Re: Alternative Sail Plan for Micro

I’m aware of the Michalak designs. Having built a June Bug, a Micro, a Brick/Duck, and a Shoebox I want to make something nicer. I’m working my way towards having time available to do that.

 

MylesJ

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Myles J. Swift" <mswift@...> wrote:
>...I'd like to downsize my vehicle. I'm looking for something with a little performance, tow at or under 500 pounds, and I really want a mizzen...

IMO one of Jim Michalak's designs may best suit your desires. He is heavily influenced by Bolger, and designs very simple and, therefore, light boats. Many of his designs include a mizzen. He is noted for being responsive to builder requests and would likely place a mizzen rig on one of his designs for a very reasonable cost. Duckworks has many of his designs available for sale, though not all.

At least one is pretty much a water ballasted, lee board Micro. Others are close to Martha Jane.

Don

Hilbert,

 

No, the stock Tread Lightly is actually too heavy for what I want plus I have a Bolger Micro I built nearly 25 years ago. I’d like to downsize my vehicle. I’m looking for something with a little performance, tow at or under 500 pounds, and I really want a mizzen. I got spoiled by the mizzen on Micro. I’d go for a water ballast Navigator pretty quickly.  Spartina has always been on my list and I think the Navigator has a lot of that same vibe.

 

MylesJ

Good day Myles J. are you going to build a tread lightly with water tanks? she is longer than scamp and has the same sail layout.? greetings Hilbert.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Myles J. Swift" <mswift@...> wrote:
>
> I wasn't suggesting using a balanced lug on Micro, sorry I wasn't clear on
> that. I was looking at his original question of dealing with the mast on
> Micro and other considerations of simplifying things for retirement boating.
> My main fantasy boat right now is a stretched SCAMP with the Walkabout sail
> plan.
>
>
>
> MylesJ
>

I wasn’t suggesting using a balanced lug on Micro, sorry I wasn’t clear on that. I was looking at his original question of dealing with the mast on Micro and other considerations of simplifying things for retirement boating. My main fantasy boat right now is a stretched SCAMP with the Walkabout sail plan.

 

MylesJ

I like the way the halyard is set up on Scamp so the peak of the yard
remains up high when the halyard is let go. The halyard is attached
quite low on the yard, passes behind the mast, through a loop that is
fixed further up the yard and then to the top of the mast and down to
the base.

http://www.duckworksbbs.com/plans/jw/scamp/index.htm

Great instructions for setting a balance lug by Mik Storer.

http://www.storerboatplans.com/GIS/GISRigging.html

But again, to use a balance lug on a Micro the mast would have to be
located further aft although some versions have very little of the boom
ahead of the mast, so almost like a standing lug.

Lymington River Scow comes to mind.

http://www.lymingtonriverscow.org/Rigging--and--Equipment-Guide.php

The boom can be shifted aft to allow for a jib or moved forward when not
flying the jib. And look how it is reefed! Just a loop of line attached
to the luff cringle that is pulled down and hooked over the boom and
another line from the boom and through the leech cringle and snugs the
loose sail around the boom. Works best on a small open boat of one with
the slot top like a Birdwatcher.

Nels


--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Myles J. Swift" <mswift@...> wrote:
>
> Nels,
>
>
>
> I was talking about the usage of the original sail plan. The OP was
> concerned about the mast. I'm pointing out that he is trading one
problem
> for another. I'd rather deal with the problem that can be taken care
of on
> the hard or at the dock. If a williwaw hits I'd rather not be around a
> scandalized sprit or gaff.
>
>
>
> Thinking in that frame of mind, the Welsford balanced lug rig seems to
be a
> winner. If you have been following SCAMP, they have rigged it so that
both
> yard and boom are captured to the mast. Neither of them is heavy
enough to
> do much damage
>
>
>
> SCAMP is pretty impressive. For the man overboard recovery tests it
took a
> little work to get it to go over. With the boat over well past 45
degrees it
> sailed right along, the tester had to stand on the rail at that point
to go
> over.
>
>
>
> Welsford, Storer, and Lillistone are antipodean Bolgeristas. The
design was
> commissioned by the people at Small Craft Advisor magazine. They have
a boat
> safety rating system test everyone should take. Micro scores well on
this
> test. The commission was for the safest 11'11" sailboat (staying under
> registration limits) that Welsford could design. SCAMP has been
described as
> the best design for the early years of retirement. I've been looking
at it
> because of the water ballast which means a complete tow package well
under
> 500 pounds.
>
>http://smallcraftadvisor.com/sca-seaworthiness-test
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> MylesJ
>

Nels,

 

I was talking about the usage of the original sail plan. The OP was concerned about the mast. I’m pointing out that he is trading one problem for another. I’d rather deal with the problem that can be taken care of on the hard or at the dock. If a williwaw hits I’d rather not be around a scandalized sprit or gaff.

 

Thinking in that frame of mind, the Welsford balanced lug rig seems to be a winner. If you have been following SCAMP, they have rigged it so that both yard and boom are captured to the mast. Neither of them is heavy enough to do much damage

 

SCAMP is pretty impressive. For the man overboard recovery tests it took a little work to get it to go over. With the boat over well past 45 degrees it sailed right along, the tester had to stand on the rail at that point to go over.

