How many reefs should we have and where should they be positioned?
Usually when this comes up, the debate quickly centres on how many reefs are “best”: two, three, or even four. But that’s actually a backwards way to approach the decision, the logical order is:
- What is the smallest amount of sail area we need for the type of boat we have and the sailing we plan to do, i.e. the sail area remaining with the deepest reef in?
- How large do we want each reduction to be (granularity), which governs how many reefs we want?
Let’s dig into the process:
Hi All,
We seem to be going off topic a lot in this comment stream. So here’s a gentle (fairly) reminder that this is just one chapter in an entire online book about sails and rigging and that your wisdom will help people a lot more, for a lot longer, if it’s on the relevant chapter. Thanks
Good stuff.
Specific to F-boats and applicable to rotating masts in general, there are commonly manufacturer restriction regarding how deep the reef can be, because the relocated forces can cause mast failure, both by inversion and other mechanisms. I’ve known of many such failures, and a common thread is that they did NOT include the failure of any stay. The mast buckled with all of the the rigging still attached.
When specing deep reefs, consider that nearly all of the force is applied to the boat at the head and clew. That’s the reason for the big patches. Consider that few of the fibers in load path sail point at either the foot or the luff. Can the mast sustain the force at the new head location, in the direction the sail will pull?
With conversationally, conservatively rigged boats, not a big issue. With rotating masts and bendy rigs, possibly a bigger issue than sail area.
Hi Drew,
Good point. I have thought about that in relation to the second reef on our J/109 which moves the head well below the hounds. I think in that case it’s probably OK because the mast is beefy (for a race boat) and we sail with a lot of mast bend. That said, if the backstay adjuster suddenly failed and the mast straightened I would be reaching for the mainsheet and bearing off, super quick.
Anyway, as you say, not an issue with most cruising boats, I think. That said, in my tuning articles I do caution against the dangers of not having enough prebend: https://www.morganscloud.com/2018/06/03/rig-tuning-part-2-understanding-rake-and-bend/
This is also another reason that for offshore sailing I like an internal head stay and fore and aft lowers.
Good article on pre-bend. Many cruisers think mast tuning is about racing and don’t consider how it interacts with sail design and mast stability.
Also, with rotating masts, rotation changes the direction of the pre-bend, and hence sail fullness in the center. A rotated mast results in a full sail (mast cord plus no pre-bend), and a derotated mast flattens the sail (less cord, more pre-bend).
—
I’m a fan of deep reefing options. I’m not a fan of sailing with just-jib or just-main because it is easy, because of resulting sail plan imbalance.
Hi Drew,
Yes, rotating masts change everything. My only exposure was years ago during a very brief time I sailed Tornado cats.
Hi John,
Good update thanks.
Regarding reef spacing and your observation “the force exerted by the wind does not scale in a linear fashion.” I have always tried to remember and apply this when reefing. Having in-boom reefing with six full battens and thus six reefs, selecting the right reef for the conditions needs experimenting with.
So I was interested your three reefs on MC were linear. I plotted MC’s reefs vs as-built sail areas using these “straw man” conservative wind strengths: Unreefed 15 knots, 1st reef 20 knots, 2nd reef 25 knots and 3rd reef 30 knots.
Using this wind load calculator, I approximated the wind load for each reef’s “wind strength” with your as-built sail area, using average air density at sea level and with the load perpendicular to the wind. This gave me these sail wind loads (in Newtons): Unreefed 2219N, 1st reef 2771N, 2nd reef 3181N and 3rd reef 2860N…!
To help me relate to this data as a sailor, I converted Newtons to kilograms dividing the above by 10 (although I’m sure the engineers here will tell me this is all wrong). The wind loads all seemed balanced and reasonably proportionate.
When I used wind strengths at the top end of the sailable range however: Unreefed 20 knots, 1st reef 25 knots, 2nd reef 30 knots and 3rd reef 40 knots, it gave wind loads of: Unreefed 3946N, 1st reef 4330N, 2nd reef 4581N and 3rd reef 5084N…!
So I thought, wouldn’t the mainsail be better designed with steady wind loads at the high end of the wind range?
