# masthead versus fractional rig?



## tspooner (Jun 18, 2011)

Why aren't all sloops one design - either masthead or fractional rigged? Is there an advantage of one over the other? I would think that a masthead rigged boat could accomodate a larger jib/genoa but there has to be reasons why some sailors and designers prefer the fractional rig.


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

There are real engineers here that can give you more details but their are advantages to both.
The mast head rig is stronger. As you tighten the back stay you are directly tensioning the forestay.

Historically to beat rules the mast height was kept low and the foresail was made as big as possible, overlapping the mast as the overlap did not count according to the rules at the time.

Once the rules changed it was found that the boat would be faster and easier to handle with a taller mast, larger main and smaller foresail.

Rigging as fractional the back stay could now be used to bend the mast depending on wind conditions which controlled sail shape and made the boat even faster.

In this design the boat speed was improved by making the main sail larger and more controllable and the jib smaller.

Sometime runners had to be added to support the mast in certain conditions but it was considered worth the trouble for the speed.

So in short the fractional rig introduces some issues but can make the boat faster.


----------



## orthomartin (Oct 21, 2006)

Davidpm is right. Main reason is performance. Fractional allows one to significantly rake the spar giving the main much improved windward power while not affecting foresail shape. Disadvantage is one needs to pay more attention to rig whilst underway especially if runners are used as is the usual case on performance rigs. Other downside (race boats don't care) is fractional rig is not really amenable to cutter set up. Having the option to use an inner-stay and small foresail in heavy wx makes heaving to and crawling to weather easier.


----------



## Alex W (Nov 1, 2012)

I would prefer a fractional rig even on a cruising boat. It is a lot nicer to carry one non-overlapping headsail (or maybe two) and use reefing on the main to reduce sail area in a blow. Even on my post-IOR masthead boat (where the main is an effective sail) I carry 2 or 3 headsails for different wind conditions. Slab reefing on a main is a lot more effective than rolling up a roller furled jib, and not much more work.

The performance advantages would be nice too.

A downside of fractional rig is that the mast is taller for a same sail area. For instance there is a Hunter 28 on my dock that always surprises me with it's very tall mast (about 5-6' taller than the one on my Pearson 28-2). When I first saw it I thought "wow, a Hunter with a big SA/D?". However when I looked up the specs it has about the same sail area as my boat (less when I fly my genoa), just demands the taller mast to put that sail area in to the main.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

As mentioned, a Frac rig is more dynamic and 'tunable' for the conditions.. well designed it means smaller headsails and spinnakers, making things easier to handle and loads lighter, while putting a fair bit of horsepower in the larger mainsail that is easily managed with main trim controls.

Our boat fits the bill, though as a 3/4 frac we lack some power in light air. Most Fracs tend to run around 7/8, a good compromise.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

I loved my frac rig folkboat...massive rake for when you need it, better weather performance and nice downwind ease too...kind of like dinghy sailing


----------



## capecodda (Oct 6, 2009)

One additional advantage is fractional rigs work well with code zero furlers.


----------



## paulk (Jun 2, 2000)

I also read (Markaj?) that the vortices created by the wind blowing over the sails in a fractional rig are better (bigger? more pronounced?? faster-turning???.... better) than those created in a similar-sized masthead rig. The shape of the leading edge of the sails is apparently more optimal for upwind work, apparently. We love ours. We've sailed past every masthead-rigged J/35 we've come up against, and we're supposed to rate some 8 sec/mile slower in our J/36
.


----------



## capt vimes (Dec 2, 2013)

orthomartin said:


> ... Other downside (race boats don't care) is fractional rig is not really amenable to cutter set up. ...


i do not see that...
and i know of a lot of boats having a fractional cutter rig:
RM YACHTS | RM 1260
http://www.german-yachtbau.de/german_modelle/german48ds/german48ds_risse.html
Nos voiliers

just to name a few...
it is btw my favorite rig configuration only beaten by cat shooner/ketches with free standing, rotating masts - although i never came to sail one of those...


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I apologize I wrote this for another purpose and is a bit long, but it discussed the pro's and cons of masthead vs fractionally rigged sloops, as well as the cutter rig. 