 

Welsford, Storer, and Lillistone are antipodean Bolgeristas. The design was commissioned by the people at Small Craft Advisor magazine. They have a boat safety rating system test everyone should take. Micro scores well on this test. The commission was for the safest 11’11” sailboat (staying under registration limits) that Welsford could design. SCAMP has been described as the best design for the early years of retirement. I’ve been looking at it because of the water ballast which means a complete tow package well under 500 pounds.

http://smallcraftadvisor.com/sca-seaworthiness-test

 

 

 

 

MylesJ

Hi Myles,

I would be very interested in more details in what you wrote here:

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Myles J. Swift" <mswift@...> wrote:
> After a couple of seasons of reefing by moving the boom to the upper
clew
> and lots of banging I changed to bottom up reefing. No lines get
moved.
> Slack the downhaul, drop the main enough, pull the reefing line (like
slab
> type jiffy reefing except bottom up instead of along the mast) tie the
upper
> clew to the boom, retension the halyard and downhaul, two or three
minutes
> and you are done, at old guy speeds.

Reefing line? Downhaul? Are you still talking about the original sail
plan on Micro or another variation?

> Maybe a solution is to make or have someone make a lightweight mast.
Someone
> said they built a 22 pound coopered mast.

That was me suggested that and it was made birdsmouth technique. I am
still considering that option which was made from clear fir or maybe
trying carbon fiber instead. Even if going with a tabernacle as one gets
really old:-)

One can increase sail area a bit by using battens as Bolger did on the
Birdwatcher solent rig option. However I just don't "get" the advantage
of adding a relatively long yard in order to get a somewhat shorter
mast.

Nels

I wrestle with the question of altering Micro. First, when thinking about sailing as you get older, nothing is easier in actual use than the original sprit boom sail.  You can’t get hit by the boom unless you are standing up. You can let it fly forward of the mast in an emergency.

 

Regarding reefing of the sprit boom sail, applying in some measure to other sprit sails: If you need to reef and you have a lot of the sprit ahead of the mast you have a lot of movement of the sprit(s), banging on the mast etc. On the sprit boom you can add a slide to keep the boom in when you lengthen the snotter. Some people use sail track for this purpose.

 

After a couple of seasons of reefing by moving the boom to the upper clew and lots of banging I changed to bottom up reefing. No lines get moved. Slack the downhaul, drop the main enough, pull the reefing line (like slab type jiffy reefing except bottom up instead of along the mast) tie the upper clew to the boom, retension the halyard and downhaul, two or three minutes and you are done, at old guy speeds.

 

Maybe a solution is to make or have someone make a lightweight mast. Someone said they built a 22 pound coopered mast.

 

Any idea of the average wind where you plan to spending most of your time on the water? If it is mainly 5-6 knots then a bigger sail  could be a good thing. If it is higher, then the original sail plan is plenty.

 

 

MylesJ

Hi John,

I will put traditional reef points in. The method of reefing you mention refers to a quadrilateral spritsail. I've used that method on a Dobler skiff I built. It kills windward work and is only good for reaching and running, but it certainly reduces heeling moment and in a jiffy! I tied the peak to a cleat on the mast to hold it down. I do not see anyway that a lug could be reefed this way except by removing the yard altogether.

I think it is easier to increase snotter line length and allow the boom to stick farther out before the mast when reefing. It looks neater to my eye and avoids the worry of the boom knocking me on the noggin as it would sit significantly lower in the cockpit if you reattach the clew on a more forward position on the boom.

Regarding reefed centers of sail area. I think, although I have yet to work it out on paper, that once you get the main and mizzen aligned, then the reefing should maintain a fairly close symmetry to the original sail plan. Square sails, however, do not move their CoEs as far forward as triangular sails do. I do not see this as a problem with respect to the lug main.

While I am not a big fan of modifying hull designs, I think sailplans are fair game. I've enjoyed turning my Dobler from a cat rigged boat into a Spritsail Sloop. I've modified my Core Sound 15 to sail as a spritsail sloop, and I've modified my balanced lug dinghy to sail with the mizzen of the Core Sound 15 and all with very good results and with little to no change in mast stepping arrangements as originally designed for these boats. I think I can achieve the same with Micro. Recall this thread about the alternative rig started with my taking seriously Micro sailers complaints about stepping the rig and my dislike of the looks of the tabernacle on the Micro II. This is one solution that I think would work without either spoiling what I think are Micro's good looks or her sailing characteristics. Besides, I am getting longer in the tooth and would like to sail this boat well into my decrepitude. This is one way I think I can achieve that without having concerns about stepping the mast get in the way of my enjoyment of sailing.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John and Kathy Trussell" <jtrussell2@...> wrote:
>
> Note: PCB says (and my experience confirms) that your sprit needs to be
> longer than you think would be necessary.
>
>
>
> A second consideration is how you plan to reef the main. One way is
> traditional reef points which will require either longer snotters (allowing
> the sprit and the boom to extend forward of the mast). Alternatively, you
> can drop the sprit and fold the peak down to form a smaller 'leg of mutton'
> sail. PCB advocated this, but I'm not sure how you fasten the peak down.
>
>
>
> To refer to PCB again, He likes the Micro rig because when the main is
> reefed, the mizzen balances the rig and the overall center of effort doesn't
> change significantly. From this, I infer that there is some flexibility in
> changing the main sail.
>
>
>
> JohnT
>
>
>
> _____
>
Dennis,

John Welsford has a smart solution. A tack downhaul with a 3 or 4 part purchase will provide the luff tension which will lift the peak - much better than trying to do that with the halyard.

When setting up my balanced lug I played with the location of the halyard attachment on the yard. The location of this attachment affects the luff tension/peak lift balance but also affects the tilt of the sail back and forward - this is another variable for adjustment of your helm balance when the time comes.