But then I realised the “reefed” wind load would be acting lower down the mast. But then again, not close to the reduction in luff length thanks to the proportionate decrease in foot length.
And finally remembered that MC was cutter rigged, so when you rolled up your yankee, you would take a major drop in sail area. And so the linear reefs proved to work well on MC.
But for those of us with sloop rigs, is equal spacing still the best option?
Should we design for the low end of the wind range (for when a conservative cruising sailor might reef), or the top end of the wind range (for when we might get caught out)?
Hi Rob,
Thanks for doing those calculations. Very interesting! However, I think there is a missing factor here. I think you assumed the sail at 90 degrees to the wind and a drag coefficient of 1? But that, in turn assumes running off. So that will reduce the apparent wind speed. And further, if the apparent wind 40 knots that would imply true wind at >45 a wind speed where we would be heaved-to or trailing the JSD. And when heaved-to I think the sail has a much lower drag coefficient. I would guess about .3, given that the sail is very flat and probably stalled, so think about a third the pressure.
Add that factor to the drop in centre of effort as we reef, I think we are still all good to ignore spacing.
Anecdotally I can also say that I have always been surprised by how low the loads on the mainsheet are when triple reefed, particularly when heaved to. Of course part of that is increased leverage on the sail from end boom sheeting, but still it’s dramatic on that boat, even at >35 knots.
One other anecdote that supports that the loads are low enough: Phyllis and I got caught by a fast rising wind off south Greenland while running off with the main triple reefed. The wind was well over 45 knots true and gusting higher when the two of us clawed the mainsail down without trimming the boom in from its position held by the preventer. It was a bit of a struggle, but not horrible.
Hi John,
Good point, I did use 90 degrees as default, as being most likely the “worse case” situation. I did consider choosing a different angle, but since each reef at each wind strength would have the same proportional adjustment, I thought it valid to go with the default.
Another issue occurred to me. In light of the recent AAC article and comments on preventers, abnormal loads placed on the boom and optimal sheeting positions; as the luff is decreasing, so too is the foot. This means the leech is supporting the boom closer to the goose neck.
We have a main sheeting position forward of our dodger and our fourth batten / reef is 35% of the full mainsail area, with the rolled leech inline with the mainsheet.
And, we have a very powerful positive-sprung Forespar vang providing plenty of support for our heavier than average in-boom setup, but yachts with rope vangs won’t have this support.
Our fifth batten / reef is 27.5% of full mainsail and the leech so set, would be forward of the sheeting position. So these articles have reinforced in my mind the importance of swapping early to our storm trysail offshore, and not rely on the fifth reef as our storm sail.
Another plus for storm trysail, over deep fourth reefs?
Hi Rob,
Good points.
I also think you are wise to think about getting the storm trysail set early on in a blow, particularly given the heavy weight of roller furling booms. Just way safer.
I do not think a simple F = 1/2 ρ v2 A calculation is applicable here. The sail is not an infinite flat plate bringing the wind to a full stop; it is a lifting foil (possibly stalled) in a dynamic flow field.
Using F = 1/2 Cd ρ v2 A is also insufficient, because Cd could be anything between about 0.06 and 1.3 depending on the angle of the apparent wind, the tension of the sheets & halyards, etc. and much of the force will be a lift force, not a drag force.
The designer / engineer / naval architect will consider the vessel’s stability and the sea state associated with a given wind condition, not just the wind forces alone. Several things are all happening at once while you reef the sails:
The designer needs to ensure the boat will be stable and controllable through all of this.
This usually leads to reef points being chosen such that each reef leaves roughly 65% to 77% of the sail area that was present at the previous reef. John’s M&R 56 follows this pattern, as do most boats with slab reefing.
There is plenty of room for personal preference, and little hard-and-fast technical guidance, when it comes to selecting reef points within the reasonable range. But, if you reef in fixed increments, you cannot stray far from that range without trouble.
A 1000 sqft two-reef main in 63% steps yields 1000, 632, or 400 sqft. The steps are too coarse; there will always be two bands of apparent wind speed where you have to choose between overpowered griping or underpowered wallowing.
The same sail in a three-reef 70.5% step design yields 1000, 705, 497, or 350 sqft.
