J/105 Class Open Forum

Welcome to the J/105 Class Open Forum. Feel free to browse. If you would like to add your comments click here.

Open Forum entries (newest first):

As a first time owner who will be taking delivery of a new J 105 this April, it was news to me about this shaft seal issue. Is the leaking common? I would appreciate some more commentary on this issue so that I can talk to my dealer. Thanks
Charlie Randolph <cjc.randolph@worldnet.att.net>
Wilmette, IL USA - Friday, December 19, 1997 at 23:22:41 (EST)

Skip - I am very interested in how your clubs testing of the Americap system works. Could you keep us posted on this website? I think many of us racing PHRF would like to see the IMF guys join forces with us and make for more interesting races (some of their starts have just one or two boats which is just plain stupid in my humble opinion). If a new (compromise) system is acceptable then I'm all in favour - the more, the merrier.
ian farquharson <ianf@speedware.com>
toronto, on canada - Thursday, December 18, 1997 at 10:40:00 (EST)

Shaft Seals: Response to Rich Levitt's question on shaft seals. Yes, we've tried several on Plum Crazy. Originally had boat delivered (new) with a Strong Seal in lieu of factory stuffing box. Worked fine for a season and then started to leak. Factory tried several fixes, most worse than original installation. Problem with Strong Seal is that it relies on spring mounted seal riding on circumference of shaft. The 1" shaft with this Yanmar and soft mounts bounces all over the place. Strong Seal just couldn't accomodate the motion. Swithed to graphite face seal and bellows (PSC?) which was an improvement. Finally perfected it by upgrading that to a high speed version of PSC seal, which has water level air bleed hose at seal. No leaks for two years.
Andy Skibo <adsaas>
West Chester, PA USA - Wednesday, December 17, 1997 at 23:20:54 (EST)

Can anyone post the Ameicap ratings for the J105? PHRF-Lake Erie in their infinite wisdom rates the J105 & J35 equal, among the many other brainfarts they have come up with. Our club is looking to score both PHRF & Americap so we're collecting as much data as possible. Any assistance would be appreciated. US Sailing hasn't helped out at all. Initial evaluations look very promising because we sail in such a wide variety of wind speeds throughout the year.
Skip Malm <wish105@lcol.net>
Concord, OH USA - Wednesday, December 17, 1997 at 22:07:03 (EST)

First of all I would thank you for all the usefull comments on sail inventory that have been sent me. Excellent help for new J/105 sailors. Thanks I can see that some "normal" problems have occured for some. The water down the mast is common on boats with the mast trough deck. It´s only one way to stop it; foam (3M) the inside of the mast at deck level and then drill a drain hole above the foam (and deck level). The pack box (from Yanmar) does not keep the water out. One solution is to change to a system with thin oil pressure against the water pressure You change the pack box to a oil can connected to the seal, the oil can must be above waterline all the time. That system works and keep the water out.
Per Boeymo <boeymo@online.no>
Fredrikstad, NORWAY - Wednesday, December 17, 1997 at 09:15:00 (EST)

"After years of lusting," and months of research and thought, I will be making a bid on a new J/105 in two weeks. If that doesn't work out, I will take a hard look at used J/105's. This website, and in particular this forum, have been most helpful thanks to those who have provided insights, and especially Nelson Wiederman for the excellent job in maintaining same. If any of you care to share your thoughts on buying and equipping a J/105 in advance, I would be most grateful.
Craig Juel <winston@netnitco.net>
Michigan City, IN USA - Monday, December 15, 1997 at 21:04:31 (EST)

anyone ever ask J Boats about the water down the mast syndrome? if so, what do they recommend?
ian farquharson <ianf@speedware.com>
toronto, on canada - Friday, December 12, 1997 at 10:55:44 (EST)

While some water may "wick" down the mast due to the halyards. I store mast up with 1/8" nylon messinger lines replacing the halyards and I get just as much water down the mast with this configuration. I suspect that the rake of the mast may contribute to this problem as a friend who stores a Sabre 36 at the same boatyard has the same problem, but does not take on as much water. A point to be aware of if you store mast up in freezing conditions is that the water seeps into the bilge slowly enough that it displaces the antifreeze in the forward section of the bilge well which will then freeze first. I know this last part sounds wierd, but from several years of emperical observation, it works that way. Note also, that I have never observed water leaking down the luff grove or around the mast boot. As for the water pooling in the head due to the mast shoe not being in a shallow well with a drain, I would be interested in a description of how others have solved this problem as I really don't like stepping into a pool of cold water in the middle of the night after crawling out of the V berth.
Jack Rose <rosej@uillinois.edu>
Chicago, IL USA - Friday, December 12, 1997 at 09:47:34 (EST)

Concerning the pooling of water in the head after a rain-This is my only real complaint with the J105.I have been told that it caused by"wicking" of the rope halyards. I have not found a solution to this and would also welcome comments. I understand that some boats have installed recessed drain grates in the head to drain water into the bilge. Also I am wondering if anyone has installed a shaft seal instead of a stuffing box to further reduce water build up in the bilge ?
Rich Levitt <riclevitt@AOL.com>
Northfield, NJ USA - Thursday, December 11, 1997 at 19:27:14 (EST)

