Towards the end of 1996 there was a long thread in the rec.boats.racing
newsgroup about the effects of asymmetric spinnakers on the trim
of a boat. Basically the discussion was between those who sail
such boats, and those of a more mathematical disposition. The
former reckoned that the moment you put the kite up the bow lifts,
the whole boat steadies and pitchpoling becomes less of a problem.
Therefore the kite must be lifting the bows of the boat.
The second group worked from the logical viewpoint that the result
of a large sail pushing the boat along from a centre of effort
well above the water can only be to press the bows down. The strong
views expressed inspired Mikko Brummer, of WB-Sails,
Finland, to model an asymmetric rig (actually based on the
pictures of my Cherub from this site) into his company's sophisticated
mathematical model of a sailboat rig. This article is prepared
from his original paper, published on his site, and the copyright
for the data is retained by WB-Sails. The conclusions however
are my own, and Mikko is not be held responsible for inaccuracies
or errors in them.
To summarise Mikko's findings, the rig creates a great deal of
upwards force which must have a big effect on the performance
of the boat - and certainly explains the ever increasing tendency
of Cherubs to "get some air" from wave tops in extreme
conditions. In spite of this there is no doubt at all that the
drive from the spinnaker presses down the bows.
This table summarises some of the main figures.
| Sail | Drive Force | Lifting Force | Heeling Force | Heeling Moment | Pitching Moment | |||||
| kg | lbs. | kg | lbs. | kg | lbs. | kg/m | lb./ft | kg/m | lb./ft | |
| Spinnaker | 68 | 150 | 60 | 132 | 52 | 114 | 129 | 87 | 172 | 115 |
| Main | 36 | 79 | 7 | 15 | 28 | 62 | 80 | 54 | 117 | 78 |
Thus in this model the rig is producing an upward force of
67kg - around a quarter of the total weight of boat and crew.
If you add to that the considerable upward force created by the
shape of the hull. The dramatic effect the spinnaker has on the
performance of the boat in this situation is also well illustrated.
Even the mainsail is displaying a small amount of lift due to
the rake of the mast and bow-up trim.
I must apologise to the purists for displaying the forces in
kilograms and pounds, but I felt this would be more understandable
than the technically more appropriate Newton.
This side elevation
from the computer model demonstrates the way the combination of
bow up trim and mast rake enables both mainsail and spinnaker
to create an upwards force.
In my opinion, bearing in mind this data, the reason why the 3
sail reach feels so much steadier and seems to require less hanging
off the back of the transom must be to do with secondary effects,
and not directly caused by the lift from the sail, which is most
definitely pitching the bow down. One can then speculate on what
these effects might be.
The first must surely be the " reduction" in displacement
caused by the lift from the sail. Its well established within
the Cherub fleet that heavy crews have much more trouble with
nose-diving and pitchpoling than light
weight ones. Whatever causes this effect, which one presumes must
be partly to do with the shortness of the boat, a reduction of
effective displacement of the order demonstrated above must bring
it into play.
Other forces that seem likely to have an effect on this phenomenon
are to do with the differences between the mainsail and the spinnaker.
In his (highly recommended) book, High Performance Sailing, Frank
Bethwaite notes that a sail that has a long leading edge angled
to the apparent wind (like a delta wing of an aircraft) can develop
"roll-over" vortexes which scrub stagnant air off their
suction (lee side) surfaces. This mechanism can maintain attached
flow up to abnormally high angles and create a great deal of lift
(and drag). Thus the low aspect ratio spinnaker should be much
less sensitive to changes in its angle of attack caused by gusts,
the boat rocking, accelerating or decelerating in waves etc.,
so the power produced by the rig should, I think, be much more
even. In addition on a two sail reach the main - which produces
its energy further above the water than the more triangular spinnaker
- is the main source of power, whereas on the 3 sail reach it
tends to be used more as a "trim tab" to control the
pointing angle and is less often fully powered up. Therefore on
the two sail reach the ratio between drive force and pitching
moment is less, and the delivery of power from the rig is much
less even. My memory is that the two-sail reach unsteadiness was
much less of an issue a few years ago before we all adopted the
very rigid stable and low twist mylar sails of today.
I'm not sure how reliable these figures are as an emulation of
actual sailing performance. Any kind of mathematical model is
only as good as the data you can put into it, and ideally one
would like to feed in some real data from measured performance
on the water. Mikko has assumed an "across the deck"
wind speed of around 20kts, apparent wind at 70 degrees to the
centreline, and a forward velocity of around 15 knots. My guess
- and it is a guess - is that in the real world this would be
a slightly atypical situation, and that with 20 kts across the
deck one might be sailing to best advantage with the apparent
wind a little further forward of the beam. However short of putting
a full set of instrumentation on a boat the only thing you can
do is to put together some best guesses.
The following tables are extracted from Mikko's
paper. Elsewhere on the WB-Sails site are more details on
the mathematical modelling techniques he uses, as well as some
information on their practical application.
| Section | DriveF | SinkF | HeelF | HeelMom | Yaw Mom | PitchMom |
| 1 | 24 | -13 | 12 | 3 | 1743 | -19 |
| 2 | 143 | -97 | 141 | 151 | 5116 | 77 |
| 3 | 182 | -122 | 153 | 343 | 2646 | 332 |
| 4 | 171 | -140 | 124 | 408 | -1247 | 533 |
| 5 | 123 | -161 | 73 | 311 | -3031 | 585 |
| 6 | 26 | -53 | 10 | 48 | -558 | 174 |
| Total | 669 | -586 | 513 | 1265 | 76 | 1682 |
| Section | DriveF | SinkF | HeelF | HeelMom | YawMom | PitchMom |
| 1 | 46 | -5 | 38 | 31 | -2691 | 42 |
| 2 | 78 | -9 | 61 | 102 | -5615 | 142 |
| 3 | 73 | -11 | 56 | 145 | -6003 | 207 |
| 4 | 65 | -12 | 49 | 174 | -5760 | 250 |
| 5 | 60 | -15 | 46 | 205 | -5461 | 293 |
| 6 | 35 | -12 | 23 | 125 | -2052 | 211 |
| Total | 356 | -65 | 273 | 781 | -450 | 1146 |
For further information on this page email the Webmaster