Boomkicker

[Figment]

In a classic case of boat-headedness, the need to replace my topping lift with a $15 hunk of cordage has me thinking about spending ten times that on a rigid vang.

The boat I race on has a boomkicker, and I dig it. Low profile, simple, does the job.

Does anyone else have any experience with these things, pro or con?

Thanks all.

[windrose]

Windrose has a boomkicker on her, so far I like not having a topping lift, one less line. I still plan to put a pigtail on the backstay so it is not flopping around when at anchor.

[Figment]

Which size do you have? the 750?

[Tim]

I still say you can't beat the Garhauer rigid vang for $250 or less. The best thing about it that might make it more worthwhile than the boomkicker in the end is the 20:1 purchase, giving truly boom-bending power over the large mainsail. Ordinary 4:1 tackles just don't have the guts to really pull down a loaded sail.

Topping lifts are the worst. One experience with any sort of rigid vang, including the boomkicker, will sell you on the no topping lift thing. I grew up on a boat with a hydraulic vang and no topping lift, and there's no looking back.

Seriously, though, the overall weakness of the original Triton boom section is something of a concern with the powerful Garhauer vang. And you need a very solidly-affixed gooseneck. As much of a fan as I am, I have to caution that the vang, in the long run, can cause a serious case of over-upgrading, as witnessed by my goosneck-to-whole new boom debacle last year.

http://www.triton381.com/projects/maint ... seneck.htm

In this respect, the simpler boomkicker and regular vang might make sense. All this being said, I have no direct experience with a boomkicker.

If I ever get a chance to actually sail and not just worry about my boat this season, I can't wait to crank that vang down on my new boom, though!

[windrose]

Figment, I will check to see what size it is. However, as Tim notes.... it really is simply a replacement for the topping lift. I still need the boom vang to hold down the boom for sail shape.

My topping lift was the main halyard to an eye on the end of the boom---which is how the lockers tops got beat up so badly when the boom was dropped or flopping in the cockpit... so the boom kicker was a great improvement to my situation.

[Figment]

It's just a replacement for the topping lift.... right. That's exactly why it appeals to me. I'm content with the vang I have now, I just want the topping lift to go away.

Also, unlike the conventional rigid vang, I think (hope) that I can make it work with my sliding gooseneck.

[A30_John]

I'm wondering if anyone here has sailed on a boat with a vang/preventer system like this:

http://www.boatus.com/goodoldboat/vangprevent.htm

If so, I'd like to hear about your experience. Of course it doesn't eliminate the topping lift, but the system seems to have merit for avoiding unwanted gybes.

[Tim]

Goldberg...paging Mr. Rube Goldberg!

With all that spaghetti in the cockpit from a pair of 4:1 tackles, each long enough to go all the way from one side to the boom on the opposite side, and all the silly draping carabiners and whistles and strobe lights and suspension bridges, I would say offhand that this system seems more complex than I like. I'm picturing poor Charlie Brown all wrapped up in his kite strings.

A better preventer system involves securing a single heavy line to the end of the boom--a strong point, rather than the boom bail in the centerline, which tend to be notoriously weak and are not intended for this sort of direct downward force. For storage, this line is run along the boom and secured at the gooseneck somehow; this line is about the same length as the boom.

A second line is permamently installed through a turning block on the foredeck and run to the cockpit or convenient location. When a preventer is needed, all one needs to do is lead the boom line clear of any obstructions and connect the two lines. It can be controlled from the cockpit, and the deck line is long enough to allow the boom to swing all the way over to the other side if necessary (though you wouldn't do this in practice). You could, in theory, run a pair of deck lines, but that starts to make a mess of things, I suppose.

Running the line to the foredeck/stem like this gives the most effective lead for the preventer, but wouldn't pull the boom down. You still need a vang for that. Good sail trim in all conditions requires a vang anyway.

Note that I have not tried this system, and have been meaning to implement it for 3 or 4 years now. Maybe it's a lousy system, but it seemed like a good idea to me some time ago when I first saw a diagram somewhere.