To the sailor from Norway asking about J-105 sails: You ask at "what wind strenth you go to the asymetric" , it is not the wind strentgth but the wind direction that determines when to change sails.It is difficult to carry the asymetric at an apparent wind which is foward of the beam. If you do most of your sailing in light air ,then I would definitely consider a 150 for up-wind work if you are not racing in a class configuration.Likewise, I would suggest the 110 sq.m spinaker however this sail is much trickier to jibe so you may wish to consider the 89 sq. m chute at first. After a season or so of practice on the smaller chute your crew should be ready fo a bigger one.If your courses have a lot of reaching instead of dead downwind courses this would also favor the smaller(89) chute.
Rich Levitt <Riclevitt@AOL.com>
Northfield, NJ USA - Thursday, December 11, 1997 at 19:12:58 (EST)

I hope that this isn't an inappropriate post; my apologies if it is. I am an experienced Laser masters racer and have been thinking about buying a J/105. However, I would like to crew on the boat before I make a decision. So if anyone needs crew for Key West I would love to join you. I live here in Florida and would take care of my own accomodations, etc. Thanks. Hal Valeche
Hal Valeche <hval@gate.net>
Palm Beach, FL USA - Wednesday, December 10, 1997 at 22:28:30 (EST)

Dean, I don't know if this helps but I think all J105's have this problem with the water dripping down the mast in heavy rain. I used a mast boot this year and it seemed to do the trick. If you still get the problem with it sealed then could the top of your mast be more open perhaps? I wondered if you have an older boat maybe because you were asking about automatic bilge pumps and my boat came with a factory-installed one and it works fine (hull#136).
ian farquharson <ianf@speedware.com>
toronto, Ont Canada - Wednesday, December 10, 1997 at 09:07:48 (EST)

With the rainy season upon us again, I am getting a fair amount of water by the mast, which puddles just forward of the mast. I have sealed off all of the obvious areas -- the deck hole and the groove on the mast -- so must assume the water is coming in through the inside of the mast. I have two questions: is there any way to prevent this, and has anyone tried drilling a hole in the pan so the water will flow into the bilge? Another question: what sort of automatic bilge switch are folks recommending? I had a "Sea Witch" which failed and the company has also. I finally installed a Rule float switch, but had a devil of a time getting it seated at the bottom of the bilge. It would work fine, except that when it shuts off, there is enough water in the hose to run back and start it again. This is why spaceships crash! A checkvalve is not sufficiently watertight to solve the problem. Any solutions would be most welcome. During the rainy season, I go to the boat almost every other day to pump the bilge, and with El Nino coming, I may have to move on board!
dean dietrich <deanj105@aol.com>
Tiburon, CA, CA USA - Tuesday, December 09, 1997 at 16:26:33 (EST)

We have just ordered a J/105, and our big discussion now are what kind of sail inventory we need to buy. We are racing in a Scandinavian system called LYS, which is similar to PHRF. Almost half the season we sail in light air. My questions are:1) Do we need a 150% for light air racing, and at what windstrength do you change from the 150% to the class chute ? 2)Probarly we order only the 89sqm and the 110sqm asymetric, do we need the 77sqm ?, and why? 3) At what windstrengths do you use the different asymetrics ? Any comments would be welcome.
Per Boeymo <boeymo@online.no>
Fredrikstad, NORWAY - Friday, November 28, 1997 at 10:57:37 (EST)

COMMENT ON J 105 BOW CLEATS: A MINOR COMPLAINT THAT I'VE HAD ON MY OLD J105,HULL #68,MACCABEE IS THAT THE BOW CLEAT WAS TOO SMALL TO HOLD ADEQUATE BOW AND SPRING LINES. ALSO, ITS LOCATION INVITED FOULED JIB AND SPINAKER SHEETS. I RECENTLY ORDERED A NEW J105,HULL 203 AND HAVE SPEC- IFIED PLACEMENT OF TWO BOW CLEATS LOCATED ALONG THE OUTER EDGE OF THE DECK OUTSIDE OF THE CORE. THIS PRESENTS NO PROBLEM ON THE PORT SIDE BUT IS A VERY TIGHT FIT ON THE STARBORD SIDE DUE THE CLOSENSS OF THE POLE TUBE TO THE UNDERSIDE OF THE DECK -ABOUT 1/2 INCH. I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THE CLEAT CAN BE PLACED AS REQUESTED ALTHOUGH FUTURE ACCESS TO THE BOLTS AND WASHERS WOULD BE DIFFICULT. ANY COMMENTS WOULD BE WELCOME
RICHARD LEVITT
USA - Thursday, November 27, 1997 at 10:49:29 (EST)

Re: Cigna Cup => ESPN changed the time to 2:00 EST instead of 3:30. I (selfishly) would have liked to see more of the J105's sailing et al instead of the 'Show', but , I know it was meant for the entire ESPN viewing audience. Actually, the 1/2 hr Whitbred show after the J105 show had some awsome shots of the W60's cruising at 25-30 knots!
Skip Malm <wish105@lcol.net>
Concord, OH USA - Wednesday, November 26, 1997 at 22:05:32 (EST)