Regards,

Andrew

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "thedumbox2" <thedumbox@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts. Your observations are well taken.
>
> I have not drawn in the sprit boom yet and foresee it being much lower on the mast than what you see in the drawings. Welsford says that this type of rig is quite adjustable, so experimenting with sprit boom placement and halyard attachment will be a factor in performance. He also noted that the luff needs to be well tensioned. So he recommends hauling the yard up until the knot of the halyard is touching the block or sheeve and then adjusting the tack downhaul, which he thinks should have a 3 or 4 part purchase to dial in the required tension on the luff.
>
> Dennis
>
>

Note: PCB says (and my experience confirms) that your sprit needs to be longer than you think would be necessary.

 

A second consideration is how you plan to reef the main. One way is traditional reef points which will require either longer snotters (allowing the sprit and the boom to extend forward of the mast). Alternatively, you can drop the sprit and fold the peak down to form a smaller ‘leg of mutton’ sail. PCB advocated this, but I’m not sure how you fasten the peak down.

 

To refer to PCB again, He likes the Micro rig because when the main is reefed, the mizzen balances the rig and the overall center of effort doesn’t change significantly. From this, I infer that there is some flexibility in changing the main sail.

 

JohnT

 

From:bolger@yahoogroups.com [mailto: bolger@yahoogroups.com ]On Behalf Ofthedumbox2
Sent:Wednesday, June 29, 2011 5:34 AM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject:[bolger] Re: Alternative Sail Plan for Micro

 

 

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your thoughts. Your observations are well taken.

I have not drawn in the sprit boom yet and foresee it being much lower on the mast than what you see in the drawings. Welsford says that this type of rig is quite adjustable, so experimenting with sprit boom placement and halyard attachment will be a factor in performance. He also noted that the luff needs to be well tensioned. So he recommends hauling the yard up until the knot of the halyard is touching the block or sheeve and then adjusting the tack downhaul, which he thinks should have a 3 or 4 part purchase to dial in the required tension on the luff.

Dennis

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <a.c.l.yen@...> wrote:

>
> Dennis,
>
> From an armchair perspective I doubt that the fore-aft change in CoE will
be noticeable. The CoE is a bit airy fairy anyway - because the true centre of effort is not exactly where the centre of the sail area is and it changes depending on sail cut and shape. An inch here or there may mean that you sheet your mizzen in a little bit harder or not to get helm balance but you may never notice.
>
> Something to consider about halyard tension: Looking at your pictures I
see that the tack is fixed to the mast, and the tension on the foot is tending to pull down on the clew. The sprit boom is angled down so it is also pushing the clew down. The counterbalancing force is the tension in the leech pulling up. The leech tension is provided by the halyard(s) pulling up on the yard. So to set this sail well requires a considerable halyard tension, possibly a purchase. I'm not sure what John Welsford recommends for his boats but you could bet that he has worked it out. On my 60sqft balance lug sail I have a 2:1 purchase on the downhaul and I need it. (which is placing tension in the halyard)
>
> Andrew
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com,
"thedumbox2" <thedumbox@> wrote:
> >
> > I have been fiddling once again with the idea of a standing lug rig
for Micro. Here are two examples. One is patterned after John Welsford's Rogue sail plan and the other after his Houdini sail plan. <snip>
> >
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/fattylumpkin/?saved=1
> >
> > Dennis
> >
>

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your thoughts. Your observations are well taken.

I have not drawn in the sprit boom yet and foresee it being much lower on the mast than what you see in the drawings. Welsford says that this type of rig is quite adjustable, so experimenting with sprit boom placement and halyard attachment will be a factor in performance. He also noted that the luff needs to be well tensioned. So he recommends hauling the yard up until the knot of the halyard is touching the block or sheeve and then adjusting the tack downhaul, which he thinks should have a 3 or 4 part purchase to dial in the required tension on the luff.

Dennis

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <a.c.l.yen@...> wrote:
>
> Dennis,
>
> From an armchair perspective I doubt that the fore-aft change in CoE will be noticeable. The CoE is a bit airy fairy anyway - because the true centre of effort is not exactly where the centre of the sail area is and it changes depending on sail cut and shape. An inch here or there may mean that you sheet your mizzen in a little bit harder or not to get helm balance but you may never notice.
>
> Something to consider about halyard tension: Looking at your pictures I see that the tack is fixed to the mast, and the tension on the foot is tending to pull down on the clew. The sprit boom is angled down so it is also pushing the clew down. The counterbalancing force is the tension in the leech pulling up. The leech tension is provided by the halyard(s) pulling up on the yard. So to set this sail well requires a considerable halyard tension, possibly a purchase. I'm not sure what John Welsford recommends for his boats but you could bet that he has worked it out. On my 60sqft balance lug sail I have a 2:1 purchase on the downhaul and I need it. (which is placing tension in the halyard)
>
> Andrew
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "thedumbox2" <thedumbox@> wrote:
> >
> > I have been fiddling once again with the idea of a standing lug rig for Micro. Here are two examples. One is patterned after John Welsford's Rogue sail plan and the other after his Houdini sail plan. <snip>
> >
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/fattylumpkin/?saved=1
> >
> > Dennis
> >
>
Dennis,

From an armchair perspective I doubt that the fore-aft change in CoE will be noticeable. The CoE is a bit airy fairy anyway - because the true centre of effort is not exactly where the centre of the sail area is and it changes depending on sail cut and shape. An inch here or there may mean that you sheet your mizzen in a little bit harder or not to get helm balance but you may never notice.