Sloops and Cutters are the most common rigs being produced today. In current usage these terms are applied quite loosely as compared to their more traditional definitions. Traditionally the sloop rig was a rig with a single mast located forward of 50% of the length of the sailplan. In this traditional definition a sloop could have multiple jibs. 

Cutters had a rig with a single mast located 50% of the length of the sailplan or further aft, multiple headsails and in older definitions, a reefing bowsprit (a bowsprit that could be withdrawn in heavy going). Somewhere in the 1950's or 1960's there was a shift in these definitions such that a sloop only flew one headsail and a cutter had multiple headsails and mast position became irrelevant. For the sake of this discussion I assume we are discussing the modern definition of a sloop and a cutter.

Historically, when sail handling hardware was primitive and sails were far more stretchy than they are today, the smaller headsails and mainsail of a traditional cutter were easier to handle and with less sail stretch, allowed earlier cutters to be more weatherly (sail closer to the wind) than the sloops of the day. With the invention of lower stretch sailcloth and geared winches, cutters quickly lost their earlier advantage. 

Today sloops are generally closer winded and easier to handle. Their smaller jibs and larger mainsail sailplan are easier to power up and down. Without a jibstay to drag the Genoa across, sloops are generally easier to tack. With less hardware sloops are less expensive to build. 

Sloops come in a couple varieties, masthead and fractional. In a masthead rig the forestay and jib originates at the masthead. In a fractional rig, the forestay originates some fraction of the mast height down from the masthead. Historically, sloops were traditionally fractionally rigged. Since the earliest wind tunnel tests (1920’s) it has been understood that fractional rigs with minimally overlapping headsails tend to generate the most drive per square foot of sail area. This efficiency advantage has to do with a variety of factors such as sail interation and minimized tip vortexes. 

But fractional rigs make sense for a variety of more practical reasons. Their smaller jibs are easier to tack and in a building breeze, they are easier to depower and then reef down to a snug masthead rig. Because virtually all boats develop some weather helm with heel angle, reefing the mainsail, while leaving the jib, makes sense in terms of balancing the helm. But also because the jib represents a smaller portion of the overall sail area, one jib can often function across an extremely wide range of windspeeds. Fractional rigs generally place a lower stress on their hulls and often get by with lighter rigging and hardware for an equal structural safety margin. 

Today, modern fractional rigs are often proportioned so that they do not need headsails that overlap the shrouds making them even easier to sail. One of the major advantages of a fractional rig is the ability, especially when combined with a flexible mast, to use the backstay to control mast bend and sail shape. Increasing backstay tension does a lot of things on a fractional rig: it tensions the forestay which in turn flattens the jib, and opnes the head of the jib. Increasing backstay tension induces controlled mast bend, which flattens the mainsail and opens the leech of the mainsail. This allows quick depowering as the wind increases and so allows a fractional rig to sail in a wider wind speed range without reefing, or making a headsail change than a masthead rig, although arguably requiring a bit more sail trimming skills. 

To a great extent, the smaller jib on a fractional rig eliminates the need for a jibstaysail, with its added hardware, complexity, and the assocated diffuculty tacking a genoa around the jibstay, as might be found on a cutter or a sloop which had a jibstay when intended for offshore use. 

In the past fractional rigs used to require running backstays. But today better spar materials and design approaches have pretty much eliminated the need for running backstays. That said, fractional rigs intended for offshore use, will often have running backstays that are only rigged in heavy weather once the mainsail has been reefed. The geometry of these running backstays typically allows the boat to be tacked without tacking the running backstays and larger fractionally rigged race boats will often have checkstays. 

Masthead rigs came into popularity in the 1950's primarily in response to racing rating rules that under-penalized overlapping jibs (genoas) and spinnakers and so promoted bigger headsails. Masthead sloops tend to be simpler rigs to build and adjust. They tend to be more dependent on large headsails and so are harder to tack and also require a larger headsail inventory if performance is important. Mast bend is harder to control and so bigger masthead rigs will often have a babystay that can be tensioned to prevent pumping and induce mast bend in the same way as a fractional rig does. But dragging a Genoa over the babystay makes tacking a bit more difficult and slower. While roller furling allows a wider wind range for any given Genoa, there is a real limit (typically cited 10% to 15%) to how much a Genoa can be roller furled and still maintain a safely flat shape. As a result, masthead rigged boats generally require more sails in their sail inventories and more frequent sail changes to address the same wind range as a fractional rig. 