Most experienced sailors and sailmakers will choose a slightly closer spacing for the first two reefs and a greater spacing for the third. Perhaps 1000, 750, 550, 350 sqft…. that’s steps of 75%, 73%, 64%.
By the time you get to 3rd reef, the designer is less concerned about optimizing helm balance and heel angle for best speed, and more concerned about just de-powering the whole thing to keep the sheet tensions safe and the boat speed reasonable.
Of course if you can reef continuously with a roller furler then it is less a question of designing the reef points, and more a matter of fine-tuning the furlers to balance the boat appropriately for the conditions.
Thanks Matt,
I was pretty sure my efforts to estimate the forces would be flawed, but if consistent across the wind range and reefs, that it could help me analyse the issues.
And I probably should have increased the wind density as wind strength increases above 25 knots, as the air becomes salt and moisture laden – but how much?
Anyway, having roller-furling does allow me more “granularity” in the reefing choice, but it’s not continuous in practise. Having no outhaul, the full length battens provide this function and need to be set under the mandrel when reefed to ensure the sail is rolled flat without creases. So with six battens we are limited to six reefs.
Sail trim is a relevant adjunct to this discussion. When properly set up, a sail/airfoil can add or reduce power/lift.
Angle of Attack + Depth + Twist = Total Power
Hi James,
Sure, but I don’t think we need go there for this article, since I cover a lot about trim in other parts of the Online Book.
Hi John and all,
For those opting to carry a trysail: I would suggest lots of initial pre-storm prep. (And, I have never flown a try.)
I have helped a couple of boats get their try ready for deployment: this after their skippers thought things were all set. One had to extend his try tracks to get to a decent sheet lead. Another found that his sheet lead become not workable when the now loaded sail, halyard and sheet stretched in the moderate winds that he practiced in.
In casual discussion with cruising boats we came across I would often ask, if I saw trysail tracks, what their prep has been. Many just said they had dry fitted the sail and had never flown it at all in moderate winds. Some had not worked out sheet leads and thought they would just go to an aft cleat when the time came. One or two had done a good deal of prep work and felt that doing so with an experienced rigger was essential to their getting the set up correct.
And then there was storage.
My best, Dick Stevenson, s/v Alchemy
excellent point, thanks.
We ended up with four more cars on top just beneath the headboard of the main. When we need the trysail, the headboard goes off the halyard – Axxon has a pin so that’s done in an instant, and the trysail is hanked to the cars and connected to the pin with its own headboard. The sheets go to different winches – no need to undo anything.
Not the quick in the bag solution John had, but four hanks are clipped in in no time. But I have the full strength of the track, which is at 50 mm screw distance there for the trysail.
Hi Dick,
Good ideas, but this article is not really about how to set a trysail. We already have one for that: https://www.morganscloud.com/2013/06/01/lee-shores/
Thoughts on reefing.
I am a sail maker. Put as many reefs as the boom is rigged for. You do not want to reeve a reef line in high winds. I found the deepest reef under the second batten works well.( But I have a rigged trysail on ocean passages. )
I am more concerned that the sail can be easily reefed. Like when I mention to my wife “should we reef?”. As I move forward to reef it goes from one reef to two. Our boat is over canvassed.
The sailmaker should place the slides away from the reefs. The newish masts have doors to replace the cut away for main sail slide bending. This door allows the slides to pass by the opening and the battens and slides to stack up on the boom. Reefing, you want the tack reef to go around the stacked up sail to grab the reefing hook. In other words you want the reefing to proceed without removing the slides.
Generally it takes about thirty seconds to reef on our thirty five footer. The lazy jacks contain the sail so generally no need to put in the reef ties.
I highly recommend a low friction mainsail slide track system. This allows reefing offfwind. We have a simple Tides Marine plastic track with SS fittings. Most newer boats have a good track system supplied.
I have been on boats where there is a pulley on one side of the boom and an eye on the other. They do not notice the post on the pulley where the reef line should be attached where it will go under the boom and up to the reef.
To continue on the mast slide door. In the seventies the masts were built inhouse by the boat builder. They were simple. I developed a system where the opening of the mast for the slides was replaced by a piece of aluminum screwed in place. The aluminum carpet threshold fitting worked great.