Something to consider about halyard tension: Looking at your pictures I see that the tack is fixed to the mast, and the tension on the foot is tending to pull down on the clew. The sprit boom is angled down so it is also pushing the clew down. The counterbalancing force is the tension in the leech pulling up. The leech tension is provided by the halyard(s) pulling up on the yard. So to set this sail well requires a considerable halyard tension, possibly a purchase. I'm not sure what John Welsford recommends for his boats but you could bet that he has worked it out. On my 60sqft balance lug sail I have a 2:1 purchase on the downhaul and I need it. (which is placing tension in the halyard)

Andrew

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "thedumbox2" <thedumbox@...> wrote:
>
> I have been fiddling once again with the idea of a standing lug rig for Micro. Here are two examples. One is patterned after John Welsford's Rogue sail plan and the other after his Houdini sail plan. <snip>
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/fattylumpkin/?saved=1
>
> Dennis
>
I have been fiddling once again with the idea of a standing lug rig for Micro. Here are two examples. One is patterned after John Welsford's Rogue sail plan and the other after his Houdini sail plan. Masts would be no longer than 17 ft. As shown, the combined COE on both lug sails is about 1 inch fwd of the original combined COE of the leg-o-mutton rig. This would require a slight adjustment of the mast to get them to line up with the original coe. The standing lug combined coes are approximately 9 inches higher than the original. Mainsail area has been increased to between 150 and 158 sq ft. I did not draw any roach in as I am not sure quite how to figure the area (calculus is not quite my bag). Also, I have heard that roach area is helpful primarily for sailing off wind courses. I am not sure the expense or trouble would be worth it. If you have any thoughts on this I could stand to be educated.

I would keep the scantlings for the leg-o-mutton mast, but with much less taper, and hence thicker at the mast top. Scantlings for yard and sprit boom would be 2 -- 2.5" square. The yard could be hollow box section which would reduce weight aloft. Weight reduction aloft would be significant given the shorter mast. It would be more manageable to raise and lower, to be sure. I think they look OK.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fattylumpkin/?saved=1

Dennis

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "thedumbox2" <thedumbox@...> wrote:
>
> I have been researching the possibility of building a Micro for sailing and cruising the Great Lakes. I have read through many of the posts dealing with Micro here as well as corresponded with some Micro owners/sailors who have been very kind to share their experiences of the boat with me. There seem to be 3 primary difficulties about the boat. 1) It is difficult to launch because of the salient keel; 2) it does not sail to windward well; and 3) the mast can be troublesome to step because of its length and weight.
>
> Many here say that setting up an appropriate trailer with a drop axle will resolve difficulty #1. Since shallow launch ramps are not a concern for me, I don't consider this being a problem. Opinions vary on the Micro's pointing ability. Some say it is a slug to windward, others say they get her to point decently. While I do like a good windward slog, and while an awful lot of my daysailing is windward, the other virtues of the boat seem to me to outweigh this particular shortcoming. This leaves the question of the main mast. This is probably the problem most cited and the one that concerns me most. I know that PB&F changed the sailplan to accommodate a mast tabernacle, but quite frankly, I think it detracts from the boat's good looks and makes it look rather rhinoceros like. Rhinos are not the stuff of romance! Neither is the prospect of wrestling a 23 ft stick into place. So, with that in mind I decided to fiddle with an alternative main sail plan and I would like you Micronauts to tell me why it would not work.
>
> John Welsford's Rogue sail plan was the template I used for my sailplan (http://www.duckworksbbs.com/plans/jw/rogue/index.htm). It is a standing lug rig of 118sqft, the foot of which is controlled by a sprit boom. He also has 1 ft of roach in the leech. The dimensions of my version of this rig are:
>
> Foot 12'8"
> Luff 8'
> Head 11'4"
> Leech 18'3" for a nominal area of 135 sq ft. I did not factor the roach in, but it would add 15-20 more ft of sail area for a total of 155 sq ft at most (I'm speaking only of the main here without the mizzen factored in). When I cut out the pattern and put it on the plan, using the same tack point as the leg-o-mutton, the coe of the lug matched exactly the coe of the original main, although it was slightly lower, which I expected. With this rig, one could eliminate the top 6 to seven feet of the main mast as originally devised, eliminate the weight of the stick and have a more manageable mast to wrestle in place. Set up time would be much quicker and the standing lug would be a powerful sail for the hull not to mention the fact that it is an attractive shape.
>
> I wish I had pics to show you, but lack the technology for such things. Anyway, I would be interested in hearing why this would be a bad idea.
>
> Best,
> Dennis
>
>
> I would be interested in the brain trust's wisdom on the pros and cons of this sort of standing lug rig versus a balanced lug rig.
>

>

Hi Andrew,

The balanced lug is the one that is self vanging. The down haul being attached behind the tack of the sail achieves this effect, preventing the boom from lifting when running before the wind.

The standing lug might be slightly better to windward, but off the wind the boom lifts and the yard sags off.

I've tried both and went back to a balanced lug.

Reed
I think the reason the tabernacle is so wide - like a rhino horn - is to
allow spacing for the 3 turning blocks for the strings on the Chinese
gaff sail plan. For the Long Micro with just one turning block on each
side the tabernacle is no wider that the mast and is not even
noticeable. Should work with the LOM sail plan on a Micro the same way.

If going with a balance lug, you would have to relocate the mast further
aft, right up against the forward bulkhead. This was done successfully
with a junk rig main conversion. Of course the sail area ahead of the
mast would obstruct access to the bow well to some degree.