Masthead sloops which are intended for offshore use are often fitted with a jibstay which allows them to fly smaller sails in heavier weather. Depending on the specific rig design, these often require running backstays as well, with a geometry which needs to be tacked in heavy air. The smaller headsails on fractionally rigged sloops generally eliminate the need for this intermediate jibstay. That said, as fractional rigs have been used on larger boats and with larger fractions (i.e. 15/16th) it has become more common to see jibstays added on frac's intended for offshore use. 

Masthead rigs generally carried larger spinnakers, which in the past gave them an advantage on deep reaches and when heading dead downwind. But modern fractional rigs, often carry masthead spinnakers eliminating this former advantage. 

Cutters, which had pretty much dropped out of popularity during a period from right after the end of WWII until the early 1970's, came back into popularity with a vengeance in the early 1970's as an offshore cruising rig. In theory, the presence of multiple jibs allows the forestaysail to be dropped or completely furled, and the resultant combined reefed mainsail, and the full staysail, results in a very compact heavy weather rig (similar to the proportions of a fractional rigged sloop with a reef in the mainsail). As a result, traditionalists often cite the cutter rig as the ideal offshore rig. 

While that is the theory, it rarely works out that the staysail is properly proportioned, (either too small for normal sailing needs and for the lower end of the high wind range (say 20-30 knots) or too large for higher windspeeds) and also is either made of a sail cloth that makes sense as a heavy weather sail but which is too heavy for day to day sailing in more moderate conditions or out of a sail cloth too light for heavy going. When the jibstaysails are proportioned small enough to be used as heavy weather sails, cutter rigs will often develop a lot of weather helm when being sailed in winds that are too slow to use a double reefed mainsail. Like fractional rigs, cutter rigs intended for offshore use, will often have running backstays that are only rigged in heavy weather once the mainsail has been reefed. Unlike the fractional rig, when the running backstays are deployed, the geometry of these running backstays typically requires that the running backstays be tacked whenever the boat is tacked. 

Cutters generally make a less successful rig for coastal sailing. Typically, because of their offshore intent, cutters tend to have snug rigs that depend on larger Genoas for light air performance. Tacking these large Genoas through the narrow slot between the jibstay and forestay is a much harder operation than tacking a sloop. As a result many of today's cutters have a removable jibstay that can be rigged in heavier winds. This somewhat reduces the advantage of a cutter rig (i.e. having a permanently rigged and ready to fly small, heavy weather jib). 

Cutters these days generally do not point as close to the wind as similar sized sloops. Because of the need to keep the slots of both headsails open enough to permit good airflow, the headsails on a cutter cannot be sheeted as tightly as the jib on a sloop without choking off the airflow in the slots. Since cutters are generally associated with the less efficient underbodies that are typical of offshore boats this is less of a problem that it might sound. Cutters also give away some performance on deep broad reaches and when heading downwind because the Genoa is sailing in the bad air downwind of the staysail, and they generally can only fly smaller spinnakers as well.


----------



## PaulinVictoria (Aug 23, 2009)

So my masthead sucks with no apparent advantages, I'd better go sink her


----------



## ltgoshen (Jan 5, 2009)

Last week weekend While flying the %155 we managed to pull both the spreadder boots off. Its the first time flying that sail. Is it normal to lose the boots? I installed them with white tape from west marine? 

maybe wrong thread but for the head sail ?

Thanks


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Nicely done Jeff.
Not sure I agree with your very last statement though. Why do cutters fly smaller spins?
Or, did I misunderstand you? I would think the larger "J" of the cutter would lead to larger chutes.

I have no idea what a "fractional cutter" is.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

bobperry said:


> Nicely done Jeff.
> Not sure I agree with your very last statement though. Why do cutters fly smaller spins?
> Or, did I misunderstand you? I would think the larger "J" of the cutter would lead to larger chutes.
> 
> I have no idea what a "fractional cutter" is.