Alan Critchlow
Hi Alan,
Always fun to welcome a fellow sailmaker, and one who is way more recent than I am!
Lots of good ideas, thanks. But note that most-all (maybe all) are already covered in other chapters in this Online Book, and in a lot of depth, so your wisdom will have more long term benefit on the relevant chapters. Table of content here: https://www.morganscloud.com/category/rigging-sails/book-sail-handling-rigging/
Hi again Alan,
One place I do disagree is that for an offshore boat two reefs with the deepest just under the second batten is adequate, even with a trysail. Unless I’m missing something that would mean the deepest reef would only result in a reduction to 50% or maybe less. To me that’s not enough, particularly for effective heaving-to so I prefer 35% and three reefs. That said, I totally agree that the third reef should always be immediately available, which may mean modifications to the boom and deck layout. A PITA I agree, but I think worth it.
Thanks for the ideas above. I have a Sparkman and Stephens Pilot Class sloop, design 1219G with a mast head rig. Last week I ordered a new Main, 3 reefs, and RF Genoa in HydraNet, thanks for the previous advice on this sailcloth. The original wooden was replaced with an aluminium model about 30 years ago, the boom having 2 reef options and winch on one side. I note your previous comments about double ended reefing pendants and a winch on each side of the boom, maybe still an option. My existing Mainsail has 3 reefing points; we use lazy jacks and slab reefing.
Being a tad older than you John, I would not generally set out with anticipated winds over 25 knots, though I did exactly that last month whilst making a passage from the Eastern side of Great Barrier Island, Hauraki Gulf, Auckland, New Zealand, to Kawau Island, a distance of about 30 miles. Starting out with zero wind and motoring, the breeze increased progressively to 25 knots then 30 knots gusting 35 knots. The first reef was fine at lower wind speed and the second reef was put in as the wind speed increased. The yacht sailed well to windward perfectly balanced and the tiller could be left unattended, not uncommon for a well trimmed yacht from Olin Stephens. Headsail was a No.2 working jib.
Whilst a third reef was not necessary, I consider that a more prudent approach would have been to start out with 2 reefs and have the third reef already rigged. Does that seem reasonable? I am considering modifying the boom to allow for a third reefing point and a reefing winch on both sides.
And thanks again for all the great advice in the forum, my must read at every posting.
Peter Calvert, yacht FIN.
Hi Peter,
That work around, would, of course work, but I would still prefer to see the third reef available at all times. Given that you reef at the boom, adding a third block should not be that difficult and I think would be worth your time. On the other hand I’m not sure I would bother with adding a second winch and double ended reefing. Sure, it’s nice to have, but probably not worth the work and expense.
You have a loverly boat.
I’ve developed a spreadsheet that attempts to calculate wind loads on the sheet for both the main and jibs, and I have extended it to reefing. This spreadsheet is based on a formula from Beth and Evans Starzinger’s website calculators https://web.archive.org/web/20091202100125/http://www.bethandevans.com/calculators.htm using the Sailing Loads Calculator.
Comparing the results of this spreadsheet to our actual experience with the sails has been helpful, and we’ve created some benchmark loading, to help determine the wind speed for the second reef for each head sail.
One of my pet peeves about all sail makers that I’ve worked with, is that they do not follow my drawings for dimensions, mainsail reef points, etc. and I find the finished sail always varies from the sail plan agreed to (always smaller than the previous sail’s dimensions). I can’t describe how perturbed I get about this. The excuses given are “The sail will stretch.” “You haven’t pulled it out enough when you were measuring.” Since I have usually measured a year after I have received the sail, I now have resolved that any new sail is going to be measured at the loft with me present, before acceptance!
If you are interested in the spreadsheet, I could forward it to you somehow.
Hi Frederick,
Sure, send it along. I’m always interested in ways to bring mathematical rigor to these kinds of discussions.
Some years back when I kitted out a cutter rigged 43ft Koopmans design for a longer journey, I inquired with a Dutch sailmaker (deVries) about installing a 4th reef or making a trysail, his response was; I can make a trysail, but they always come back unused. I settled on a 4th reef having a boom set up for 3 reefs.