It's also worth noting that most boats perform best offwind at an angle somewhat less than dead downwind. About 150 degrees apparent is usually the best (i.e. highest VMG), rather than DDW. In practice, this point is right before the genoa begins to collapse behind the mainsail; head off till it collapses, and then bear up till it fills again. Watch a downwind race and you'll see that racers rarely, if ever, steer dead downwind, and instead gybe back and forth (usually called "tacking downwind").

In heavy winds, don't forget there's always the option of simply rounding up and tacking rather than gybing. It's much safer, and while you have to spin through a full circle, it only takes a few extra seconds. Obviously, this applies to pleasure sailing and cruising only. I reserve this technique for necessary gybes in higher winds, and don't need it often.

I rarely use a preventer, partly because I don't have one rigged and partly because sailing angles eliminates the need for a preventer, as accidental gybes are really only a practical risk at DDW angles. I do rig one up on occasion when heading downwind in sloppy seas but light winds, to keep the boom from slapping around.

Booms on a cruising boat should always be high enough for comfort and safety. Low booms are uncomfortable and can be dangerous.

[Tim]

I should add, though: to each their own!

Other than all this line and tackles and mess (from a guy who mentions in the same article that they were happy not to have lines on their traveler because of it's simplicity...um...ok.), there are merits to the system, indeed. So if it appeals, go for it!

My thoughts are, as always, just my opinions and may not be right. If I seemed grumpy at all, I apologize...must be the gray weather getting to me, finally.

[A30_John]

Excellent advice thanks. I've typically used the "tacking downwind" approach that you mentioned due to safety reasons (less likely to have an accidental gybe plus it keeps me in the cockpit, avoids the need to pole out a headsail etc.). But it still requires an attentive helmsperson to keep things safe and I always have that niggling concern about that boom. I was once hit by one - fortunately it was a light wind, sloppy sea thing - but it definitely got my attention. Has anyone used a boom brake in combination with a vang? Not the prettiest piece of hardware, but I've heard good things about them. Apparently the sensitivity can be adjusted accurately enough that they can be used to slow the boom down during an intentional gybe.

http://www.mvbinfo.com/dp_03_BB_brochure.html

BTW, I feel your pain about the weather, Tim. I was planning my first sailing trip next week. But this weather has put a huge damper (pun intended) on boat preparations. :-( I hope the wind has settled down in your neighborhood.

[Robert The Gray]

A case for the topping lift. i often sail without an engine on in close quarters. when on anything below a beam reach the only way I can de-power the main is to raise the aft end way up with the topping lift. I raise it untill it can just go past the back stay if I was to jibe. about 10 feet above my head when in the cockpit. this takes care of that last bit toward the leech and clew that always keeps pushing along. I have my topping lift leaqd aft to a rope clutch on the cabin top owith a stopper knot so it will not go to low if I screw up and drop the main wtihout it secure. . i am about to upgrade to a thin amsteel line(windage) from the boom end to the mast head and down till about 11 ' above the turning block adt the base of the mast. I will spllice some laarger line, for the hand, and lead it to the clutch. I have an active imagination and I really like the idea of an extra main halyard so I plcaced a decent block at the top. I can at least set a good main to the first reef without much delaay. ost under $150 I have even thought of adding a boom gallows at the aft end of the doghouse but I think it will get in the way of my imaginary mizzen staysail. I have never sailed on a boat with a rigid vang so the wind of my voice comes only from my own rear end. I am so absolutley obbsessed with my own boat I am loathe to be on the water without her. R

[Tim]

the only way I can de-power the main is to raise the aft end way up with the topping lift

Ah...but the beauty of the spring-loaded rigid vang is that it will also lift the boom if so desired, just like a topping lift.

[Figment]

In a classic case of boat-headedness, the need to replace my topping lift with a $15 hunk of cordage has me thinking about spending ten times that on a rigid vang.

And now, the fact that I stepped my mast without first rigging the topping lift has prompted me to renew this thought.

The triton has a longish boom for a 28' boat, so I'm thinking I should get the size reccommended for 30-35' boats.
Then again, my boom is really light. Endboom sheet, no winches or anything like that.
I'm waffling. Waffle waffle waffle.