I looked for the Cigna Cup yesterday on all my sports channels but didn't see it. Did I miss it or did it get rescheduled?
Stuart R. Burnett <SRBurnet@rmc.com>
Richmond, VA USA - Monday, November 24, 1997 at 09:50:53 (EST)

Re the bow cleat. I designed and built a bow cleat cover that seems to work quite well. It's made from three layers of 3/4" plywood. It has two halves that are held together with shock cord. You just pull it apart, pop it on the cleat and it snaps back together. It's nicely tapered so nothing can catch on it. My bowmen like it alot.
Nelson Weiderman <nhw@ids.net>
Wakefield, RI USA - Friday, November 21, 1997 at 17:04:48 (EST)

I have a few questions if anyone can help me ...... 1) Ever since it was installed, the foredeck hatch makes a horrible squeaking noise unless I loosen the hinges. But if I do that, then it doesn't hold open at various angles as it is supposed to. Am I supposed to grease it somehow every so often? 2) I want to get rid of the large mooring cleat in the middle of the foredeck in favour of two smaller ones on either side of toerail area at the front (reason is that the current standard one is a trap for catching lines at the worst times (jib sheets, spinnaker sheets, tack lines etc). Can you recommend an ideal location for the two replacement ones and appropriate size? I was told this is an option? 3) I find, when sleeping in the rear cabin area that waves and wake from other boats is very noisy with the water lapping on the transom (I have the Euro interior with the netting so it is quite exposed to noise from the aft section). Is there some simple and inexpensive soundproofing I could do which would not affect my weight/boatspeed when racing? If so, what and where would it go? (a rolled up soundproof curtain behind the netting? a soundproof lining throughout the aft walls of the hull?) I don't sleep on the boat much but this would be a big help if it could be resolved.Many thanks.
ian farquharson <ianf@speedware.com>
toronto, ON Canada - Friday, November 21, 1997 at 12:15:30 (EST)

Ademendum to my previous post about genoa leads. The class rules specify that the following arre "5.3 PERMITTED while racing: ...5.3.7 Installed genoa tracks not used." How would the class interpret installing a "genoa foot block, not used"? Thanks, Stuart
Stuart Burnett <srburnet@rmc.com>
Richmond, VA USA - Thursday, November 20, 1997 at 13:59:30 (EST)

As my boat is coming together, I've had the advantage of having an owner in my club "lead the way". He just got his PHRF sails and mine are being made this week by the same Quantum loft. Last week they took his boat out to try out the 155% and 110 m^2 a-sail. "Our" yard installed Lewmar Size 1 cars and tracks for the genoa lead. Now it seems the sheave is so hight, a foot block will be required to get a proper lead to the winches, especially on the port side. I'm very interested in minimizing the amount of hardware that goes on the deck, both from a "class rules" perspective and because the clean deck is one of the things I like about the boat. My question is how have other people solved this problem. If you install adjustable (i.e. Harken or Lewmar) blocks instead of just T-track with pin stops, is there a configuration that works either with the existing footblocks, or without using foot blocks? Thanks, Stuart
Stuart Burnett <srburnet@rmc.com>
Richmond, VA USA - Thursday, November 20, 1997 at 13:34:23 (EST)

One thing to add about racing a J/105: I took four crew who hadn't raced on my boat before, gave them a bit of practice, and after the first two legs they all felt completely at home. After four races were were sitting in the slip enjoying a beer when one of them said "Now I know why those J/Boat sailors all look so cool and relaxed after a race. This is the first series I've ever done where I wasn't feeling beat up afterwards." The 2-1-1-1 finishes didn't hurt either. I've twice raced a Valentine's couples event with my wife (a bit reluctantly on her part at first), but even with the chute we weren't frazzled when it was over. Definitely the easiest boat I've ever sailed and raced.
Dan Shoemaker <shoedv@flash.net>
Ft Worth, TX USA - Thursday, November 20, 1997 at 10:37:20 (EST)

Steve you fit the mold of most of us J105 owners! I too was turned on to the design at J World San Diego (great place, great people). I race a lot and daysail a lot with occasional overnights and I find the boat perfect for those needs. It is so much more fun to sail fast and so much more enjoyable to be able to take it out on my own and also to put up the chute with only one inexperienced crew (I could never fly the chute on a daysail with my wife on my old boat- you miss all the fun of sailing when you can't use the spinnaker). What would I order differently? I would stick with the "Euro" interior. I would stick with the wheel (it's great). I would have them NOT install the standard bow cleat in the middle of the foredeck (it is a trap for lines getting caught around it). I am having it removed and two smaller ones installed to either side of the foredeck by the toerail.. So far I have never used the stove but I keep threatening to. Never used the table because there is so much space in the cockpit to rest food and drinks and wouldn't keep it down below because it would get in the way when racing (I would probably install it down below if I was going for a few days cruise though) I have installed an autopilot (love it and it really helps you to sail the boat short-handed) and I installed a stereo system with additional outside waterproof speakers in the rear of the cockpit (my kids and crew love me to death for that one!). I added an extra teak strip on the floor behind the wheel because when it is very rough and heeled a lot the boat is so wide and it gives extra grip for your feet (got that hint from the website) Other than that, the standard boat is pretty complete. You will love it. Guaranteed.
ian farquharson <ianf@speedware.com>
toronto, on Canada - Wednesday, November 19, 1997 at 10:22:03 (EST)