Bob,

When I was writing the above several years back, I compared the sail area of the 100% foretriangle on a number of masthead sloops vs. cutters. It was a bit of an artificial calculation, because I then calculated an SA/D but only using the 100% foretriangle and disregarding the mainsail. The thinking was to get a sense of the size of the chute vs. weight of the boat, with the assumption that the proportion of the sail area of the chute to the size of the 100% foretriange would remain similar between the different rigs. In that calculation, the sloop spinnakers had considerably larger SA/D's than the cutters, and that is where that statement came from. To be more accurate, that should probablty have read, "Cutters generally fly smaller spinnakers relative to their displacement as well".

In hindsight, with your comment, I can see several issues in the thought process, and so consequently with my corrected statement as well. Your point about the bigger J is very valid. [For those who are unfamiliar with the way that sails are measured, in a general way, J is the dimension from the tack of the jib to the base of the mast. In racing rules, and more loosely for cruising sails, the girths (horizontal width measurement limits) of a spinnaker are derived as a multple of the boat's J measurement.] When you look at cutter rig, it generally has a very large J as compared to a sloop with a similar area 100% foretriangle. Consequently, since the centerline length of a spinnaker does not increase above length of a jib luff, but the width is a multiple of the J, the cutter would be expected to have a larger area in its spinnaker for any given 100% foretriangle area, albeit at a lower aspect ratio, making a cutter's chute better for sailing dead downwind but not as effective for reaching.

Somewhat mitigating against the larger area implied by the larger J, is the fact that cutters generally have less SA/D's if calculated as only the 100% foretriangle area (i.e. without the area of the jibstaysail). But even that is not true in all cases. Boats like Bob's Tayana 37, which has a proportionately high aspect ratio rig for a cutter, and the large J typical of cutters, could carry a very large chute even when compared on a SA/D basis.

I have no idea what a 'fractional cutter' is either. If I typed 'fractional cutter' and it appears in my write up, I apologize. 'Fractional cutter' strikes me as even worse than my other pet peeve term, the insidious and lubberly term "Cutter Ketch".

PaulinVictoria:
I did not say that a masthead rig sucks. In my mind, it is one of the better rigs out there for small boats. But as compared to a fractional rig, absent some racing rule that favors masthead rigs, a masthead rig has no real advantage over a fractional rig, while fractional rigs tend to be more efficient, easier to handle, and less expensive to construct and maintain. While this may sound a subtle distinction, the comparison to a fractional sloop does not make masthead sloop rig a bad rig. It just makes it an inferior rig as compared to a fractional rig. Sail on....

Jeff


----------



## PaulinVictoria (Aug 23, 2009)

I know Jeff  I like my honking great headsails and tree trunk mast, they look fantastic compared to those prissy little fractional jibs with their spindly bendy masts.
Actually, coming to think of it, pretty much all the photos I see of broken masts seem to be on fractional rigs, whether that is a weakness in the rig, or simply because most racers are fractional now, cameras out on the water are more common and generally it's only those idiot racers that are pushing it like that (I'm still waiting to blow up the spinnaker on our J24).
As ever though Jeff, very interesting posts from you.


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

PaulinVictoria said:


> I know Jeff  I like my honking great headsails and tree trunk mast, they look fantastic compared to those prissy little fractional jibs with their spindly bendy masts.


As you point out, I'd have thought a masthead rig has at least one major advantage over a fractional one - sheer additional headsail area. Sure, the main might not be as "efficient", but with a honking great genoa and 20% bigger spinnaker to drive you along at top speed, who cares really? 

For this reason, a not very uncommon sight around here is people flying an enormous masthead spinnaker on a fractional-rigged boat - just to get that extra few knots downwind in the light stuff.



PaulinVictoria said:


> Actually, coming to think of it, pretty much all the photos I see of broken masts seem to be on fractional rigs, whether that is a weakness in the rig, or simply because most racers are fractional now, cameras out on the water are more common and generally it's only those idiot racers that are pushing it like that (I'm still waiting to blow up the spinnaker on our J24).


If twilight racing in these parts is anything to go by, if there really is a trend there, it might be amongst those who crank their backstays on really hard and chinese gybe in the next big gust. That must put far more stress on the mast than I'd have realistically thought it should handle...


----------



## axel (Feb 25, 2007)

Thanks to Jeff, as always there is a lot to learn from his thorough and well-explained posts!

