. Meanwhile others were doing well, mainly on 9.4s and 8.5s and not having the trouble I was. I came in and tightened the outhaul a little bit which helped somewhat.
There was a decent amount of downhaul on the sail (I think) - flappy leech down to the second batten. One thing I've noticed is that all of the battens are away from the mast - this can't be right - usually I suppose the top two battens will point directly into the mast and the battens below will be gradually further around the mast as you go further down.
This gap between all the battens and the mast means that there is no draught to the sail at the mast end. the battens are reasonably tightened, and there IS shape to the sail but I think it is further back, rather than by the mast - perhaps this is the root of the problem?
According to this unifer mast selector tool sailworks sdms are constant curve and tushingham are flex top - so maybe this is simply a mast compatibility issue?
The other factor is the boom, as I noticed that the boom I was using on Saturday (at near max extension), was flexing a fair bit, and the sail is definitely more stable with a longer boom (200-250).
Any advice on how I can improve the rigging of the sail would be appreciated. Or should I sell this and get a 8/7.8m tushingham or neil pryde that should work with my tushingham 490 or 460 mast?
thanks'13 Sessions: 34
3rd May 2012, 10:03 AM #2
I may be wrong but I think that needs another 1 to 2 cm of downhaul and less outhaul.
Also you are using the top clew cringle, which may add to the odd unbalanced feel.
On the boom front if you have a bigger one that you can set on less extension, I would use that.2013 Sessions: Speed/Slalom 19, B&J/Wave 20, SUP/WindSUP 04
2012 Sessions: Speed/Slalom 30, B&J/Wave 25, SUP 02
For Sale: 2006 Tushingham Rock 3.7m, Luff 3.67, Boom 1.48, Mast 370/16 or 400/19, SDM or RDM. £100 collect from Chippenham or Maidenhead.
3rd May 2012, 10:13 AM #3
whilst we wait for the experts... sure you've already read this in detail, lots of really helpful pics:
I used to have Retros and Revos and that set looks all wrong to me... nowehere near enough tension in the skin of the sail, even with the foot wrinkles they reckon are ok when the sail's not loaded up.
IIRC my Sailworks used to set fine with very little or no rotation on the battens just above and below the boom when downhauled hard for high wind, a bit like the Ezzys do, but that one looks like there's not enough curve in the mast, or downhaul tension, or outhaul tension, or batten tension, or something... set like a sack of sh1t as my old Dad would say
Last edited by na-omi; 3rd May 2012 at 10:43 AM.
3rd May 2012, 10:40 AM #4
Right, so I'm obviously going wrong somewhere. I'll use the longer boom from now on, and that should help a little.
So you CAN have the battens pointing into the mast with this type of sail - I've never owned one or an ezzy before so that is new to me.
I'll have a look over the pdf - thanks for the link and tips both.
3rd May 2012, 10:42 AM #5
3rd May 2012, 10:46 AM #6
If all else fails, I always resort to reading the instructions
5th May 2012, 06:18 AM #7