[FloatingMoneyPit]

without first rigging the topping lift

Purely forgetfulness, of course. Had nothing to do with that faint voice in your head saying "dude, you can't treat the hull to a new paint job and NOT get a gift for the rig!"

[Tim]

I am guessing that the Boomkicker should really be sized according to the boom length, rather than boat size.

So with a 14' boom, more typically found on a 30-35-footer, I'd suggest going with the corresponding unit. I don't know enough about Boomkickers to know what the difference between the sizes means.

[Figment]

Boomkicker gets my enthusiastic nomination for the Consumer-Friendly Product award.
Not only did they include mounting bolts in TWO lengths, but they also included the appropriately sized drill bit AND THE TAP in the hardware package.
Installation took about 25 minutes, and at least ten of those minutes were spent swatting gnats.

My concerns regarding the sliding gooseneck were unfounded. There is sufficient friction in the system to keep things from getting wonky.

I bought the K1000 model (30-35' boats) and used the more robust of the bar sets included in the package. I'm glad that I didn't go with the K750, as the K1000 really could use about 15% more stiffness in my opinion.
The installation instructions talk about shortening the rods to achieve more stiffness, though, so I think I'll be OK.

[Ric in Richmond]

So...what would you do to add a vang to an original wood boom?

We no longer use the roller furling feature.

It is end boom sheeted. I really doubt vang attachment to the boom would take a huge load...but I may be wrong.

Boom is in such good shape and is such a part of the look of my boat I really wouldn't want to go aluminum.

SO far I haven't felt the need to have a vang, hell the mainsheet has a hollow leach and no battens since I have the funky, but very wonderful to use, zip furl system.

I've been adjusting leach tension close hauled with mainsheet and traveller.

[Figment]

Before I put a blade to the wood, I'd start with a nice stout lashing, just as a trial and to allow fine-tuning of the location.

But really if you don't feel a need, don't bother. I don't think sail twist is all that critical with a hollow leach sail.

[Ric in Richmond]

Don't really feel the need right now...just the racer from days gone by looking for another line to tweak.

Who would have thought I would have a roller furling, near full keel, bimini wearing, self tailing, authelm steering, hollow leached, furling main cruising boat.....NOT ME that is for sure.

Sure am having fun though.

This is the first week in 5 weeks I haven't been out on her and the 1st weekend in 4 weekend I haven't slept aboard at least one night!

I am already in withdrawal.

[Tim]

One of the touted advantages of those huge, heavy wood booms like yours on your A35 is that the weight of the boom helps meter the amount of sail twist when the sheet is released.

They make those horseshoe-donut thingies (yes, that's a technical term) that allow use of a vang on booms like that, but are non-permanent and wouldn't mar the surface of the boom if one day you decided you didn't want it any more.

Vang attachment to the boom needs to be strong if you intend to actually use the vang: vang tension is high if you use it to control the draft of the sail for upwind sailing, and the shock forces can be very strong as the boom jerks around when the sheet is released, say in a rolling sea or some such. Don't underestimate the strength of the attachment needed; it'd take nothing to rip woodscrews right out of the wood in this application.

[Ric in Richmond]

My thoughts exactly on the attachment points.

I also agree with you on the heavy boom providing some leach tension!!!!

Those end fittings alone must weigh 20 pounds each.

I do have a " horseshoe-donut thingies " that we use as a preventer. I am glad you cleared up the actual name of that device.

As always, you are welcome to come for a sail if you get down to the southern Chesapeake.

[Mark.Wilme]

For what it's worth Tim said in an earlier post :

crank that vang down on my new boom, though!

I was always taught to crank the boom down with the mainsheet and then to use the vang to hold it there and let out the mainsheet.

Is this also what others do ?

Mark

[Tim]

When close-hauled, generally yes. And if you're using something like a standard 4:1 rope tackle, you usually need the power of the mainsheet to pull the boom down in order to deploy the vang; these vangs are often underpowered, and with their awkward angle often cannot pull the sail down on their own (particularly when close-hauled in a breeze).