This served me well when being surprised by a sudden force 9/10 gale in the Bay of Biscay on route from Dublin to A Coruna.
During coastal passages we have reefs 1-3 threaded and during longer offshore passages reefs 2-4 set, to avoid working on the boom once offshore. (ref. John’s solid point on the danger of this).
If maximum boatspeed offshore is a goal, the above is far from optimal, but experience taught me that we often set reef 2 relatively quickly to reduce boat heel and without any great loss of speed, but increased comfort. Hence this worked well for this vessel which is no racer.
Hope this info may be useful for some.
Hi Peter,
Sure that would work, and is a good suggestion for those with four reefs. I like it way better than re-reaving.
That said, particular given that most Koopmans designs (loverly boats) are not that heavily canvased I would still postulate that you could have had the same no trysail result and the same depth of deepest reef with three reefs instead of four without the gaps between the reefs being too large and that this approach would be easier to use and more efficient than having to go immediately to the second reef on passage. The fact that you find that going immediately to the second reef works fine confirms to me that three reefs would work fine since you are in effect, not using the added granularity that is the only benefit of four reefs.
As to the sailmaker’s comment about unused trysails I would say he is even a little irresponsible to advise that. In all my years of offshore sailing I have only set a trysail once but in that case it saved my bacon. Also a trysail gives us backup and is safer to have set in really heavy weather because the boom can be lashed down. An analogy would be that the seat belts in most cars never arrest a person in a crash, but that does not make them superfluous.
a year ago, we sailed from the Scilly Islands back to the Solent. it was really blowing, so overnight with trysail and storm jib, an then it abated over the rest of the time and in the end we came in with the assymetric.
magic, fast, easy and not having to worry about the boom in heavy conditions was rather nice. I’d much rather set it than not.
Hi John,
Very interesting; thanks for the update.
I plugged in the numbers; we also got 3 reefs with the areas as follows (percent)
100, 76, 58, 35
Spot-on to what you came up with.
The forestay is between no reef and first reef and the inner forestay between second and third reef. And yes it’s removable. As is the outer forestay where gennaker and trade-wind sails live (they have textile stays, so the whole thing comes off – same with J3 and staysail).
All of this figures – our architect has, obviously, concurred.
On the 3rd reef and running the J3, we need to set the runners, but they don’t interfere with the sail in this case, so it’s set and forget.
Also concurring with you, I’d much rather have a trysail, which in our case cost 7% of the main, which means if the trysail gets destroyed, it is much less painful than losing the expensive main. So, getting it and the boom out of the way is very attractive.
Hi George,
Good to hear it came out the same. And good point on the relatively low cost of trysails. That gets one thinking that not only is a trysail relatively inexpensive, its use will save big time wear and tear on the main, so perhaps even a money saver.
In the UK, Maritime and Coast Guard Agency, MCA coding rules require either a trisail or deep mainsail reef that reduces mainsail area to 35% of total area. Having said that, I tried to find the link in the guidance but could not. However, in the past, this was the figure that was used to justify adding a new reef to mainsails for yachts put into managed charter. It may actually now be derived from the stability calculations, required for coding, rather than a prescriptive percentage. My own boat has a 35% deep mainsail reef
This is what the the “bible” says: MGN 280 pg 93
25 Requirements Specific to the Use of the Vessel
25.1. Sailing Vessel Features
25.1.1. Efficient storm sails should be carried which are capable of taking the vessel to windward in heavy weather. Where one of the required storm sails is a foresail, and roller furling gear and associated sails are fitted, a means of setting a separate taut luff storm jib should be provided. Each storm weather jib shall have a means to attach the luff to a stay independent of any luff groove device, which shall be permanently attached to the sail. Such sails may
use the taught luff of a furled sail.
25.1.2 Storm sails need not be provided for a vessel restricted to Area Categories 4, 5 and 6, which restrict operations to favourable weather and daylight.
In plain English, this means that for any coded (that is commercially usable) sailing vessel beyond Category 4 “up to 20 miles from a safe haven, in favourable weather and in daylight”, there must be storm-sails (plural), and using a fourth reef as a trysail replacement is not legal.
It also means that the storm jib must not be dependent on a luff groove device – it is either hanked on the stay directly or on the rolled up jib or it sits on its own textile stay that is sawn into the luff.
