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.