You could attach a tabernacle up against the bulkhead. One that doesn't
have a pivot bolt. There is a diagram in BWAOM on page 228 and in other
places in the book as well.

Michalak also uses it in some of his designs and you can see it in the
last diagram here:

<http://marina.fortunecity.com/breakwater/274/2001/0115/index.htm#MAST%2\
0TABERNACLES>

It has some advantages if the spar is not too heavy. No need to drill a
hole through your precious mast. The mast is easy to remove from the
boat. And it does not protrude so far aft when lowered.

I will look for a link to Applecross, the UK junk-rigged Micro. There
are even some videos taken by the guy who made the "Keep Turning Left"
series of videos. Seems the owner's name was Martin.

Nels


--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <a.c.l.yen@...> wrote:
>
> I wonder if a balanced lug wouldn't be more suitable (Martha Jane gets
a few mentions in this thread)
>
> I would be interested in the brain trust's wisdom on the pros and cons
of this sort of standing lug rig versus a balanced lug rig.
>
> This standing lug has the self-vaging (that isn't a word is it?) of
the original micro sail but might tend to spill wind like a conventional
gaff rig. The balanced rig would have more control over the peak
wouldn't it?
>
> One advantage I can see is that the bending moments on the boom would
be much less in the standing lug sprit boom. My balanced lug I have on
my cartopper bends 3-4" when I pull hard on the downhaul.
>
> Andrew
>
I wonder if a balanced lug wouldn't be more suitable (Martha Jane gets a few mentions in this thread)

I would be interested in the brain trust's wisdom on the pros and cons of this sort of standing lug rig versus a balanced lug rig.

This standing lug has the self-vaging (that isn't a word is it?) of the original micro sail but might tend to spill wind like a conventional gaff rig. The balanced rig would have more control over the peak wouldn't it?

One advantage I can see is that the bending moments on the boom would be much less in the standing lug sprit boom. My balanced lug I have on my cartopper bends 3-4" when I pull hard on the downhaul.

Andrew
I agree the 100 sq. ft. balance lug on Scamp should be quite docile.

http://www.duckworksbbs.com/plans/jw/scamp/index.htm

120 sq. ft. standing lug I would tend to consider what Mr. Bolger has to
say. Another option might be the Solent rig (#19) where the halyard is
attached even higher up the yard than on the Scamp rig.

Nels

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, John Huft <t1ro2003@...> wrote:
>
> I have agree with Dennis about handling the yard for a 100 sqft lug.
I'm
> sailing a "Scamp" like 100sqft'er with a GIS pattern yards on a 12 ft
PDGoose.
> The only problem I have is keeping the sail out of the water on a
boat with a 4
> ft beam.
> John Boy
>
>
> Living the dream...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: thedumbox2 thedumbox@...
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, June 12, 2011 7:43:28 AM
> Subject: [bolger] Re: Alternative Sail Plan for Micro
>
>
> Hi Nels,
>
> Yes, I've thought about the weight of the yard. However, I am not so
sure that
> it would be heavier than say Martha Jane's yard, which has a
significantly
> larger sail than I am talking about here. And at the moment I do not
see it as a
> convincing argument against possibly adopting it. I have a 75 sq ft
balanced lug
> on a 12 ft dinghy and controlling the raising and lowering of the sail
presents
> little trouble. Controlling the leech is key.
>
>
> Since my first posting, I've discovered that just because the coe of
the lug
> aligns with the coe of the leg-o-mutton does not mean that the
combined coe is
> the same. The coe of the lug does not move back as far as the
leg-o-mutton main
> and the mast would need to be moved back about 3 inches from its
current
> position. (Bolger mentioned this in his 103 Sail Rigs somewhere.
Unfortunately,
> I do not have that book at the moment. Lending books is sometimes
> inconvenient!). But these calculations were made without figuring in
the roach
> and since the roach would move the coe of the lug aft a bit, it might
be that no
> change to the mast position would be required at all since it would
come closer
> to the combined coe of the original rig.
>
>
> I do not know how to figure the roach into the area of the sail. I
have seen all
> kinds of arguments for excluding/including roach measurements when
determining
> coe, but have yet to run across a formula describing how it is done.
Anyone here
> know how to do this?
>
>
> Dennis
>
I have 100 Small Boat Rigs and have wondered what the added 3 are. An older post by "oarmandt", Doug, reveals:
"103 Sailing Rigs has the same 100 chapters to start, plus 3 variations of the Chinese Gaff rig with an article by SA on the reasoning behind it."

Joe T

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "prairiedog2332" <arvent@...> wrote:
>
> I think it may be instructive to read what Mr. Bolger had to say about
> the rig in his book "103 Small Boat Rigs" Rig #16
>
> To sum up it seems it has to do with a relatively large and heavy yard
> once the sail area gets above 100 sq. ft.
>
> "A big standing lug is a docile sail when it's fully set, but it needs
> good judgment and quick reflexes to set and take in, in heavy weather."
> Seems what you gain in a shorter mast you loose in an ungainly heavy
> yard.
>
> The rig as drawn for Micro has other advantages shown in the book as
> #40.
>
> I know of a fellow who made a 22 ft. fir mast that weighed less than 20
> lb. using the birdsmouth building method. If one had access to clear
> spruce...
>
> Nels
>
I have agree with Dennis about handling the yard for a 100 sqft lug.  I'm sailing a "Scamp" like 100sqft'er with a GIS pattern yards on a 12 ft PDGoose.  The only problem I have is keeping the sail out of the water on a boat with a 4 ft beam.
John Boy
 

Living the dream...