MGN 280 doesn’t say anything about the size of the storm sails. Presumably, if someone has to pay for the storm sails anyways, and the storm jib must either be “hankable” or sit on its own textile stay, it would take serious incompetence to make it too big – my .02 USD.
Hi George,
Thanks for the link. Does not leave a lot of doubt and of course Word Sailing offshore regs agree.
Hi Alaztair,
That’s interesting that MCA came up with the same percentage that we did imperially. That said, as you say, the really right way to do this is to use stability, particularly if they are requiring that for code.
please see above, I don’t think the MCA stipulates the percentage anywhere. and MGN280 is very complete.
Hi John,
Thanks for good thinking, as always. We have two relatively big reefs, top one to about 50%. It works quite ok, but I’d want 3 for a new sail. The boom is ready for 4 reefs. On this boat we have no trysail. I have never needed it in anger, but I agree about its usefulness. The worst weather I’ve experienced, we did with a tiny 5,5 square meter (59 square feet) storm jib. Trysail wasn’t useful, as going against it was very far from an option. (Long time ago, on another boat.)
On sailing without the reef lines ready in the sail. I do that all the time, as long as I’m inshore. That’s the only time it matters to keep windage and such out of the sail. I have also occasionally reefed inshore, but with no waves and some awareness in time, things can be improvised, especially on a cat.
For any level of offshore, all reefs are ready to go. I see no reason whatsoever why they wouldn’t be, even for racing (which we don’t do on our boat). I’ve also done the boom dance in my younger days, to thread reef lines. The word “consequence” just wasn’t installed in my head. It’s just stupid, no matter what the excuse might be.
Hi Stein,
As you say, when we were younger we had a lot of trouble with understanding the word consequence!
oh yes, these wondrous days, how much I miss them sometimes …
and our luck that we have lived to tell about our more foolish actions despite getting just consequences 😉
When we bought our J/46 10 years ago it came with a new mainsail with two reefs. Before going offshore from Maine to the Caribbean I had a third reef added. Importantly, I added a second in-line rope clutch for the main halyard at the companionway and more organizers and clutches at the companionway to accommodate two sets of reef lines. While we had 3 reefs, we only led the second and third because firstly the boat is very stiff, second, with a hydraulic backstay and traveller at the helm, the boat is easy to depower initially and we never use a Genoa, only a blade jib rated for 35 knots.
With this set up reefing can be done single handed from the cockpit in about 30 seconds, and with the Antal slides it can be reefed sailing off the wind with the sail loaded.
We never do a partial roll up of the jib…horrible shape and a chance for a furling line jam. If we are facing 30 plus, the #4 on the inner forestay is used with the deepest reef and it’s two fingers on the helm – and the boat behaves like it’s sailing in 15.
Two years ago we replaced the main with a new one and replicated the second and third reef positions from the old sail.
Hi Jane,
Sounds like a good set up. I too sail our J/109 with a fairly heavy weather blade and love it. I have two genoas that came with the boat and have never even put either on. Glad to hear you are not trying to re-reave a reef at sea and the #4 on the staysail stay makes a lot of sense. Have you ever tried in haulers on the blade to further power it up for light air? Makes an amazing difference on the J/109 and is a lot of the reason that almost no one is using genoas in the class anymore: https://www.morganscloud.com/jhhtips/fitting-jib-in-haulers/
Thanks John, No we haven’t tried in haulers but it’s been on my mind lately. We are able to trim inside the shrouds as the blade has a high clew for offshore work and we do work the adjustable cars fore and aft as wind strength varies. Importantly we have marks on the adjustment line in the cockpit so we don’t need to go forward to see the car position. As we are shoal draft and heavy we can’t try to point with the deep draft boats like the 109…..really need to rely on speed to create lift. A real game changer is an outboard lead for the blade at the rail for apparent wind angles deeper than 60 degrees. An easy half knot there.
Hi Jane,
I think you are right, since you have a shoal draft, in-haulers would probably be a waste of time since they only really work well with a high lift, low drag, keel. I was thinking of the deep keel on the J44 and thought that carried over to the J46.