But a powerful vang, like a rigid vang with far more mechanical advantage, can adjust the shape even beyond a fully-cranked mainsheet, or control the sail without a taut sheet at all. The two controls are always inter-related, but a good vang opens up worlds of control possibilities. Even close-hauled, the vang makes useful adjustments to draft and general sail shape that cannot necessarily be accomplished without.

[Mark.Wilme]

I thnk new sails would be my priority before trying to get better shape out of my old worn out sails.

Which reminds me, we were out Sunday coming back up the Sakkonett river when the local photo-copter came by shooting photos of every boat on the water. He posts them on his website with atext 'overlay' on the image and if you like the shots you can order a real copy (ie: actual photo). It's a cool idea.

These are the photos of Impeckable that they took this last Sunday - I am so impressed with the sail shape in my 20 year old sails.









Photos courtesy of riaerials.com


( My sister in law deliberately went and stood at the mast for the photo opportunity, neither crew nor guests normally stand there while underway )


( OK bring on the criticism and yes I know my topping lift is too tight. )

Mark

[Tim]

It's great to have shots like that! I'd love some of my boat.

Back in 1982, the well-known photographer Tom Leutwiler took a series of photos of my dad's boat at the start of the Bermuda race. Those excellent photos still grace our walls.

[Robert The Gray]

I have often wondered why more enterprising photographers don't set up "photo zones" with a motor skiff. Have any one who wants one go through the zone on the point of sail that has with good lighting angles and back drop, I would sure pay $50 or a $100 for a nicely set up photo of my boat sailing across the Bay in front of the Golden Gate. I would think with a bit of advertising one could generate a lot of interest on a sunday afternoon. Like the photo booths at the fair. The helicopter is a great idea. I love that angle.

r

[PGplastic]

Yeah. Great idea. Enjoyed the photos. I think it was in "Fastnet, Force 10" where I read that photosgraphs of the sea and waves tend to appear flattened, that is, the photos don't do the size of the waves justice. I couldn't help but notice in the third photo that the waves appear a little "lumpier" than in the other pics. Are my eyes tired or do you see it, too? Those of you who have been in waves bigger than found on a lake, do you think photos accurrately reproduce their size?

Curious,

Paul

[Tim]

Those of you who have been in waves bigger than found on a lake, do you think photos accurrately reproduce their size?

No. Photos simply never truly capture the state of the seas. Even in storm photos where the seas look bad, they were probably worse in reality.

Plus, there's the lack of proper perspective. Even with a boat or ship in the photo, one can never really tell exactly how high the seas might be.

Finally, people tend to greatly overestimate the height of waves, as it's hard to gauge even when one is experiencing it. I was taught that if you're in a storm and are asked to describe the height of the waves, you just say, "big".

[Mark.Wilme]

The waves were less than a foot in all 4 photos except for the occassional powerboat wake.

When I was younger I used to surf (waves not the internet) on the North coast of cornwall, we always referred to the height of the wave as half of it's apparent height, as I recall this was because the wave will create a trough in front of it as well as it's own rise. Thus a 4ft wave seems huge when you are clinging to a 7ft length of fiberglass covered foam and it is about to break behind you.

I just finished reading 'A Voyage for Madmen' by Peter Nicholls and even the careful language of a proffessional don't do justice to the size of and fear that can be instilled by a wave ( and I have never seen big waves).



Mark

[Figment]

Figment, I would still love those measurements for your boom kicker and vang set up. I have read where they recommend the vang be 25 to 33 percent of the boom length from the mast. Yours seems a bit closer. The dimension look like I could squeeze it onto Bolero.

On the boom I have it 39" (precisely 25% by pure coincidence) from the gooseneck.
On the mast it's as low as it can go, which turns out to be 21-22" from the gooseneck.

If I had the option, I'd have more distance on the mast and less on the boom. Of course the ideal would be to have the two distances equal. Of course this would require that the boomkicker to be longer than its 45" in order to adhere to the 25% guideline. Such is life.