From:thedumbox2 <thedumbox@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Sun, June 12, 2011 7:43:28 AM
Subject:[bolger] Re: Alternative Sail Plan for Micro

 

Hi Nels,

Yes, I've thought about the weight of the yard. However, I am not so sure that it would be heavier than say Martha Jane's yard, which has a significantly larger sail than I am talking about here. And at the moment I do not see it as a convincing argument against possibly adopting it. I have a 75 sq ft balanced lug on a 12 ft dinghy and controlling the raising and lowering of the sail presents little trouble. Controlling the leech is key.

Since my first posting, I've discovered that just because the coe of the lug aligns with the coe of the leg-o-mutton does not mean that the combined coe is the same. The coe of the lug does not move back as far as the leg-o-mutton main and the mast would need to be moved back about 3 inches from its current position. (Bolger mentioned this in his 103 Sail Rigs somewhere. Unfortunately, I do not have that book at the moment. Lending books is sometimes inconvenient!). But these calculations were made without figuring in the roach and since the roach would move the coe of the lug aft a bit, it might be that no change to the mast position would be required at all since it would come closer to the combined coe of the original rig.

I do not know how to figure the roach into the area of the sail. I have seen all kinds of arguments for excluding/including roach measurements when determining coe, but have yet to run across a formula describing how it is done. Anyone here know how to do this?

Dennis

Hi Nels,

Yes, I've thought about the weight of the yard. However, I am not so sure that it would be heavier than say Martha Jane's yard, which has a significantly larger sail than I am talking about here. And at the moment I do not see it as a convincing argument against possibly adopting it. I have a 75 sq ft balanced lug on a 12 ft dinghy and controlling the raising and lowering of the sail presents little trouble. Controlling the leech is key.

Since my first posting, I've discovered that just because the coe of the lug aligns with the coe of the leg-o-mutton does not mean that the combined coe is the same. The coe of the lug does not move back as far as the leg-o-mutton main and the mast would need to be moved back about 3 inches from its current position. (Bolger mentioned this in his 103 Sail Rigs somewhere. Unfortunately, I do not have that book at the moment. Lending books is sometimes inconvenient!). But these calculations were made without figuring in the roach and since the roach would move the coe of the lug aft a bit, it might be that no change to the mast position would be required at all since it would come closer to the combined coe of the original rig.

I do not know how to figure the roach into the area of the sail. I have seen all kinds of arguments for excluding/including roach measurements when determining coe, but have yet to run across a formula describing how it is done. Anyone here know how to do this?

Dennis
I think it may be instructive to read what Mr. Bolger had to say about
the rig in his book "103 Small Boat Rigs" Rig #16

To sum up it seems it has to do with a relatively large and heavy yard
once the sail area gets above 100 sq. ft.

"A big standing lug is a docile sail when it's fully set, but it needs
good judgment and quick reflexes to set and take in, in heavy weather."
Seems what you gain in a shorter mast you loose in an ungainly heavy
yard.

The rig as drawn for Micro has other advantages shown in the book as
#40.

I know of a fellow who made a 22 ft. fir mast that weighed less than 20
lb. using the birdsmouth building method. If one had access to clear
spruce...

Nels

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "alefoot" <dgw@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "thedumbox2" thedumbox@ wrote:
> ".... I wish I had pics to show you..."
>
> Not much of a pic, just a quick mash-up and not carefully scaled at
that:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Micro/roguish.gif
>
> Doesn't look bad to my eye, for what that's worth. I just wonder what
I'm missing that Bolger thought of.
>
Dennis,
I took no offense at your observation. When I looked at the Youtube clip of the Micro in Olympia, I almost gasped, "He's right. A rhino."
With a big horn in its nose and window/eyes. Please let us know what you decide to do.
Bill, in Texas

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "thedumbox2" <thedumbox@...> wrote:
>
> Bill, the Long Micro tabernacle does not quite look like this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As7ifm7FGos.I am sure that the rig modifications to Micro very well. I am not criticizing the design so much as airing an aesthetic opinion. Dennis
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "William" <kingw@> wrote:
> >
> > If I were to build another Long Micro, it would HAVE to be called
> > "Rhino" now. I love it. And who dares tells the man or woman astride a rhino that they do not look romantic?
> >
> > Bill in Texas
> > Long Micro, Pugnacious
> >
> >>
>
Hi Miles, I probably will get the updates to the plans in the next couple of months. As to the chinese gaff rig, I am not sure I want the complexity of it. As Bolger says in 103 sailing rigs -- a lug is as effective as a gaff rig, but simpler and quicker to rig. Simplicity is what I'm looking for in this case. Dennis

Why don’t you get the updated plans for the later rig? It is Phil’s version of a junk with more sail and reefing. Plus I think it looks more in tune with Micro than the lug you show. I haven’t done it since I often sail Micro with the original sail plan reefed. The main reason for me to make changes it that I need help with the mast anymore. At one time I could just pick it up and drop it in. What happened??

 

MylesJ

Bill, the Long Micro tabernacle does not quite look like this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As7ifm7FGos.I am sure that the rig modifications to Micro very well. I am not criticizing the design so much as airing an aesthetic opinion. Dennis

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "William" <kingw@...> wrote:
>
> If I were to build another Long Micro, it would HAVE to be called
> "Rhino" now. I love it. And who dares tells the man or woman astride a rhino that they do not look romantic?
>
> Bill in Texas
> Long Micro, Pugnacious
>
>>
If I were to build another Long Micro, it would HAVE to be called
"Rhino" now. I love it. And who dares tells the man or woman astride a rhino that they do not look romantic?