Hi John I’ve just been searching through the site for some help in regards to using the 3rd reef in our main, I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction.
We are a couple of fair weather cruisers on an old Morgan 43, currently in the Eastern Caribbean. The Christmas winds finally kicked up in January and we made a few uncomfortable passages to windward in some winds reaching 25-30 knots.
We have a pretty nice fully battened main from Santa Cruz sails (just before he got bought by Ullman) with 3 reef points, slab reefing run to the mast. However only 2 reefing lines are run as that is all that fit in the boom. Do you have any rec’s for rigging a 3rd line? Just add some cheekblocks on the outside of the boom? Don’t worry about it as we hardly ever need it? Thanks for all the work you guys do, this site has a been a great resource
Hi Trevor,
I assume you’ll get more answers, but my thoughts:
The “easy” solution is that when the weather will probably remain calm, only have the two lower reefs ready. When you think there might be some more coming in, move the lines from the first reef up to the third reef.
If you want all reefs ready without hassle, you need to rig another line on the boom, of course. However, that might be easier than one would think. It depends on how your boom is equipped, but usually it’s possible to use a low friction ring lashed near the end of the boom. Use Dyneema for the lashings.
Make sure you put the lashings around the ring, not inside it. The reefing line goes through the ring. The ring must never carry the loads. It must be so that if the ring disappeared, the lashings would still hold the reefing line. I’ve seen this done wrong many times. VERY dangerous!
This might seem like overly detailed, but just to illustrate:
During the Palma Vela race in the Med on a brand new superyacht, the in-hauler was done wrong. With something like 10 metric tons of load, the big low friction ring split in half and one of the pieces flew past the head of a guy on the rail at “light speed”, with a scary screaming sound, very audible even on other boats. If it had hit anyone properly, it would have been like being shot by a very large gun. I didn’t rig it, but felt really bad about not having noticed. If you do your reef line wrong, one piece might shoot into the cockpit…
I love low friction rings and absolutely recommend them. Done right they’re extremely safe, since they’re so simple and light, but as with most anything else, doing it wrong is possible and will be bad.
Thanks Stein, I like that idea a lot! I have some spare rings floating around and some dyneema lashing so I’m off to the races. Can you point to any photos of examples?
Hi Trevor,
I don’t have this solution on my own boat, so no pictures, but found an article with some pics. They’re not from the use we discuss here, but still show ideas for attachments: https://www.sailingtotem.com/blog/2017/09/low-friction-rings-like-a-donut-but-sweeter.html
You probably already know, but Dyneema is also nice for the reefing lines. Less friction, extremely strong and low strech, which means the line will move much less back and forth through rings etc with changing loads. Less chafe.
He Trevor,
The only thing I would add to this is make sure the low friction ring is strong enough (as well as making sure it’s rigged right as Stein recommends) and if in doubt err on the side of too big and strong. Not only will that be safer but also bigger rings have less friction.
All that said, if the low friction ring works out well, I would consider it a prototype and then go over to a good quality cheek block to get lower friction and easier reefing. Low friction rings are great, but they have also become a bit of a craze (like using Amsteel for everything) and reefing will always be easier with a good block.
Hi Trevor,
Stein’s idea of a friction ring is a good one. That said, I absolutely think you should have the third reef rigged at all times, particularly since in the Eastern Caribbean the wind can come up very suddenly and with no warning, for example when you cross an area between two islands where the wind funnels.
The other option is a cheek block on one side and then dead end the line as shown here: https://www.morganscloud.com/2024/12/13/rigging-tips-part-2/
This method means that the position of the ring or block is not critical. So, for example you could pass the lashing for the ring through the mainsheet bails to stop it sliding forward.
And given that I think you reef at the mast on the M43 you are all good for the tack going on the hook. That said if the bunt of the sail makes that a problem, adding floating rings will help, as shown in this article (step 5): https://www.morganscloud.com/2010/11/19/reefing-a-sailboat/
John, so many numbers! It’s made me want to get that Quantum sail order sheet out to look at volumes on different reefs!
I think you give the best advice: how does it feel? Comes down to knowing your boat. Is it happy when you do X or Y? It’s also true that X or Y will feel different with different crew.