Having just purchased Hull #186 and a full racing sail inventory, I am very interested to save some money and purchase an used J105 mainsail, used 150%Genoa, and an used 77 Square meter spinaker. If some owner has sails for sale, please contact me (312) 230-3821 office.
Daniel Heun <dheun@att.com>
Chicago, IL USA - Wednesday, November 19, 1997 at 00:37:44 (EST)

I HAVE A 2 YEAR OLD TARTAN 3100 THAT WE USE ON THE ST. CROIX RIVER IN MN. WE LOVE THE BOAT....BUT HAVE SAILED J-80'S @ J WORLD SAN DIGO AND RECENTLY A J 90 IN ST. PETE @ SAIL EXPO. WE REALLY LOVE THE FUN OF SAILING J BOATS AND ARE CONSIDERING MAKING A POOR FINANCIAL DECISION WITH OUR NEW BOAT...BUT WE ARE CONSIDERING TRADING IT IN ON A J105. WE USE THE TARTAN MAINLY FOR DAY SAILING AND AN INFREQ. OVERNITE AND I THINK THE J 105 MAY FIT OUR USE BETTER AND BE MORE FUN TO SAIL. ANY COMMENTS? ANY SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO ORDER AND OUTFIT THE 105.I WOULD BE MOST GRATEFUL FOR ANY INPUT. THIS IS SORT OF A BIG DECISION FOR US. ANY COMPLAINTS OR DOWNSIDES TO THE BOAT? THANK YOU, STEVE
STEVE LADER <STEVILAD@AOL.COM>
MINNEAPOLIS, MN USA - Sunday, November 16, 1997 at 02:07:22 (EST)

My plastic water tank's inspection port came unglued, so now the port and its screw-in cap are both removable. Can anybody tell me the best way to reattach the port? I'm guessing that the plastic has enough give that whatever adhesive is used will have to remain slightly supple. Dan Shoemaker #112 shoedv@flash.net
Dan Shoemaker <shoedv@flash.net>
Fort Worth, TX USA - Friday, November 14, 1997 at 12:04:55 (EST)

I am considering a J/105. I will be racing against a number of J/120's and would like to know how the 105 stands up to her big sister. If windward to a 120 can I hold her off? Can I use my wind shadow downwind effectively? Is there any advantage between the boats based on wind speed???
Andrew VanDerslice <andrew@vanderslice.com>
norwalk, ct USA - Wednesday, November 12, 1997 at 16:45:47 (EST)

I have a J/29 and am looking for a used jib. It looks like the J05 jib may fit my boat. Does anyone in the Annapolis area have an old jib they would like to sell?
Rich Hoyer <R_Hoyer-Ellefsen@USFG.com>
Annapolis, MD USA - Tuesday, November 11, 1997 at 13:33:22 (EST)

Anyone interested in purchasing an almost new Banks class main & jib ? Best Offer J105 " XSSX" USA 145
Jon Needham <Kevlarboy@aol.com>
Middletown, NJ USA - Sunday, November 02, 1997 at 18:50:38 (EST)

I will be choosing a below deck autopilot in the very near future. Any suggetions? What brand did you choose and why? How did you mount your below deck autopilot? What modifications did you have to complete? What did you do for a rudder arm? Where did you obtain a rudder arm, Edson? Call me at 305-743-3211 or E mail. Thanks, Bill Chambers on "this is not an EMESIS BASIN"
Bill Chambers <2Texans@reefnet.com>
Marathon, FL USA - Thursday, October 30, 1997 at 08:22:42 (EST)

If I buy a J-105 for the Chesapeake, should I get a genoa for light-air cruising? Is it likely to make a noticeable difference? Any comments, whether based on theory or experience, would be much appreciated.
Bill Shew <BShew@ibm.net>
Washington, DDC USA - Wednesday, October 29, 1997 at 12:27:36 (EST)

For Sale: Like new 89 sq. meter spinnaker. This sail was used only for the three days during the recent NAs in Chicago. Spinnaker designed by Peter Wheeler of Halsey-Lidgard Sailmakers, Mystic, Ct. Sail is in excellent condition and available for inspection. HIJINX placed second with this sail as part of its inventory. Asking $2,200.
Robert Taylor <RTaylor985@aol.com>
New Preston, Ct. USA - Monday, October 27, 1997 at 10:56:44 (EST)

Sounds to me like USSA and PHRF and the sponsering yacht clubs don't need our money. As an ex T-10 owner I saw the same political BS over their IOR rating in 1978, their LMYA rating in 1979, and then the complainers agreed to let them race one design in 1980 and they quit complaining. I for one do not intend to modify my bow pulpit and will not pay any dues to USSA or PHRF until this is resolved. It continues to amaze me that with racing on the decline, at least in the Chicago area, the powers that be seem bent on helping the decline along.
Jack Rose <rosej@uillinois.edu>
Chicago, IL USA - Friday, October 24, 1997 at 12:11:05 (EDT)

