If you could set up your code zero again…

[globetrot]

I’ve looked through the forum, and the general consensus is that if you want a downwind sail for the BayRaider, a code zero is the way to go. Please let me know if and why you have a different opinion.

A code zero seems to resolve many common gripes of an asymmetric spinnaker, mainly having to store the bag in the cockpit, difficulty jibing, and requiring a crew with some experience.

My BR20 was set up with spinnaker hardware, but I didn’t buy the spinnaker. I think I can repurpose some of it for use with a code zero. I also have the long version plank bowsprit with a conventional jib and forestay.

To make space for the code zero, I’m wondering if I use the anti-torsion cable of the code zero to replace the forestay (I’d like to get Matt’s blessing on this). Has anyone else done this?

I have one bobstay that attaches under the jib tack. Would it make sense to add an additional bobstay from the bow eye to where the code zero would attach for added rigidity?

To those that have gone through the code zero upgrade, I’m curious:

1. What would you different, if you do your code zero setup again?
2. Are you satisfied with your continuous furling system?
3. Who made your sail (I’m aware that a few have had the sail made by Vega Voiles) and are you happy with it? What are the dimensions?

[Graham W]

Louis,

My French code zero (Véga Voiles) and continuous furler (a stainless steel Hookmatic) are truly excellent.  We had great fun with it in very little wind on the Blackwater during last year’s English Raid (photo below).

In answer to some of your questions:
* My removable plank bowsprit is probably much longer than the norm, so there’s quite a degree of separation between the furler of my self-tacking jib and that of the code zero.  My single bobstay reaches all the way out to the end of the bowsprit.  If I had a conventional jib half way along the bowsprit, two bobstays up from the towing eye might be a good idea.
* My code zero furler is on a very long adjustable tack line, which allows me to bring the furled sail in without leaving the cockpit.  I can then swap it for a flying jib on the furler or just leave the front of the bowsprit without a sail but with a (double) forestay.
* It’s important to have a degree of separation between the top swivels of the two sails.  This is easy to achieve with the tall mast of the Bermudan rig, less so with the much shorter mast of my gunter rig.  I use a halyard crane to get the necessary degree of separation.
* When measuring for the length of the code zero’s anti-torsion luff cable, don’t do what I did and make it exactly the right length.  A bit too short is much better and allows for stretch.  Guy Rossey suggests 25cm.  After a few uses I had to pay to have my luff cable shortened.
*  Someone kindly pointed out on this forum that I had my continuous furler line incorrectly installed.  Both sides of the loop should pass down one side of the boat, preferably to starboard - I had mine running either side of the mast so that it didn’t run freely and was a pig to uninstall.
*  A whisker pole of some sort is great for achieving a poled-out barn door effect when sailing dead downwind.  During the English Raid, we used my boathook and a length of old windsurfer mast for this but the sail lifted in gusts.  I’ve now made up a sprit whisker pole from several lengths of windsurfer mast that projects horizontally out from the mast and holds the sail down (photo below).  The pole collapses down into pieces and can be stowed in a locker.
* The code zero sheets are extremely long, reaching all the way back to the stern on each side.  They shouldn’t be cleated off when in use, so need to be on ratchet blocks for better control and to save your hands from rope burns.
* Each sail’s dimensions are subtly different - but see https://www.swallowyachtsassociation.org/smf/index.php/topic,721.msg7052.html#msg7052.

It’s possible to achieve a similar degree of furling convenience with an asymmetric spinnaker by having it on a top-down furler and anti-torsion cable arrangement, as provided for example by French company Karver.  However, it’s extremely expensive to do this (about £1,200 just for the furler and top swivel and about £500 for everything else).  Also, the standard yard asymmetric when furled can suffer from bat wing misery - see https://www.swallowyachtsassociation.org/smf/index.php/topic,899.msg5813.html#msg5813.

I think that compared to the asymmetric, the code zero is more flexible both down and across the wind and on the whole is easier to handle solo.  Je ne regrette rien.