We quickly discovered that in steady 35-40 knots, even on third reef in the main, our boat was not happy with what we were doing. The boat is a trusty Columbia 56. She’s had a huge cockpit added, for which we are eternally grateful as it keeps us dry and safe. But it’s added windage that has to be taken into account. We keep the third reef and even if it was counterintuitive at first, we leave more genoa out in the front. It balances the boat nicely and there is less catching up and recovery time at the bottom of the waves, signs of a happier boat as it maintains the heading more easily. In very windy conditions, we watch that rudder data like a hawk, making sure the boat is in a happy place at the bottom of the waves.
We’ve brought our third reef for our main to the cockpit this season. What an improvement. All lines now lead to the cockpit for the 3 reefs. It’s a system that works really well. No one goes to the mast or near the boom. It’s a bit harder on the sail, but so worth it in my opinion. Watching my husband at the mast so we put that third reef in is some of my most stressful experiences I’ve had out at sea, even if he was dutifully clipped to the lifeline.
Let’s face it, even if you reef a lot and early, there will always be those odd surprises! We are now on Stewart Island, and it’s all or nothing in those high 40 latitudes!
Before we cross the Indian and Atlantic ocean, I believe we need to get our hands on a “gail sail” that slips over the genoa. Honestly, the Pacific ocean so far has lived up to it’s name with us: mostly Pacific. We knew by keeping to the schedule, we would most likely not miss a storm sail. I feel otherwise for those bigger crossings ahead. I’ll certainly read your articles on storm sails. I see several arguments for having one, including less wear and tear to our genoa. I think just for that, it’s worth it. Storms are a true punishment for sails.
Hi Marie Eve,
Given where you are (I’m envious) and where you are bound, I would not go with a gale sail, but rather rig a proper internal head stay and use a storm staysail. The boat will balance way better (including when heaved to) and if you ever need claw off a lee shore she will sail way better. Also a storm staysail stay with runners really helps stabilize the mast and stop pumping when it gets nasty.
Much more on heavy weather here: https://www.morganscloud.com/category/storm-tactics/online-book-heavy-weather
John, your input is seriously appreciated!
I have more reading to do. I just read the JDS survival story near port Pegasus, truly chilling! We are going to the Fjords next week, if the Foveaux straight allows. We are going back up towards Fiji and Vanuatu end of April and coming back down to NZ again for cyclone season. We will then add the last redundancies we want on the boat and some further prepping for those 2 big crossings. We might purchase a storm sail from North Sails in Opua before departing up North this season. I’d like that in our arsenal. I’ll learn more before ordering. Thanks again!
Good chapter.
A couple of thoughts based on 50K+ miles on our Passoa 47
Agreed on the desirability of a cutter stay. Ours is simple and permanent. Only disadvantage is that on one tack every 50 or so we have to help the jib around. (It is 120% with clew 9’ above the deck, not a Genoa )
Key is to leave the staysail aback until the jib slides through the slot.
Our trysail is on a separate track. When tested in 40 knots, we had to change a few things, but we have not needed it in a storm. We did sail a thousand miles downwind with it after a silly accident ripped our mainsail. Having a ‘spare main’ steadied the boat relative to sailing jib only
Addition to my comment.
Our experience supports the suggestion that dyneema reefing lines are desirable, because the reduce chafe due to lines stretching under load.
Ours are 10mm T900 (dyneema/technora core with Dacron outer). They are as good as new after 20 years of six months per year cruising.
We reef a lot because our mast is taller and our mainsail larger than design of our Passoa 47
Hi Neil,
I agree with all of that. One thought though, Tecnora is part of the Kevlar family so prone to sudden failure when bent over a tight angle, so I, and the experienced rigger who informed me, prefer all Dyneema: https://www.morganscloud.com/2017/12/09/running-rigging-recommendations-part-1/
We have a two chapters on cutters as well as several on reefing details, so I would rather not get a discussion going here that duplicates that: https://www.morganscloud.com/category/rigging-sails/book-sail-handling-rigging/
And trysail details are here: https://www.morganscloud.com/2013/06/01/lee-shores/ although I would be the first to say that needs filling in a bit. Particularly your first hand experience of the backup benefit!