Bill in Texas
Long Micro, Pugnacious

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Susanne@..." <philbolger@...> wrote:
>
> The later rig option for MICRO included a much shorter mast, with a tabernacle to drop the stick for trailering or for a gale through the anchorage. And ample reefing option beyond what she already had since day one. As to 'rhino...' see a LONG MICRO in full flight,
> Susanne Altenburger, PB&F
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: thedumbox2
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 6:15 AM
> Subject: [bolger] Re: Alternative Sail Plan for Micro
>
>
>
> Alefoot,
>
> Thanks for putting the drawing together for me. I think the sail looks good on the boat as well. I also think that the increased area would help light air performance. The only thing I can think of here is that the taller rig provides more heeling moment allowing Micro to sail more easily on its chine. The lower profile of the lug may not provide that, which would cause the boat to sail too flat -- a problem Bolger wrote about on a 30ft sharpie sprit sail schooner. I can't recall the name of the design at the moment. Nevertheless, I think that in this rig the height of the coe of the lug can be matched identically to the coe of the original rig. It would only require moving the tack up 2 or three inches from its present position. I should think that that ought to meet that difficulty.
>
> Dennis
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "alefoot" <dgw@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "thedumbox2" <thedumbox@> wrote:
> > ".... I wish I had pics to show you..."
> >
> > Not much of a pic, just a quick mash-up and not carefully scaled at that:
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Micro/roguish.gif
> >
> > Doesn't look bad to my eye, for what that's worth. I just wonder what I'm missing that Bolger thought of.
> >
>
Jim Michalak his idea of a gaffer version of a Micro in the Musicbox 2 and Musicbox3.  His versions are shoal draft and use his single lee board.  Better suited for sheltered waters IMHO.  For sailing in the Great Lakes I think I'd rather have the keel as drawn on the Micro.  http://www.duckworksbbs.com/plans/jim/musicbox2/index.htm

Looking at his profile views of the MBs can help with ideas for an alternative sail plan.  He also has an essay on mast tabernacles here.  http://www.jimsboats.com/1jan11.htm

As far as Bolger's thoughts on rig choice its hard to say.   He did love his LOM sail, that's for sure.

Are you any good at software?  Maybe you could model it in Hulls or Freeship and graph the moments to see if there's a big difference.  I won't be of much help with that, when it comes to software, I'm a "Jonah."
John Boy 

 

Living the dream...





From:thedumbox2 <thedumbox@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Thu, June 9, 2011 8:27:46 PM
Subject:[bolger] Alternative Sail Plan for Micro

 

I have been researching the possibility of building a Micro for sailing and cruising the Great Lakes. I have read through many of the posts dealing with Micro here as well as corresponded with some Micro owners/sailors who have been very kind to share their experiences of the boat with me. There seem to be 3 primary difficulties about the boat. 1) It is difficult to launch because of the salient keel; 2) it does not sail to windward well; and 3) the mast can be troublesome to step because of its length and weight.

Many here say that setting up an appropriate trailer with a drop axle will resolve difficulty #1. Since shallow launch ramps are not a concern for me, I don't consider this being a problem. Opinions vary on the Micro's pointing ability. Some say it is a slug to windward, others say they get her to point decently. While I do like a good windward slog, and while an awful lot of my daysailing is windward, the other virtues of the boat seem to me to outweigh this particular shortcoming. This leaves the question of the main mast. This is probably the problem most cited and the one that concerns me most. I know that PB&F changed the sailplan to accommodate a mast tabernacle, but quite frankly, I think it detracts from the boat's good looks and makes it look rather rhinoceros like. Rhinos are not the stuff of romance! Neither is the prospect of wrestling a 23 ft stick into place. So, with that in mind I decided to fiddle with an alternative main sail plan and I would like you Micronauts to tell me why it would not work.

John Welsford's Rogue sail plan was the template I used for my sailplan (http://www.duckworksbbs.com/plans/jw/rogue/index.htm). It is a standing lug rig of 118sqft, the foot of which is controlled by a sprit boom. He also has 1 ft of roach in the leech. The dimensions of my version of this rig are:

Foot 12'8"
Luff 8'
Head 11'4"
Leech 18'3" for a nominal area of 135 sq ft. I did not factor the roach in, but it would add 15-20 more ft of sail area for a total of 155 sq ft at most (I'm speaking only of the main here without the mizzen factored in). When I cut out the pattern and put it on the plan, using the same tack point as the leg-o-mutton, the coe of the lug matched exactly the coe of the original main, although it was slightly lower, which I expected. With this rig, one could eliminate the top 6 to seven feet of the main mast as originally devised, eliminate the weight of the stick and have a more manageable mast to wrestle in place. Set up time would be much quicker and the standing lug would be a powerful sail for the hull not to mention the fact that it is an attractive shape.

I wish I had pics to show you, but lack the technology for such things. Anyway, I would be interested in hearing why this would be a bad idea.