[Sea Simon]

General, not specific thoughts...imho code 0 V Asimetric is a bit "apples v pears", but GWs phots show excellent ingenuity and versatility.

I'm currently  acquiring the parts necessary to fit both a new asim/cruise chute and a code zero to my bc26 over winter.

Just received a Karver v3 kf 1.5 furler, and this is sized to cope with loads of both asim and the MUCH GREATER  loads of a code 0. Beautifully engineered, but hellish expensive! Can use same furler for both if sized appropriately, and additional parts/accessories added. Mine has Marlow torsion rope and Colligo rope clamps, meaning no splicing, and kind of-sort of "adjustable"?

BTW, I see Karver now do a smaller model (kf0.9 @ £500ish. SWL 0.9T) that should suit a BRe asim, but maybe not a code zero?
I launched/recovered my BRe assim from a trug secured in the cabin entrance. No furler.

See Selden site for some ideas about dimensions of bowsprit for C0 v that for an Assim.
I think I saw somewhere up to six times luff loads? Double the load in the bobstay.
They are recommending a bobstay on my 26 for a code 0, but not needed for asim.

As GW says, silly not to use easily achieved support to sprit end via bobstay(s) on BR. That issue is easily resolved.

But beware v high loads on the spi halyard attachment tang on your carbon mast. I seem to recall only 3 or 4 pop rivets? I suspect NOT sized for a C0?
As mentioned elsewhere on this forum, there is a Swallow sales video showing an Assim on a BRe being gybed with no forestay (it having been removed, so as to allow easier gybing "inside" for the asim.) apparently on the grounds that the jib halyard will adequately  support the mast.

...and then there is the matter of the carbon mast tube itself, on a BRe (and I assume a new style BR20?) No spreaders = less mast support. Do the spreaders on the BC 23 only come as part of the "performance pack" or perhaps with the spinni?

Strongly advise you seek appropriate professional opinion re a "spreaderless" carbon mast, with no backstays, with a C0.

The furling asim set ups on the BC23s I've seen appear to work well, but I haven't noticed a C0...perhaps someone can enlighten us both please?

[globetrot]

Thank you @Graham W and @Sea Simon. The information you've provided is excellent. I had read some of what you written in the past, but I was particularly interested in your thoughts after several seasons of experimenting.

* My code zero furler is on a very long adjustable tack line, which allows me to bring the furled sail in without leaving the cockpit.  I can then swap it for a flying jib on the furler or just leave the front of the bowsprit without a sail but with a (double) forestay.

Other than having the ability to change your sail from the cockpit, is there any other reason to have the Code 0 on an adjustable tack? I understand the purpose on unfurled spinnakers. However, my intention is to keep the Code 0 hoisted even when not in use. Additionally, to make room for both the jib and Code 0 furlers, I will replace the wire forestay with the Code 0 torsion rope, so I'd like to minimize the chance of the mast being unsupported if someone were to release the tack when not in use.

* When measuring for the length of the code zero’s anti-torsion luff cable, don’t do what I did and make it exactly the right length.  A bit too short is much better and allows for stretch.  Guy Rossey suggests 25cm.  After a few uses I had to pay to have my luff cable shortened.

I really appreciate this advice because it is counter to what I would have guessed ("You can always make something shorter, but it's usually difficult to make it longer"). I imagine this was the case for you because you opted for a spliced torsion rope. Is that correct? If so, then I suppose it wouldn't be an issue if one were to do what @Sea Simon did and invested in adjustable clamps, like the ones made by Colligo.

*  Someone kindly pointed out on this forum that I had my continuous furler line incorrectly installed.  Both sides of the loop should pass down one side of the boat, preferably to starboard - I had mine running either side of the mast so that it didn’t run freely and was a pig to uninstall.

Can you elaborate on why you prefer the furler loop passes on the starboard? Maybe it's just your preference, but I'm curious if there is a reason I haven't thought of.

