I have acquired an easy attitude towards gybing some years ago at the ANA sailing courses (Adriatic Nautical Academy). The boats used at their training center in Jezera on Murter island, were very easy to gybe and also very easy to right from inversion (though absolutely unsuitable for anything but basic training purposes).
Unfortunately, gybing Pinčika proved problematic. As the boom would start to move towards centerline, the mainsheet would slacken, it would touch the water, get dragged behind the boat and then as the boom crossed to the other side, the mainsheet would get caught under the boat's rear corner. The loop around the corner takes a considerable length of the mainsheet, stopping the boom well before it reaches the shrouds and this seemed as a possible lead to a capsize in stronger winds. Therefore, I was convinced that something had to be fixed either with the boat or with my technique. FCMS (fully centered mainsheet system) is my third attempt at resolving the issue.
The first attempt was presenting the problem to Ralph last year during our cruise. We went through the theory of the 'S' gybe and then I practiced under his supervision. It did make me less apprehensive, but I still felt that something had to be done about the boat too.
The second attempt was a shockcord which would pull the block on the mainsheet bridle towards the center of the boat once the mainsheet tension is eased. Ralph and I tried this out during the UKWA Tidal Training last November in Brancaster, but the problem still occurred occasionally...
The third attempt started actually before the first one, with my father's suggestion after our first short sailing together in Pinčika in 2006. - to install FCMS. I hesitated to do it, unwilling to screw the boat with something unusual for the class. Also, with some help from my brother Saša (who has a doctor's degree in physics), I went through the theoretical calculations of the mainsheet load in various systems. He has shown me how the formulas found in general Harken and Ronstan brochures and web site, lack some crucial factors. If taken into account, these factors show that the transom-bridle system causes significantly lower mainsheet load than FCMS (with reasonable purchase) for the same mainsail load. This discouraged me even further, but then last winter, just by chance, I found an old photograph of the famous Canadian racer Uncle Al in a Wayfarer with FCMS. Sent him an email immediately and received a warm reply encouraging me to install it. It was interesting to hear that such system actually wasn't foreign to the class in the past. I decided to give it a try, using bits that could serve other purposes in case I later decide to go back to traveler or transom-bridle system.
The installation presented two problems: finding out how the needed additional block base can be fitted, and choosing the best bits. The best position was obviously immediately in front of the existing cleat base. To find out if there is some reinforcement or not below the plastic, we used a cheap DIY construction instrument sold as 'wire/stud locator'. It is an instrument that you press against a surface, slide it around, and then it sounds a warning when it detects a change in thickness of the material. This method confirmed that the thickness is constant for about 6cm from the existing cleat base towards the thwart - which was enough. For the bits, I chose Ronstan pad-eye (secured with 4 6mm dia, 40mm long screws), a custom spring made by an engineer in Zagreb (the Ronstan spring is too stiff), and a 60mm block with becket (which would be better replaced by a fiddle block). On the boom side, I used three normal boom slides, and two 40mm blocks from the original mainsheet system, but I locked them into non-swiveling mode....
My father and I tried the system for the first time during our cruise in 2008. We first installed it with 4:1 purchase but soon switched to 5:1 which was also my brothers prediction for a minimum usable purchase in FCMS on a Wayfarer. On the third day of sailing, we had the first proof of success. We were sailing downwind under reefed main and jib, along the western side of the Žirje island in very strong 'jugo' wind and big waves ('jugo' has a fetch of about 200 Nm there). Gybing felt easy and safe. Well, at least it did not seem riskier than going about in those waves (I didn't have the guts to experiment). The next day, we had even stronger wind but with smaller waves (we were protected within the Kornati channel). With reefed main and jib up, we gybed once again before putting the mainsail down. There were no signs of any problems, whilst during that period GPS recorded our whole trip's max peak speed of 10.4 Kt.
The reason for my satisfaction was not just that I was absolutely sure that the mainsheet won't get caught behind causing a capsize. Equally important was that by getting hold of the mainsheet between the boom and the blocks on the centerboard case, it seemed easier to sense it's tension and the best moment for swinging the boom across. Also it was very easy to slow down it's movement in the last stage and avoid the aggressive slam.
When I later spoke with Neno about this, he made an interesting comparison - 'Yes, perhaps it's similar to driving a car on an icy road. The most important thing is to immediately unfasten your seat belt. Then you will sense what is happening sooner and more clearly, and thus make less mistakes.' During following days of sailing (in moderate and lighter winds) several drawbacks of the system were noticed: when sailing close hauled, it is not possible to bring the boom as close to centerline as with the traveller or bridle systems, and when sheeted as close as possible, the mainsail leech gets a bit curved to windward. Racers would certainly object, but for cruising I believe that the impact on performance is insignificant and the benefit with safer gybing much more important. Also, if I will ever order a new mainsail for Pinčika, I'm sure the sailmaker would be able to design it so that the leech problem is solved or at least less pronounced. In September 2008., I had another strong wind Wayfaring experience. We were beating in 'bura' wind, me on the helm and Ralph as a crew. During one particulary windy day, one of the gusts knocked us over, although (to my belief) I did release the mainsheet in time. The boat filled with some water, but our quick lean over the side prevented the mast from touching the water. Ralph later commented that FCMS might have been a contributory factor to our near capsize due to a higher mainsheet tension making uncleating a bit more difficult. According to my (rough) calculations for Pinčika, the mainsheet tension with this (5:1) FCMsystem should be almost three and a half times higher than with a 2:1 transom traveller system. Still not willing to even think about switching back to a transom based system, a couple of days later we tried out a mainsheet system with bridle in the middle of the boat (with 4:1 overall purchase similar to 470 and 505 class). We had only light to moderate wind, but the tension was proved to be lower and leech didn't curl any more to windward. If purchase was further increased to 5:1 it would become very similar to transom traveller system. But, the inconvenience of the bridle in the middle of the boat could be regarded as unseamanlike and unacceptable for cruising. Next idea to be tested is a bridle system installed about 70cm forward of transom... could it be 100% reliable? Would it present any new problems (like rope getting caught under the tiller for example)? Mato I. |