In the 1996 Chicago-Mac Race a protest was lodged against an IOD48 Windquest by a competitor. The IOD48's have a split bow pulpit. This allows them to lower their spin pole down to the deck when flying their A's. The Mackinac jury disallowed the protest saying that this type of pulpit configuration had been raced in the past and that it would be unfair to DSQ it now. That winter the protestor, who is a member of the USSA Safety-at-Sea committee got the O.R.C. to interpret their own regulation to say that bow pulpiuts must have continuos rails at the same height as the lifelines. I agree that this is one possible interpretation of the rule. After getting his favorable ruling the protestor got John Bonds (chair of the SAS committee) to write a memo to every organizing authority in America telling them of the interpretation and asking that race committee and juries help enforce this interpretation. On the strength of the winter's work, The Chicago Yacht Club announced in May of last year when they sent out their invitations to participate in the 1997 Mac race that the rule would be enforced as interpreted. They rejected my entry from the Mac race (I had written that I would not modify my boat based on the designer's position that the split pulpit in J/105's is a safety feature and that selling a J/105 with a split bow pulpit would be unsafe. I supplied CYC with Rod Johnstone's letter. The CYC would not reconsider their decision after reading his letter and the handwritten notes I obtained that respond to a letter from John Bonds on the issue (not the same memo sent to organizing authorities). Anyway, since the O.R.C. is an international body (part of the ISAF, I think), any country's sailing authority can use their recommendations and make it mandatory that J/105's can only race events with a continuous bow pulpit. They appear to concede that real one-design events don't require the same level of compliance. One interesting thing, an a primary reason why CYC rejected my request for a prescription for sprit boats is Bond's statement that Johnstone was told that split pulpits were illegal on his prposed design and that he built them anyway. Johnstone has denied that he ever sought a ruling from the SAS committee but does concede that there was some mention of it at a meeting some years ago. I think the designer owes us a complete explanation, and a solution. I intend to write him formally and ask for an answer.
Tomas Petkus <tpetkus@barristers.com>
Chicago, IL USA - Friday, October 24, 1997 at 08:31:18 (EDT)

Although in Canada, we would be subject to this at Youngstown Regatta I guess. They take different (but close) boats that would normally race handicap and make them race level. What is US Sailing's problem with the J pulpit? It really makes **** all difference in a race anyway. As for safety, any pulpit can be unsafe with an idiot sitting there waiting for a big wave to knock them off. It seems criminal to ban a boat from sailing for that! I just don't understand their problem.
ian farquharson <ianf@speedware.com>
toronto, on canada - Thursday, October 23, 1997 at 13:59:00 (EDT)

Last week the US Sailing Assoc. refused Rod Johnstone's request for a prescription allowing split bow pulpits in J sprit boats. The current ORC Special Regulations make our pulpits illegal for any event run under those guidelines. This is virtually all of the handicap racing in the Chicago area. Since the designer said the split was a purposeful safety feature, I can't second guess him (a jury certainly wouldn't accept my word over his on this topic). He has written that J/Boats would not equip sprit boats with a conventional pulpit since it won't sell unsafe boats. The implication is that our boats are unsafe with conventional pulpits. I am at a loss about what to do. Handicap fleet racing here is still a big part of the summer's activities. I did not buy the boat to be excluded from offshore racing. It seems that the designer needs to come up with a solution so that we don't need to be concerned about our potential legal liability. If we race with modified pulpits (there have been suggestions posted in this forum to close the gap, for example) we run a serious legal risk in the event of injury or death. I am not a naval architect and would not expect that a modification I made that was contrary to the designer's stated design safety feature would carry much weight in court. What I don't understand is how this controversy got out of hand like this after more than a thousand boats have been designed and sold. I am looking for a solution... Anyone have any thoughts? US Sailing has also pronounced that personal flotation is mandatory while racing, unless the captain says to take it off. So now, the safety at sea people say life jackets are mandatory while racing but we'll pass the buck to the guy at the wheel, if he wants to assume responsibility and tell his/her crew they can go without. Well what is it? If it is a necessary safety rule, then why is it optional at the captain's discretion? It suggests that our 'leaders' agree there is a difference of opinion on the subject. After all why give the captain the ability to implement his views on a issue so serious that the august USSA weighs in favor of a 'mandatory' p.f.d. rule? So, while they agree it really need not be mandatory, let's make it mandatory anyway? Sensible and rational, just like we have come to expect? No, it is just another example of the hipocrisy of safety that infects and infests 'our' leaders at U.S. Sailing. Well, if nothing else it looks like I am going to have to draft a disclosure/release from liability and make everyone of my crew sign it before we leave the dock.
Tomas Petkus <tpetkus@barristers.com>
Chiago, IL USA - Thursday, October 23, 1997 at 12:58:22 (EDT)

J-105, Singularity, is for sale. Although I can honestly say J-105's are the greatest boats afloat, I have decided to move on to the next step, Catamarans. Please look at http://www.starboardtack.com/j105.htm for more information about Singularity.
Peter Chance <peterchance@compuserve.com>
Rosemont, PA USA - Monday, October 20, 1997 at 14:13:07 (EDT)

RE: KEY WEST RACE WEEK ARE ANY J/105 OWNERS INTERESTED IN GETTING THEIR OWN ONE DESIGN LINE AT KEY WEST
DON PRIESTLY <DHP@TIAC.NET>
MASHPEE, MA USA - Sunday, October 19, 1997 at 09:13:11 (EDT)