BTW, I see Karver now do a smaller model (kf0.9 @ £500ish. SWL 0.9T) that should suit a BRe asim, but maybe not a code zero?

Yes, I found their new small furler independent of your suggestion and found it to be a really interesting option. yachtsandyachting.com and conducted a test (https://www.yachtsandyachting.com/news/247808/The-Best-Code-Zero-Furlers-for-25-30ft-yachts) of Code 0 furlers and thought it to be a great balance between performance and price.

I'm aware that Graham W and Guy Rossey (mentioned elsewhere in the forum) opted for the Hookmatic and I'm happy to hear that have had a good experience. I've tried but can't find any other independent info on this unit, however. It's not like I'm seriously racing or doing a transatlantic crossing, so I am sure either of these units are good and viable options.

But beware v high loads on the spi halyard attachment tang on your carbon mast. I seem to recall only 3 or 4 pop rivets? I suspect NOT sized for a C0?
As mentioned elsewhere on this forum, there is a Swallow sales video showing an Assim on a BRe being gybed with no forestay (it having been removed, so as to allow easier gybing "inside" for the asim.) apparently on the grounds that the jib halyard will adequately  support the mast.

...and then there is the matter of the carbon mast tube itself, on a BRe (and I assume a new style BR20?) No spreaders = less mast support. Do the spreaders on the BC 23 only come as part of the "performance pack" or perhaps with the spinni?

Strongly advise you seek appropriate professional opinion re a "spreaderless" carbon mast, with no backstays, with a C0.

When I had my boat built, I had spinnaker hardware installed, which means I do have an attachment point on the mast for the asymmetrical spinnaker halyard block. The hardware appears to be the same as the attachment point for the forestay, whereas the attachment point for the jib and shrouds is a SS cuff that encircles the mast. I can't imagine that the force from a code 0 is much greater than an asymmetrical spinnaker?

[Sea Simon]

But beware v high loads on the spi halyard attachment tang on your carbon mast. I seem to recall only 3 or 4 pop rivets? I suspect NOT sized for a C0?
As mentioned elsewhere on this forum, there is a Swallow sales video showing an Assim on a BRe being gybed with no forestay (it having been removed, so as to allow easier gybing "inside" for the asim.) apparently on the grounds that the jib halyard will adequately  support the mast.

...and then there is the matter of the carbon mast tube itself, on a BRe (and I assume a new style BR20?) No spreaders = less mast support. Do the spreaders on the BC 23 only come as part of the "performance pack" or perhaps with the spinni?

Strongly advise you seek appropriate professional opinion re a "spreaderless" carbon mast, with no backstays, with a C0.

[/quote
When I had my boat built, I had spinnaker hardware installed, which means I do have an attachment point on the mast for the asymmetrical spinnaker halyard block. The hardware appears to be the same as the attachment point for the forestay, whereas the attachment point for the jib and shrouds is a SS cuff that encircles the mast. I can't imagine that the force from a code 0 is much greater than an asymmetrical spinnaker?
[/quote]

I really would take professional advice on this.

The spi halyard attachment is some 18" above the "hounds " such as they are on a carbon mast BR/e. With no backstay(s) this is an unsupported tube, with a lever.
Imho (Engineer, not rigger!) you risk mast inversion, and/or buckling of the mast tube. Assum8ng the spi tang stays attached to the mast...but...
The spi tang is also only attached by pop rivets predominately in "pull out" orientation.

Remember, a larger C0 imparts higher wind/sea sailing loads IN ADDITION to the high hoist standing loads required to keep the luff tension needed for this type of sail (loads that are not so large on an asim).

[globetrot]

The spi tang is also only attached by pop rivets predominately in "pull out" orientation.

Remember, a larger C0 imparts higher wind/sea sailing loads IN ADDITION to the high hoist standing loads required to keep the luff tension needed for this type of sail (loads that are not present on an asim).

