Here is a question to promote class discussion on the size of the #1 jib. Class Rules section 5.12.5 covers the requirements for Genoa #1. Specifically 5.12.5.1 provides the allowable range for the LP based on a 163% sized sail - "The length of LP shall not exceed 5665 mm nor be less than 5250 mm".

Some have complained about the cost to have a 163% OD Genoa and a PHRF base 155% sail. Would it be worth while to consider expanding the range of allowable LP to a smaller dimension, thus allowing someone who sails with a 155% Genoa to be measured in as a legal #1? The net effect is that this would provide less sail area on the #1 for those who elect to go that route. It would still keep the 163% as the base OD sail.

It is not the intention that someone measures in both a 163 and 155 and select what sail to use based on the wind conditions. They have what they have based on para 6.2.4 (each class sail can be replaced a maximum once per calendar year).

If my math is right, I believe that the base LP for a right angle is 3299mm. This means that the current max and min dimension tolerances in para 5.12.5.1 equate to a sail size of 159.2% minimum to 171.7% maximum. Reducing the minimum dimension to 5150mm would provide an allowable size down to 153.1%, or minimum of 5000mm at 151.6% to allow for 155% sail shrinkage.

A potential change would rewrite the paragraph as follows:
5.12.5.1 The length of LP shall not exceed 5665 mm nor be less than 5000 mm

What do members of the class think about exploring this as a potential rules change?

I think LP% is LP/J, where J is 3505 mm (11'6"). That makes:
Max 5665/3505 = 162%
Min 5250/3505 = 150%.

Problem solved. It's a mystery why we call it a 163.

Bob,

I think the issue is the definition you use for LP%. There are different definitions, and you used a different one than I used. I used the ratio of LP on the sail being rated to a right triangle that is the LP of a 100% sail. You used the ratio of LP/J. Both seem to be accepted standards.

The definition I used is extracted from Wiki at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genoa_Jib
Genoas are categorized by the percentage of overlap. This is calculated by looking at the distance along a perpendicular line from the luff of the genoa to the clew, called the LP (for "luff perpendicular"). A 150% genoa would have an LP 50% larger than the foretriangle length.

Below are the definitions with J/30 parameters in parenthesis, followed by the calculations I used:

I= Height of foretriangle. Measured from deck sheer line abeam the mast to the point of masthead/forestay intersection. (34 Ft = 10363mm)

J= Distance from foreside of mast to the point of intersection of the forestay with the deck. (11.5 Ft = 3505mm)

LP= Shortest distance between the clew and the luff of the genoa. (distance of line perpendicular from luff to clew).

A 100% LP sail is a right triangle that fills the area defined by I and J resulting in the base LP as follows (using math for right triangles)
LP(base) = I*J/Sqrt(I^2 + J^2) = 3320.2mm

Thus using values from class rules for max and min:
LP% max = 5665 / 3320.2 = 158.1%
LP% min = 5250 / 3320.2 = 170.2%

The new lower value would be:
LP% min = 5000 / 3320.2 = 150.6% (I had a typo above and said 151.6%)

I believe the class rules infer this definition because 163% is in the mid range of the specified parameters.

[This message has been edited by Rhapsody #348 (edited 10-21-2008).]

Well, I claim no particular expertise in the vagaries of PHRF, but a quick Google shows LP% as LP/J in: http://www.ussailing.org/phrf/fleetstart.asp http://www.ukhalsey.com/LearningCenter/encyclopedia/encyclopedia4b.asp

ISF's Equipment Rules of Sailing only define Luff Perpendicular. The referenced wiki uses the term 'foretriangle length' without definition. I understand your math, but what makes you think it's that complicated?

I'm an engineer. You'll need to check that question with my wife. I complicate everything :-)

In any case - whatever is decided, we probably ought to fix the LP% so they agree with the calculation used. LP/J is much easier to use!

I've added a spreadsheet with sail size calculations for other engineers to peruse

[This message has been edited by Rhapsody #348 (edited 10-22-2008).]

At the risk of broadening this topic just a bit ... the 163% probably is more detrimental to PHRF racing. that simple kick up over the 155% moves the trimmers job from OK physical shape to demanding physical shape. try to get fast and strong out of the typical crew pool featuring out-of-shape 9 to 5ers.

And consider how effective trying to detune the main with an oversize jenny compares with a nicely trimmed 155%/main and the crew limit on the rail. detuning main only works when all the other boats have to detune to the same extent. Which is a great way to justify an OD configuration from 1977. The OD configuration is overpowered ... and therefore only works well when every other boat racing is overpowered as well?