Regarding speed differentials on either tack. I have had a J80 & a J105 called Jump the Gun. I am awaiting arrival of a J120. Our Autohelm paddle was mounted on the starboard side and there was a very slight speed differential, we went 'faster' on port tack and 'slower' on starboard, but it always gave us someting to aim for on starbaord! It did not worry us at all, the rig was straight etc. When we were planing at 17 knots we did not care what tack we were on!
Stewart Hawthorn <stewart_hawthorn@msn.co,>
Winchester, UK - Thursday, October 16, 1997 at 15:48:54 (EDT)

More on P/S. This information has been confirmed by two sources, a KVH representative and the Occam U Seminar Manual. (1) In the North, the wind shear is such that it veers (moves right) aloft favoring starboard tack, especially in the spring and especially during a building sea breeze and (2) the knotmeter runs faster when it is on the leeward side (since the windward side gets the wash due to the leeway of the boat). This favors starboard when the transducer is on port. I also learned that KVH has recently canned their product that averages the signals from two transducers ("good information, averaged with bad information, equals bad information"). They're considering a gravity switch so that the leeward transducer is the one that is read. So the speed differential mystery lives on for now.
Nelson Weiderman <nhw@ids.net>
USA - Wednesday, October 15, 1997 at 17:02:43 (EDT)

After five years of lusting, one year of total obsession, and a weak of anguish, I have ordered a J/105. Don't know what hull number I will get yet, but it looks to be north of 200 according to Jeff Johnstone. I'm in the process of determining the final interior configuration and would appreciate any experiences existing owners would like to pass on. My dealer STRONGLY recommends the original interior. J-Boats now consideres the Euro interior to be standard. I'm also considering a quarterberth. If anyone has experience with both interiors and can address their relative merits, I'd love to hear from you. Also anyone with QB experience, let me know if you'd do it again. I met many of the Chesapeak owners this weekend in Annapolis and I look forward to meeting more of you in the years to come.
Stuart Burnett <srburnet@rmc.com>
Richmond, VA USA - Monday, October 13, 1997 at 12:09:38 (EDT)

I am/was in the process of purchasing a J/105. But these discussions about up to a 1 knot difference port vs starboard tack have me more than a little concerned. Has this issue been put to rest?
Craig Juel <winston@netnitco.net>
Michigan City, IN USA - Monday, October 13, 1997 at 00:16:09 (EDT)

I will be taking delivery of hull #188 in April 1988. As a novice owner, I would appreciate current owners' advice on things to do/not do before the boat is fully commissioned and launched. What would you do if you could do it over again? Yes, money is always a consideration, and the boat will be used as a family cruiser/racer (3 years of lobbying with my spouse that the she and the kids would not be abandoned); I do intend to race as much as possible. Thank you for your comments.
Charlie <cjc.randolph@worldnet.att.net>
Wilmette, IL USA - Sunday, October 12, 1997 at 15:41:57 (EDT)

Ian, with hull #29 in the Chesapeake we eventually placed an epoxy barrier coat on the keel and the hull. We were not experiencing any blistering through three seasons with the hull. However, this completely resolved the problem of blistering on the keel and significantly improved paint adhesion on the keel and hull and improved durability/longevity. I believe the hull is warranted for blistering, but I don't believe the keel is part of the warranty???. Clearly you should only do this once you have made the decision on fairing. You could just have the worst high/low spots worked on within a modest amount of cost. Check it out, you may be please with the results if it is within your budget.
Ken Swiecicki <kenneth.a.swiecicki@lmco.com>
Salt Lake City, UT USA - Friday, October 10, 1997 at 13:40:05 (EDT)

Thanks Andy. Another good point. I had, indeed, not thought about the rudder. One always assumes it's the keel that gets faired. Based on all the input so far, I think I'm going to simply sand/paint the bottom (VC17) as smooth as possible and look into fairing the rudder only.
ian farquharson <ianf@speedware.com>
toronto, ont canada - Friday, October 10, 1997 at 09:58:27 (EDT)

Regards Fairing of Bottom/Blades: The decision to fair/not fair is the usual cost/benefit analysis. While fairing of entire bottom is probably a luxury where results vs. cost is marginal, the same is not! true of blades. In order of priority (and, fortunately, reverse order of cost), the rudder almost certainly demands attention. Many/most J/105's are delivered with obvious ripples/waves on rudder. Not fairing this most important of foils, at the nominal cost involved doesn't seem reasonable in a racing program. Would you fair a J/24 rudder? The keel is an in-between issue; they come through in decent shape, fairing this blade is probably important, but now you're starting to talk some serious money. The main hull comes through in pretty good shape, compared to the cost of fine tuning it through a complete fairing job. Programs we are familiar with would consider fairing the rudder a necessity; fairing the keel a 50/50 choice; and fairing hull a real "I don't know what else to do with the money" choice. In dollars, at current yard costs, for racing prep knowledgeable dealers, you're talking $500/$4,000-$5,000/ridiculous, respectively, for the three choices. Fairing at least the rudder would seem to be an easily justified expenditure for a racing program, given that you've already decided to spend six figures for a boat with only 5'3" of headroom.
Andy Skibo <adsaas@aol.com>
West Chester, PA USA - Thursday, October 09, 1997 at 22:36:03 (EDT)