You bring up some good points. It may be a good idea to have a conversation with a rigger. Swallow Yachts is a bit reluctant to provide advice on mods. They did tell me the following, however, in regards to fitting the BR20 with a furled asymmetrical:

"I don't think we have ever fitted a furling asymm on the BayRaider 20, it seems a little much for the size of boat but I have spoken to our production manager and he doesn't see any reason why you can't fit one if this is your wish"

This at least confirms for me that the spinnaker tang can handle the load of a furler under tension.

[Graham W]

Other than having the ability to change your sail from the cockpit, is there any other reason to have the Code 0 on an adjustable tack? I understand the purpose on unfurled spinnakers. However, my intention is to keep the Code 0 hoisted even when not in use. Additionally, to make room for both the jib and Code 0 furlers, I will replace the wire forestay with the Code 0 torsion rope, so I'd like to minimize the chance of the mast being unsupported if someone were to release the tack when not in use.

No, no other reason.  Being able to change or remove sails like that is pretty nifty though.  If someone accidentally released the tack line, I’m fairly sure that the jib halyard would continue to hold my mast up on my gunter-rigged boat.  There might be a loud bang though as tension transfers from one to the other.

I really appreciate this advice because it is counter to what I would have guessed ("You can always make something shorter, but it's usually difficult to make it longer"). I imagine this was the case for you because you opted for a spliced torsion rope. Is that correct? If so, then I suppose it wouldn't be an issue if one were to do what @Sea Simon did and invested in adjustable clamps, like the ones made by Colligo.

Yes, I have a spliced torsion rope on my Code 0 and I don’t think the Colligo adjustable clamps were available back in the day.

Can you elaborate on why you prefer the furler loop passes on the starboard? Maybe it's just your preference, but I'm curious if there is a reason I haven't thought of.

If you’re sailing on a starboard tack while fiddling with your sails, you’re supposed to have priority over those on a port tack, who you may not even be able to see.  It doesn’t always work out like that and isn’t proof against fools!


When I first discussed flying a code 0 from my rig, the yard seemed to think that it was risky - the danger of gusts and all that.  But they also thought that my mizzen staysail was a bit bonkers.

[Sea Simon]

Splicing v clamps. For furler torsion ropes.

Clamps. I recall, the colligo ones were about £80 each, sized to match torsion rope. Fiddly, but a DIY.
Also Needs specialist additional end thimbles to transmit the furling drive effectively. These must  match your chosen furler.
Karver now also make their own version, which appears better/neater and incorporates the necessary well-fitted end thimble. If buying again, I'd probably  go for these?

Splicing. Two splices per furler, and torsion rope reputed to be far more difficult than endless sheets.
I didn't ask the rigger wrt the furler, as pro Splicing my 10mm sheathed dyneema endless main sheet was almost £50...and took weeks for a roundtoit.

This was after I had tried a DIY on the sheet (how hard can it be?  )..and failed miserably...wasting over 1.5m of expensive rope!

[globetrot]

For anyone interested, I just received confirmation from Swallow Yachts on how the spinnaker tang is attached to the carbon fiber mast:

"There is no backing plate behind the spinnaker tang that we fit to the carbon mast, we use rivets to fit it into place."

Due to the comments in this thread and the feedback from Swallow, I will speak with a rigger in my area with experience working with carbon fiber before relying on the existing tang to fasten a code zero.

[Sea Simon]

Sorry globet, I didn't realise you didn't know that about spi tangs.

I retrofitted mine, DIY. Parts supplied by yard, but are proprietary items.

Tang Bedded on epoxy, then fixed with "proper" carbon fibre type pop rivets. I understand that they have different crush characteristics to standard pop rivets. They also appear to be made of monel, or perhaps just a hard stainless steel?
They are very hard to crush and pop.

It would not be practicable to put a backing plate inside the carbon tube, imho.

Perhaps another mast collar, similar to that at the shrouds/jib halyard would solve the tang pull off issue?
However, it would not solve the "spreaderless" mast tube support/staying issue.