Does anyone know a source for the original spinnaker pole track. The type used on my mast is unusual in that it has a curved base which conforms to the mast. Also, it is riveted down each side of the base, rather than down the center.

I was thinking of extending the track to near deck level, allowing the pole to remain attached and near deck level while sailing upwind. does anyone have any experience with doing this?

This may speed the pole set but has unfortunate side effects. First the oversize pole makes a great ramrod. Sprit boat classes like the Melges & J/105 have restricted setting their poles before the mark as too many were holing other boats and/or breaking their poles. Second there is the potential to take out the forestay in the event of a collision, likely resulting in loss of the mast. Finally, you'll catch the jib sheets on it when you tack. I wouldn't recommend it or if measuring, approve it.

What would the jib sheets catch on? Most boats I have sailed on have track down to the deck and leave the pole attached (especially boats that dip pole gybe).

This is an interesting thread. The question has been raised before with a similar answer. Bringing the track down to the deck is illegal. I personally like having the pole on the mast. It really doesnt stick out that far since its only J+1. It doesnt even make it past the bow pulpit. Plus, there appears to be photo evidence that this was allowed in a previous J30 NA championship regatta. See the pictures of Cat Came Back.
http://paw.com/sail/j30/97NAs/cat_mk.jpg http://paw.com/sail/j30/97NAs/spins.jpg

The first one shows a shirtless young foredecker sliding the pole up from the deck for a rounding. The second shows the pole clearly attached to the mast and on the deck. It looks like its sticking out pretty far but you'll notice that it is out to the side exaggerating the distance. This position would protect the forestay, addressing one of Bob's concerns.

Did Cat Came Back get away with something or are we looking at a presidence?

We used to do this all the time on the C&C 25. We wouldn't leave it hooked up all the time, but it means you can hook up the guy, uphaul, downhaul and clip the pole to the mast but leave it on the deck so you can tack over it on final approach to the mark (or gybe-set). We still hook everything up, but now the inboard end of the pole is 4' off the deck, so the chances of getting something caught are far greater.

Good evidence, especially the second picture. Sailors like to tinker/improve their boats to make them faster and/or easier to sail. Over time, class members must evaluate the degree to which they want to customize their boats and how willing they are to accept differences while still feeling that class rules provide for fair and even racing. Hull #2 surely differs from #545; both sail in the same fleet. This is a question I ponder and am forced to deal with all the time as a class officer. There is a broad array of views within our class. It is tough to turn a boat away from a championship because of some item out of spec with rules, especially when it is not obvious if an item was a factory option. The spin pole track is a perfect example, but I could quickly name a dozen others. Once you let a boat race have you set a precedent? This problem is exacerbated in the J/30 Class by twenty years time and the fact that most boats race PHRF (or cruise) with out regard to rules. This topic probably deserves its own thread_

As former officer and national commodore of the Ensign Class Association, these are the type of issues we were forced to rule on at nearly every regional or national regatta. By and large, the stance we took is that if a modification to the boat hadn't been formally approved in the class rules, the owner ran the risk of a) not being allowed to sail in the championship or b) could sail if the modification was removed or rendered unusable. If the later was the case, and the skipper persisted in using the device in the regatta, he/she would be disqualified. Obviously, there will always be some gray areas that are open to interpretation. Why take a chance, though? Specifically, I'm thinking of the discussion that's been going on regarding spinnaker numbers. Sailmakers don't make the rules. The organization does. So, why take a chance and attend a regatta with the chance that you'll be red flagged or not allowed to use the sail. When you enter an event, you should focus on the SAILING, not the legal stuff that may put you in a corner and distract your focus.

So, what is the "legal" bottom of the spin pole track? Our track (on hull 003, with as far as we know, the orginal stick) comes down to about four or six inches from the deck. (I'll measure it on Saturday) We routinely just lower the pole down to deck level on the
leeward rounding, and have never had a problem. (And we have placed a mark on the mast for how far up the mast the pole needs to go, to clear things when swapping from side to side, when cleaning things up. )

- David Levine (J/30 003, 22604 "Youthful Indiscretion")

I have a boat with the original stick circa 1984 and I think the track starts at ~4' above the deck. I think that a longer track is quite a significant performance modification, inasmuch as spin sets are significantly faster with the long track, particularly gybe sets where late pole attachment is required. I would stay conservative and keep the short track even though I race primarily PHRF. The strictly enforced one design rules are one reason that these boats retain their value so well (to be mercenary about it),and also the close one design racing is a blast!