I just love it when all the advice I get means I don't have to spend money! thanks for the help.
ian farquharson <ianf@speedware.com>
toronto, ont canada - Thursday, October 09, 1997 at 16:38:47 (EDT)

You should not need to sand and epoxy the bottom of a J/Boat to reduce blistering. TPI was one of the first companies to switch to NPG (neo pentyl glycol) isophathalic gelcoat. The boats all come with a 10 YEAR BLISTER warantee that is transferable. I would definitely not do anything to void that warantee until it expires (2002 for the oldest boats in the fleet)! Light sanding or long-boarding to insure fairness is another issue. If you have plenty of money left over and don't want to admit that you and your crew are probably the slowest links on the boat, go ahead and get your bottom faired. Personally I think you'd get more out of a couple of practice days. Faiiring the keel may be worth the expense, IF it needs it.
Stuart Burnett <srburnet@rmc.com>
Richmond, VA USA - Thursday, October 09, 1997 at 16:25:29 (EDT)

thanks robert. I was really wondering if it was worth it. It's not cheap. I am also being sold on the benefits of sanding and a covering of epoxy to eliminate future blistering (it has proven effective on some makes/models of certain manufacturers over the years) - any comments with respect to the J105?
ian farquharson <ianf@speedware.com>
toronto, ont canada - Thursday, October 09, 1997 at 13:32:28 (EDT)

Re bottom fairing: Both of the boats I have sailed the last two seasons have had non-faired bottoms. They were straight from TPI, no bottom paint, no fairing. Of course that may explain why we were second two straight years at the NAs and not first. But the point is that the bottoms that come from the factory are very competitive. I'm sure there's a factor of speed to be gained by going to the shop for a fairing job, but I'm not convinced the bang is worth the buck. My crew will read this and cringe, but racing one design, good starts, hitting the shifts, good sailhandling and a clean bottom with just the factory bottom can be competitive in most fleets. We're ususally in the hunt and seem to be up to speed with the boats in LIS, Ches. Bay and Chicago. Compare the costs of a good diver , one or two haul-outs during the season with the costs of a professional fairing job, and bottom paint expenses.
Robert Taylor <RTaylor985@aol.com>
New Preston, Ct USA - Wednesday, October 08, 1997 at 21:31:33 (EDT)

Faster on port tack sounds great to me as next April I will be doing the RORC China Sea race from Hong Kong to Manila. ( 650 miles on a port reach !!!!!!) in my 105 called "Legende" (hull 47). We race under CHS here and since I fitted the 110 sq monster from UK Sails we have cleaned up a lot of silverware. If any 105 owners ever get to Hong Kong give me a call via email and come for a sail. Ian Wilkinson ( Capt on Cathay Pacific 747-400).
Ian Wilkinson <iw@netvigator.com>
Hong Kong, Hong Kong - Wednesday, October 08, 1997 at 10:03:52 (EDT)

Reference boat faster on port tack: We thought we were the only ones with this observation. Plum Crazy is Hull #90, KVH instruments, paddle on port side, maybe 4-6 inches off C/L. Always faster on port tack, whether using class sails or PHRF sails. Bottom faired by Custom Offshore. Rig carefully centered (at least mast head is centered!) and tuned same side to side. Depending on wind speed/sails, we see 0.20 to as much as 0.80 kts diff. port vs. star. There have been times on the Chesapeake where wind shear was obvious and required different jib car settings port vs. star., but this speed difference is always present. We'll check athwartship dimensions per Harry Blake and see what we get. PS: We think bottom fairing is important, but honestly don't know that we have any hard data to present, since I'm pretty sure that the top end boats we race against have all been faired.
andy skibo <adsaas@aol.com>
West Chester, PA USA - Monday, October 06, 1997 at 23:54:55 (EDT)

Steve thats a bit too much of a coincidence. I too, have found that it is Port tack that is always faster and by as much as 1 knot! I asked J Boats and they suggested the speedo paddle location. Sounds logical but too many people seem to be finding that Port is always faster yet the paddle is not always on starbord. Can anyone else substantiate this or is it just coincidence?
ian farquharson <ianf@speedware.com>
toronto, ont Canada - Monday, October 06, 1997 at 11:03:48 (EDT)

I'd like to hear from any owners who have the Quarterberth option on their J/105. I'm interested in getting a better idea of the size (particularly width) and finish. Also, are you able to use it as a berth for adults? children? sails? gear? Finally, is the cockpit "locker" that results useable? For what? How do you like the "Euro" interior arrangement? Would you do this arrangement again? You may reply directly to me at SRBURNET@RMC.COM. Thanks
Stuart Burnett <srburnet@rmc.com>
Richmond, VA USA - Friday, October 03, 1997 at 13:56:43 (EDT)

Regarding speed differences on port and starboard upwind tacks. 1. Port tack is defintely faster in most conditions under 15kts true wind speed. (in over 15kts, everything is fast) 2. The speed difference shows up to 1 kt slower if the traveler is positioned similary on starboard tack. Say at the seat in 10 kts wind. 3. If the traveler is dropped 4 ins. to center on starboard the speed picks up to that on port tack. Whats going on?
Steve Schmidt <stevenvee@AOL.com>
Cleveland, OH USA - Friday, October 03, 1997 at 13:43:02 (EDT)