Best,
Dennis

The later rig option for MICRO included a much shorter mast, with a tabernacle to drop the stick for trailering or for a gale through the anchorage.  And ample reefing option beyond what she already had since day one.  As to 'rhino...'  see a LONG MICRO in full flight,
Susanne Altenburger, PB&F 
----- Original Message -----
Sent:Friday, June 10, 2011 6:15 AM
Subject:[bolger] Re: Alternative Sail Plan for Micro

 

Alefoot,

Thanks for putting the drawing together for me. I think the sail looks good on the boat as well. I also think that the increased area would help light air performance. The only thing I can think of here is that the taller rig provides more heeling moment allowing Micro to sail more easily on its chine. The lower profile of the lug may not provide that, which would cause the boat to sail too flat -- a problem Bolger wrote about on a 30ft sharpie sprit sail schooner. I can't recall the name of the design at the moment. Nevertheless, I think that in this rig the height of the coe of the lug can be matched identically to the coe of the original rig. It would only require moving the tack up 2 or three inches from its present position. I should think that that ought to meet that difficulty.

Dennis

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "alefoot" <dgw@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "thedumbox2" <thedumbox@> wrote:
> ".... I wish I had pics to show you..."
>
> Not much of a pic, just a quick mash-up and not carefully scaled at that:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Micro/roguish.gif
>
> Doesn't look bad to my eye, for what that's worth. I just wonder what I'm missing that Bolger thought of.
>

Alefoot,

Thanks for putting the drawing together for me. I think the sail looks good on the boat as well. I also think that the increased area would help light air performance. The only thing I can think of here is that the taller rig provides more heeling moment allowing Micro to sail more easily on its chine. The lower profile of the lug may not provide that, which would cause the boat to sail too flat -- a problem Bolger wrote about on a 30ft sharpie sprit sail schooner. I can't recall the name of the design at the moment. Nevertheless, I think that in this rig the height of the coe of the lug can be matched identically to the coe of the original rig. It would only require moving the tack up 2 or three inches from its present position. I should think that that ought to meet that difficulty.

Dennis


--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "alefoot" <dgw@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "thedumbox2" <thedumbox@> wrote:
> ".... I wish I had pics to show you..."
>
> Not much of a pic, just a quick mash-up and not carefully scaled at that:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Micro/roguish.gif
>
> Doesn't look bad to my eye, for what that's worth. I just wonder what I'm missing that Bolger thought of.
>
Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "thedumbox2" <thedumbox@...> wrote:
".... I wish I had pics to show you..."

Not much of a pic, just a quick mash-up and not carefully scaled at that:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Micro/roguish.gif

Doesn't look bad to my eye, for what that's worth. I just wonder what I'm missing that Bolger thought of.
I'm a big lug rig fan. It certainly is easy to set, reef and lower. The weatherliness or lack thereof of Micro is probably based on the shallow keel. Leeboards on the Martha Jane contribute to her ability to go to weather.

Some thought...

Reed
Ventura, CA
 I'm not fortunate enough to own a bolger of any sort, so far, but this looks like a sailplane that could easily be made to work with my little Dolphin Sr.  Just add a second sail ring, and attach the modified sail with the lateen booms split apart to give space to the sail.  It would be almost scary to try, though - putting that much sail power onto such a tiny craft?  lol.

(the bolger boat that got me interested in this forum was the Martha Jane, with the larger cabin - interesting to see that the instant boats website doesn't even offer it, now.)

>(http://www.duckworksbbs.com/plans/jw/rogue/index.htm).
I have been researching the possibility of building a Micro for sailing and cruising the Great Lakes. I have read through many of the posts dealing with Micro here as well as corresponded with some Micro owners/sailors who have been very kind to share their experiences of the boat with me. There seem to be 3 primary difficulties about the boat. 1) It is difficult to launch because of the salient keel; 2) it does not sail to windward well; and 3) the mast can be troublesome to step because of its length and weight.

Many here say that setting up an appropriate trailer with a drop axle will resolve difficulty #1. Since shallow launch ramps are not a concern for me, I don't consider this being a problem. Opinions vary on the Micro's pointing ability. Some say it is a slug to windward, others say they get her to point decently. While I do like a good windward slog, and while an awful lot of my daysailing is windward, the other virtues of the boat seem to me to outweigh this particular shortcoming. This leaves the question of the main mast. This is probably the problem most cited and the one that concerns me most. I know that PB&F changed the sailplan to accommodate a mast tabernacle, but quite frankly, I think it detracts from the boat's good looks and makes it look rather rhinoceros like. Rhinos are not the stuff of romance! Neither is the prospect of wrestling a 23 ft stick into place. So, with that in mind I decided to fiddle with an alternative main sail plan and I would like you Micronauts to tell me why it would not work.

John Welsford's Rogue sail plan was the template I used for my sailplan (http://www.duckworksbbs.com/plans/jw/rogue/index.htm). It is a standing lug rig of 118sqft, the foot of which is controlled by a sprit boom. He also has 1 ft of roach in the leech. The dimensions of my version of this rig are:

Foot 12'8"
Luff 8'
Head 11'4"
Leech 18'3" for a nominal area of 135 sq ft. I did not factor the roach in, but it would add 15-20 more ft of sail area for a total of 155 sq ft at most (I'm speaking only of the main here without the mizzen factored in). When I cut out the pattern and put it on the plan, using the same tack point as the leg-o-mutton, the coe of the lug matched exactly the coe of the original main, although it was slightly lower, which I expected. With this rig, one could eliminate the top 6 to seven feet of the main mast as originally devised, eliminate the weight of the stick and have a more manageable mast to wrestle in place. Set up time would be much quicker and the standing lug would be a powerful sail for the hull not to mention the fact that it is an attractive shape.

I wish I had pics to show you, but lack the technology for such things. Anyway, I would be interested in hearing why this would be a bad idea.

Best,
Dennis