On Foghorn (hull #62) I am certain that the stick is original and so is the track which also comes down to within approximately 6 inches of the deck. It is the curved track same as mentioned above which is riveted to the mast. We also preset the pole at the bottom of the track especially for short buoy courses and just tack the jib over the top. It sounds like maybe J/Boats may have made a change sometime during the production life (just as with cockpits, interior, etc.). I would think that the class rules should accomodate the differing configurations supplied by the manufacturer.

I just checked mine. Original stick. Hull#352. The riveted pole track stops about three feet from the deck. Go figure!

Nirelle (#463--1984) was a boat where prior owners did not fly a spinnaker at all--in fact the boat was hardly used when I bought it in 1997. The track ends about 3 feet above the deck.

Planxty, Hull #205, track stops 3' above deck.

I sent an email to J/Boats to see if they have any information on this topic. Here is the reply I got from Alan J.
--------------------------------
Dear Jeff,

According to the original Kenyon Mast blueprint #AS573, spinnaker pole track length is 4' 0" and the location of the bottom of the track is 8'4" above 'O' Datum (bottom of spar). This is 6" below the top of the lower black band on the mast.

There is no indication on the print of any other installation location or track length however there are a number of revisions made that are not accounted for on the print for which there is no corresponding documentation. Kenyon (Rig-Rite?) may still have this in their files somewhere?? I also searched archived J/30 records and files without finding anything on the subject. I then looked at photos of J/30s in the archives and found a few variations of this detail.

Original J/30s appear to have had a single stainless ring welded to a plate held to the front of the mast with four bolts (J/24 style) for end-for-end jibes. This was replaced with a long spinnaker track that appears to extend to just above the deck (curved type??), this was evident in three very dated images that I could find. The later model J/30s were then equipped with a shorter 4' 0" "T" track shown on the Kenyon print. This is evident in later brochure photos.

I'd recommend a call to the Rig Rite folks to see what they may have on file... I found a link to their web page for J/30 replacement mast parts as follows.
http://www.rigrite.com/kenyon/Kenyon_One_Design/K_J30_spars.html

Sincerely,

Alan Johnstone
J/Boats, Inc.
-------------------------------
I have another note to Hall Spars on the topic and have to order something from rig-rite so I'll call them tomorrow. Stay tuned.

-Jeff

It seems clear to me that this issue needs to be revisited by the class association. If the boat was made standard with both configurations (as seems to be the case) then how can the class rule either configuration illegal without expressly saying so in the class rules? As I stated above, I believe this difference has a significant affect on performance at mark roundings. I look forward to the next installment in this interesting thread!

As a matter of curiosity, what do folks with the shorter track do with the pole at takedown, and upwind? The last boat I raced on without a pole you could lower down to deck level was a J/24, about a decade ago, and that's a fair bit smaller toothpick. I can see a number of ways of handling the pole, but I'm not sure what the pros and cons are.

- David

At a takedown, we remove the pole from the ring, and clip it to the base of the starboard shroud. The topping lift is placed inside the jaws of the pole so it's out of the way. That's where the pole lives upwind.

We use the same method as Dennis. Its the same as I remember from J24 sailing, except, more recently J24s have removed the bridle and now clip the topping lift on when setting the pole. The problem with our method is that the pole jaws are almost too small to hold both the shroud and the topping lift line. I plan on eventually changing the jaws to the larger Forespar fittings. The trigger type are really nice.

#359's track ends as described above by Alan Johnstone, just below the boom gooseneck.

I recollect at least two boats with the long pole track feature racing unchallenged in the Annapolis fleet: Valhalla and Blue Moon. It's really time to get the list of accepted practices up to date.