Also we "HAVE" to have a 163% to race OD which puts another handicap when the wind starts to hit say 15? My choice would be to get competitive Phrf wise and use that configuration for the NA. obivously not this year, but say two-three years from now.

given a choice the young kids want a Melges 24, or a J80 kind of boat. Lets reposition the OD to main stream instead of Odd ball.

Class rules state for the #1 genoa state:

5.12.5.1 The length of LP shall not exceed 5665 mm nor be less than 5250 mm.

The max is a 163% LP - minimum is closer to 155% (roughly, I didn't do the math). The 415mm range allowed within the rules is not insignificant.

So, if you want a smaller sail, it's allowable within the rules -though you would have to stick with the sail you start with throughout a regatta.

Interesting. the difference in Phrf is 3 between a 163 and ~155; But IS an OPTIONAL OD CHOICE at the OD Level? about a 2% difference? 3/138

At 10 kts the 163 is optimum and would be difficult for a skipper to want to handicap himself.

but what other elective options give us a 2% difference?
kevlar vs dacron Genny? ditto Main? ditto burnished bottom?
ditto oversized pole? ditto having an 18 lb stove allowance?

perhaps we should just extend the list of 2% performance options to mainsail fabric and let it sort itself out?

If we are looking at sail cost ... the fact that the class went to tech gennies was perhaps a more costly maintenance move than it would be to move to tech mains.

155 would last longer - the extra area on the 163 gets the crap beat out of it going around the shrouds and mast during tacks.

These boats are power hungry-those of us who race in light air most of the time would hate to lose the 163, I suspect.

scenario:
1. typical Phrf race WL 1.25 mile, 2x around, wind 5 to under 10 MPH [maybe with a drop below 5]

I would vote for a 155 and a .5 spin. I feel the range kick on the .5 spin would be the deciding factor that would outweigh the 163 kick ...

can anyone make a case that would make the 163 and .75 better or worse? we need to look at the Package ... which maxes out the fun?

I just read "Stuffing the Status Quo" in the May 2010 edition of Sailing World. Most of you will have read it. Three authors make suggestions on modifications to the class rules for three of the most established boats in racing: Laser, Farr 30 and J/24. Some of them are pretty radical, most would be unpopular, but all designed to take a view on the success of the respective fleets over the long term. I think it's a great article and should be thought provoking for the J/30 Class. Boat materials, design and pattern use has changed quite a bit since our much loved boats were built. The continued dialogue we read on this site on genoa size, mainsail material, spin cloth weight are all evolutionary changes, and the class has evolved slightly over the years.
I think that it may be useful to take a revolutionary look at the class in the spirit of the article and see where that ends up. Although we are the most motivated, I suspect that most owners are too close to it to perform the exercise. Let's bring in an expert. Anyone know Tim Healy? He wrote the article on the J/24. How about someone from J/Boats?

Michael Lusty
Belle Faster #537

Healy's ideas on the J/24 could be applied to the J/30. No surprise since they were designed by Rod J just two years apart. I'd be in favor of lowering the weight limit now 7 x 200=1400 lbs to 6 x 180=1080 lbs. By comparison the 34 foot, 8575 lbs J/105 is longer and heavier than the J/30, but has a crew weight limit of 1045 lbs.

As indicated in the article, that would mean using the Genoa only up to about 12-14 knots. Although I am unconvinced that an aramid mainsail would be more durable, if you eliminate the Genoa, add a backstay flicker, and increase the mainsail roach supported by a full length batten, it might make sense.

The boat would be easier to staff and sail, safer since the skipper could see to leeward, but like the J/105 slow death upwind on those light air days typical of the Chesapeake and LI Sound.

I think these are some good ideas. I think a full hoist #3 would be another adjustment along with the weight. That would basically eliminate the need for a #2.

I would also be receptive to OD sailing with just a full hoist #3. I have never really understood why you would OD with anything other than just a #3 or a #2. I know it needs power but that is needed in PHRF not OD.

As long as we're trying crazy ideas... how about a masthead kite if the rig can handle that?

I tried it with a friends kite that fit. In 4 knots of wind the top of the rig flexed a bit as I reached up. A little too much for the rig. Interesting test though. The boat powered up nicely in light air.

Now if runners or a jumper where rigged it could work. Or go part way up with the spinn halyard exit might work.

If it required runners, that would definitely be a step backwards.

Glad to see that the thread is expanding. When I suggested a review along the lines of Healy's I really meant that we have a top down look at the class and the boat. I think one of the core questions has to do with PHRF and if there are modifications to the boat which would make the J/30 more competitive in PHRF while retaining an active OD interest. That seems to be what spawns much of the chat on the site. I'll bet that most of the OD racers out there do a fair bit of PHRF racing too. The one question I've not answered is if we were to navigate to PHRF specs, and the boats became more competitive, wouldn't the local PHRF committees simply lower the rating of the J/30?