This time, though, there seems to me to be one point he skipped, that to my mind is an advantage of the masthead rig. On a fractional rig without runners, the spreaders will be aft-swept in order to counteract the force of the forestay on the mast. This means you cannot let the mainsail as far out as on a boat with straight spreaders. The effect this has on effective sail area going dead downwind is quite small. But it means that when sailing in waves, the chances of an involuntary gybe will be larger. (Since the sail is not let out all the way, there is a reduced angle for sailing by the lee before the sail gybes.) 

Moreover, while I can't quite explain why, I have the feeling that when the mainsail is not all the way out, there is a need for more counter-rudder and active steering to prevent broaching (perhaps due to increased healing with the mainsail closer to the center line?), and greater difficulty for a wind vane to maintain the course without reducing the area of the mainsail. 

These points are perhaps most relevant for offshore sailing.


----------



## paulk (Jun 2, 2000)

axel said:


> Thanks to Jeff, as always there is a lot to learn from his thorough and well-explained posts!
> 
> This time, though, there seems to me to be one point he skipped, that to my mind is an advantage of the masthead rig. On a fractional rig without runners, the spreaders will be aft-swept in order to counteract the force of the forestay on the mast. This means you cannot let the mainsail as far out as on a boat with straight spreaders. The effect this has on effective sail area going dead downwind is quite small. But it means that when sailing in waves, the chances of an involuntary gybe will be larger. (Since the sail is not let out all the way, there is a reduced angle for sailing by the lee before the sail gybes.)
> 
> ...


On ourfractional-rigged boat, the mast is still held back by the backstay, and the spreaders are not swept aft much, if at all. Boats rigged WITHOUT backstays (Hunter markets several) may have swept spreaders and suffer from the loss of mainsail projection you mention. My main problem downwind is that a fractional spinnaker gives me perhaps 20% less sail area than a masthead spinnaker would. I keep thinking about attaching a block at the masthead and borrowing the spinnaker from a 45' masthead-rigged boat, but I worry about turning the top 1/4 of my mast into a pretzel if I flew it in too much breeze.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

No Jeff, it, "fractional cutter" wasn't in your post. I read it in another post.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

I think on some rigs with minimal support for the upper panel (above the forestay) flying a masthead kite could end up in some trouble.. but I've often seen a spinn halyard tang 2 or 3 feet above the forestay, could be a decent compromise without excessively loading that unsupported panel.

Jumper struts should help a bit, but I think one should add some runners to support the loads, esp for an 'afterthought' masthead kite.

We have a swept spreader rig, no runners, but still a backstay (dyneema on a whip to accommodate a largish roach main - something you can't do with in line spreaders and a masthead rig) Our mast is setup for runners, and our pointing would improve but we don't race anymore and can't be bothered...


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

Faster said:


> I think on some rigs with minimal support for the upper panel (above the forestay) flying a masthead kite could end up in some trouble.. but I've often seen a spinn halyard tang 2 or 3 feet above the forestay, could be a decent compromise without excessively loading that unsupported panel.
> 
> Jumper struts should help a bit, but I think one should add some runners to support the loads, esp for an 'afterthought' masthead kite.


Having overly large jumpers for a fractional rig, I too have often thought of doing that - only for really, really light winds. The thing that has put me off has been that the mast tapers over the last 8' or so - and 20% more spinnaker is a serious amount of extra sailcloth if you happen to get hit by a gust..



Faster said:


> We have a swept spreader rig, no runners, but still a backstay (dyneema on a whip to accommodate a largish roach main - something you can't do with in line spreaders and a masthead rig) Our mast is setup for runners, and our pointing would improve but we don't race anymore and can't be bothered...


FWIW, my mast has in-line spreaders with a backstay and jumpers - but with this set-up the boom travel is limited not by the spreaders but by the aft lowers. My mast is also setup for runners, and even though we do race, it's essentially a cruising rig and it wouldn't improve pointing enough to be worthwhile.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

axel said:


> Thanks to Jeff, as always there is a lot to learn from his thorough and well-explained posts!
> 
> This time, though, there seems to me to be one point he skipped, that to my mind is an advantage of the masthead rig. On a fractional rig without runners, the spreaders will be aft-swept in order to counteract the force of the forestay on the mast. This means you cannot let the mainsail as far out as on a boat with straight spreaders. The effect this has on effective sail area going dead downwind is quite small. But it means that when sailing in waves, the chances of an involuntary gybe will be larger. (Since the sail is not let out all the way, there is a reduced angle for sailing by the lee before the sail gybes.)
> 
> ...