Yes they would adjust our rating. However I think the spirit of the article was not to make the J/24 faster but to make adjustments to better match todays realities. Less time, smaller crew pool etc.

I've raced mine with #3 only rating for some double handed races
As long as the air is up its OK but if you get under 10 knots of breeze the boat becomes a dog no fun to sail and NOT to the PHRF rating

I guess if were to optimize the PHRF rating it would be to a 155 genoa(which is now PHRF baseline) on a roller furling system to pick up the this would be good up to 15 true wind speed but then how do you change down to the blade?

The full hoist on the Jib only added sail area up high ie more tipping action so I don't think that would help overall

Now for PHRF a 1/2 oz chute makes a lot of sense but you will only be able to carry it to about 10 knots apparent which means a 3/4 oz chute is still required

What are the standard measurements in feet, for the luff and foot of the main? Thanks

From the Class Rules. These are the only specified dimensions in paragraphs 5.12.2.2, 5.12.2.3 and 5.12.2.4. The luff and foot are implied by geometry. Para 5.10.2 has the measurement band on the outer end of the boom at 13 feet. Refer to the ISAF Sail Measurement Guide on how to interpret.

Mid Point Leach to Luff 2621mm which converts to 8 Ft 7.2 in

Leach 12395mm which converts to 40 Ft 8.0 in

Max Headboard Extended from Mast 158mm which converts to 6.2 in

If you look at the J/30 Mast drawing at the bottom of the J/30 Specifications the distance between the upper and lower measurement band on the mast (P dimension) is 11582mm which converts to 38 ft

There certainly has been a lot of discussion with regard to the J-30 ODR modifications to keep the boat relevant with regard to improved technology in sail materials, and to be more competitive in PHRF. Does anyone remember when you could go to any number of sailmakers and they would list J-30 in their pricing packages for ODR sails? I have noticed that the J-30 has been dropped from virtually all the sailmaker websites that list OD boats, the sole exception is Doyle. Should that tell us something?
With the exception of 2 or 3 areas which around the country J-30 ODR seems to have greatly diminished. Of the 500 or so J-30s built how many race PHRF on a routine basis vs ODR?
If you are sailboat racer you want to win; racing in a configuration(ODR) that generates rating penalty certainly doesn’t help. Should we consider modifying the ODR to align to PHRF (155%, J length pole& spinnaker, sail materials?) Early on the ODR rule has a 170% as the Genoa, it was changed to a 163%, we have modified the materials for the head sails from Dacron to laminates. Should we consider moving the ODR to adapt to PHRF? It could enhance the participation in PHRF and J-30 one design racing.

LUMPY

I can never bring myself to support rules that make a boat theoretically slower. Our boats like a lot of sail. If some want to PHRF optimize, go for it but I say keep the sail sizes as is for ODR. The evolution of sail materials is another matter.

The #1 used to be a 170 and was changed to the 163. Theoretically that made the boat slower. Asymmetricals will theoretically make the boat faster. I am suggesting that the class rules should be looked at to reflect the reality of what configurations people are using, and not make the ODR irrelevant to the majority of J-30 owners. This could help increase participation in J-30 racing.

Lumpy,

If the class were to adopt PHRF standards... allow any material in any sail, use J length pole and chute, make the #1 a 155, would you have any more J/30s coming out to race in Charlotte, or Key West? Would you travel to Annapolis, New Orleans, Long Island Sound, or Narraganset bay for the North Americans?

Dennis poses a very valid question. I initiated this thread in 2008 and have read a number of comments on the potential merits and pitfalls of the change originally posed as a question.

I know of only one boat (Wildcat) that has demonstrated the commitment to travel to regattas out of area, but has elected not to do so because of the OD restrictions differing from what he normally sails with PHRF.

I guess it is fair to ask - what boats out there have not participated in a OD event because they have elected to optimize sails for their local PHRF rules? I'd really like to hear some specifics and learn who is willing to make the commitment to attend a OD event (e.g. travel to a location that races OD) if the class rules accommodated the PHRF sails they have (e.g. Genoa size).

Are the OD rules really keeping boats away? Inquiring minds want to know. Please post some specifics with facts.

I will not be participating in NB OD events this summer because I am converting 526 to roller and the sails I use on 505 down here in PHRF racing. If I do sign up for an OD race, I will be using the PHRF 155 setup. You guys will have to figure out if that is a workable option to get five boats on line for a OD start ... option being that I just do the PHRF races. It could be interesting to see if an overpowered OD is competitive with a roller in wind over 15.