Thank you for the kind words, and for raising a good point about raked back spreaders. In reality, if you have spreader chafe gear on your mainsail and don't mind the sail sitting against the spreaders dead down wind (as in my case), the real limit to the amount that the sail can be eased is the point at which the boom almost touches the shrouds. To explain, in most cases, on fractionally rigged sloops without running backstay (and therefore swept back spreaders), the chainplates are located aft of the mast, and so it is the position of the shrouds that limit the rotation of the boom to less than 90 degrees.

That said, I am not sure that I would say that "This means you cannot let the mainsail as far out as on a boat with straight spreaders." While it is true that this means that you cannot rotate the boom as far out as on a boat with straight spreaders and inline shrouds, masthead rig boats either have aft lower shrouds, raked aft spreaders, or check stays to prevent the mast from pumping. A masthead rig with aft lower shrouds or raked aft spreaders would limit the boom to a rotation similar to that on a fractional rig with raked aft spreaders, which is why I did not mention this above.

Similarly, both masthead and fractional rigs can get by without either lower shrouds or raked aft spreaders if they are equipped with check stays which of course need to be tacked.

Regarding your other point, I have not noticed an increase in the need to steer more when the mainsail is not fully eased. In theory, dead downwind, you would expect that more steering would be required when the sail is fully eased than when it is partially trimmed in for a number of reasons.

Dead downwind with the sail fully eased, as the boat rolls, the leading edge of the sail alternates between the leech and the luff. And as each alternately rotates through the air, they generate lift which tries to rock the boat further (like pumping your legs on a swing) and causes the boat to roll through ever increasing angles. That form of roll can induce roll steer on each roll of the boat causing it to want to broach or death roll. The recommended cure for that is to triim the sail in a little and ease the vang opening the leech of the sail so it luffs on the roll.

Slightly trimming the mainsail would tend to dampen roll and 
reduce roll steer.

With regards to the discussion of fractional rig performance dead downwind in light air. This is a bit of a mixed bag. Older fractional rigged boats were designed so that they carried essentially the same sail area as a masthead rig but with more of thier sail area on the mainsail and with a taller rig, and gradient winds, Frac's were exposed to slightly more windspeed. The reputation used to be that masthead rigs were faster dead downwind and frac's were faster reeching. I have not found any of that to be strictly the case.

The my own observations is that fractional rigs suffer a little in light air, but since both rigs are reeching to keep thier apparent wind up its not as noticeable as when there is slightly more breeze. At that point, masthead rigs seem to come into their own when there is a steady and more moderate breeze that allows them to point closer to dead downwind with a better VMG.

Regarding the discussion about fractionally rigged boats using full hoist spinnakers, by the time my boat was designed, late 1979, performance cruisers with fractional rigs were already using what would have been 'penalty' poles and hoists if they were race boats. My boat originally came with a pole that was nearly 2 foot more than its J and a hoist that is roughly a foot above the jib halyard box. I think you can see the spinnaker hoist and forestay in this shot (the pole and chutes were cut down in the 1990's to optimize under PHRF):



Some sisterships to my boat have added masthead spinnakers in different ways. I believe that this boat in the picture below had a small set of carbon fiber spreaders added at the hounds and a dynema set of shrouds added to stabilize the upper mast athwartships. The fore and aft loads on the mast are actually reduced by raising the spinnaker hoist since it is taken more directly by the backstay. (That boat also has nicer looking portlights than my boat, but the portlight do not making her any faster, just makes her look faster.  )



Jeff


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Classic30 said:


> .....FWIW, my mast has in-line spreaders with a backstay and jumpers - but with this set-up the boom travel is limited not by the spreaders but by the aft lowers. My mast is also setup for runners, and even though we do race, it's essentially a cruising rig and it wouldn't improve pointing enough to be worthwhile.


That's true, and often overlooked that aft lowers can limit DDW angles as can swept spreaders.. however the swept spreader scenario is, I believe, harder on the sail as the spreaders will be pushing harder on the cloth. Still, having owned both over the years we're not finding a big difference in how we sail... never really liked going DDW anyway, and often heated up onto a broad reach and threw in a few jibes in any case.


----------