Vic,

Challenge accepted. I just spoke to the SNE Fleet measurer and he agreed that for the SNE J/30 OD events on our 2011 schedule you will be allowed to use your 155 Genoa. There will be no rating adjustment and you will be scored boat on boat. Note that anyone can use a furler and still be OD compliant, so that isn't an issue.

Now to make this meaningful - It may be useful to collect some data. Lets check things like pointing, boat speed, etc. in comparison with the OD boats you are racing. Maybe save your GPS tracks and analyze data afterwards. You also have your flip cam that may be useful.

Time to sign up for all the SNE J/30 OD events!

Many years ago (when there still was a J/30 Class in the Chicago NOOD), one of the guys from Detroit brought his boat down. He only had a Kevlar 155, but we agreed that he'd sail level with the rest of us. I believe this was still before the class allowed kevlar, so we had a mylar class legal sail.

My observation was that in a straight line, he was probably just as fast as we were, but accelerating out of a tack, we were a tad better off. If memory serves, winds were 12-15ish, reasonably flat water.

At least two boats that normally race PHRF in their local optimized configuration have previously attended J/30 NA's: J/Doe from CA/BVI (1999, 2006, 2007) and Hush Gully from Minneapolis (1996). Both used loaner boats and at least some borrowed sails to meet class rules.

About ten years ago Cool Change from Hampton, VA sailed the Screwpile Regatta in Solomons Island, MD once or twice in PHRF trim, though I don't recall what it was that made them different and the boat has never been measured. Within a couple years they switched to class sails and now have a One Design Rating (ODR), although for reasons I cannot explain the J/30 ODR in Hampton is 141 vs. 144 in Annapolis.

Dennis,

This seems to be a hot issue with a number of people.
This is not an emotional thing with me, nor am I trying to sell the change of the J-30 ODR to be optimized for PHRF .
The question I am posing has to do with looking at our ODR specs. to see if matches what the owners are doing in their local area or want to do in their local area. Then if it makes sense consider modifying the J-30 specs.
I suspect the folks that race PHRF will optimize their boats for that rating and for those that have enough boats to predominately race one design will stay as they are. Keep in mind if you are racing one design then it doesn't matter what the configuration it as long as it is the same.
Of the hundreds of J-30s, how many travel to the class events? I don't know if changing to the PHRF tailored spec would change that, but if you race PHRF at home then you wouldn’t have to buy or borrow sails to compete in a national event. There used to be 4 J-30s in Key West, now I am the only one, so one design racing is not relevant for me. My main racing has been PHRF; keep in mind I have seen the j-30 ODR PHRF in SEF be 129 for a number of years (probably 15-20 years). Over the years the majority of J-30s that traveled to Key West for race week, opted for the 155% due to the rating penalty of the 163%. In the early 80’s ZAN had the J length pole and smaller headsail for PHRF racing, she also had one design sails and pole that came with the boat in case they wanted to race one design. It was their choice to spend the extra money. In response to your question, I probably would have traveled to a National event 15 years ago, but not now. I would like to see some J-30s come down to KW race week.

LUMPY

I ordered an oversize main for PHRF but am hanging on to my 1982 OD main in case we get some OD going in the PNW (hey, we actually won some races with it last year!). When I get a new headsail it will be a 155% to improve the rating as I will be sailing with 133 with my big main (ouch). In BC, a J/30 base boat is 145. I don't know if they acknowledge a ODR rating (should be 139 here).

Once I get a 155, I'll still hang on to my 163 so I have the OD option.

According to the local Doyle sailmaker, he claims that a PHRF legal main would have the following demensions.

Section 5.2 Mains
replace 5.1223 with
MGT=.891
MGU= 1.506
MGM= 2.621
I haven't taken the time to look into this. Perhaps someone knows what this all means and wishes to offer comment or thought.

The Doyle sail maker recommended the above change and also recommended changing the number of battens from 4 to 5

I mentioned the 5 batten recommendation in my post about main sail materil but not the recommnedation on sail demensions.
I will not include the sail demension change nor the batten change in my request to th BOG about main sail material change.
Someone else can pick up the standard and fight those battles

I've posted my thoughts on PHRF racing in another section - simply stated, I'm happy with the current ODR configuration with the exception of the main sail material.

My suggestion to active PHRF raceres - challenge your local PHRF to waive the 3 second penalty on the pole. Other classes such as the Hobie 33 have oversized poles and don't take the penalty.