Regarding paddle position, mine is just to port of center (Harry's was just to starboard), so that doesn't seem to be the answer. Regarding rig, my measurements are quite similary to Harry's. The mast hole is definitely off-center, but I'm not sure about the butt. Regarding fairing, I sure can't quantify the improvement. It's probably far less important than a clean bottom, a missed windshift, or a couple of crummy tacks. For a great article on fairing, read the Gordon Borges interview in Speed and Smarts 11 (May 1995).
Nelson Weiderman <nhw@ids.net>
Wakefield, RI USA - Tuesday, September 30, 1997 at 11:34:29 (EDT)

Regarding mast butt positions, I have been polling several owners over the past months requesting they measure the distance from the bulkhead to the center of the fasteners, with the goal of determining what tolerance is present in the fleet. So far the total fore/aft range has been .25" and all steps have measured with the same amount of "throw." The measurements were taken in order to respond to whether moving the mast base fasteners forward would be legal. Based on measurements taken to date on 20 boats ranging from hull #39 to #173, there appears to be no reason to permit fore/aft remounting of the mast step fasteners. Off center at the mast base is a different issue. If a step is off center you’d notice great difficulty getting the mast in column with equal shroud tension on both sides. First check whether changing the chocking at the deck level corrects the problem. If not, correction side to side at the base would be permitted with prior written approval. Chainplate variation within a 1" tolerance is not going to affect the speed of the boat. It would affect your trimming reference for the 150% genoa, but not the class jib.
Jeff Johnstone <jeffjboats@aol.com>
USA - Tuesday, September 30, 1997 at 09:58:33 (EDT)

Thanks Harry. Yet another theory on the mysterious port/starboard speed issue! I also got the request from J Boats on mast butt measurements but not all the measurements you listed. They didn't explain why. This could be quite a serious issue for them if the masts were unintentionally off-center, would it not? Never heard of a boat recall before (lets hope its not that serious - I love my boat too much). Anyone else notice this? (ps. did fairing your keel make a noticeable difference?)
ian farquharson <ianf@speedware.com>
toronto, ont canada - Monday, September 29, 1997 at 18:15:12 (EDT)

Regarding Ian's question about speed differences on different tacks: My boat, hull #23, has had its keel faired and has the speedo paddle (B&G) just starboard of center line. I have always noticed a noticable speed difference on the B&G- port tack faster than starboard, which would make sense given the position of the paddle. Having said this, here is another possibility: the rigs might not be symmetrical. I started looking into this because my mast step fitting came from the factory 1.5 inces off center ATHWARTSHIPS. Last April I communicated with Rod Johnstone, and he asked me to send him the following measurements: 1) from the center of mast hole in the deck to the center of the outer hole in the aft chainplate on each side; 2) from the center of that same chainplate hole on each side to the nearest point on the sheer line (edge of hull). In so doing I discoverd that the center of the mast hole measures 50-3/4 inches to the port side and 51-5/16 inches to the starboard side, or 9/16 inches different. The starboard chainplate measures 12-1/4 inches to the starboard sheer while the port is 13-1/4 inches from the port sheer, or 1 inch different. I wish I could tell you what this all means but I can't because Rod has been silent on the matter (despite several follow-up messages) since I sent him the measurements last May. If any of you are interested in taking these measurements, I'd be interested to know what you find.
Harry Blake <hwblake@msn.com>
Tiburon, CA USA - Monday, September 29, 1997 at 15:10:17 (EDT)

Does anyone have the results from the North American Championship this past weekend?
Ken Swiecicki <kenneth.a.swiecicki@lmco.com>
Salt Lake City, UT USA - Monday, September 29, 1997 at 13:10:03 (EDT)

thanks a lot for the quick response and the ideas guys. Two new ones I never thought of! The impeller / transducer not being on centre is something one would never think of (why on earth would it not be centered, one might ask?) The upper air being different is also an interesting theory. I have never noticed it before on my old boat though (not to this magnitude). Kind of makes it tricky to know your real target boatspeed. I will investigate both ideas further. Like you Nelson I have noticed a significant difference - sometimes a whole knot! (ps the re-fairing presumably helped your boatspeed? can you quantify how much?)
ian farquharson <ianf@speedware.com>
toronto, onont canada - Monday, September 29, 1997 at 12:27:18 (EDT)

My first thought is, are you sure you have a real speed difference? Have you confirmed the appearent discrepency with a GPS? Is it appearent when racing against other boats? I image the difference could be related to your keel or any of the other parameters you mentioned, but don't assume that your instruments are telling you the truth. Here's why... I was talking to the J/105 owner in our club this weekend. He is having a similar problem with the speed reading different on opposite tacks. He believes that the problem is with his impeller. He has Nexus instruments; they recommend putting the impeller on the centerline, which I understand cannot be done on the J/105. They have confirmed that the off center impeller will read differently due to the variance in water flows at different points on the hull. They have suggested that he angle the impeller (I assume inward) to try to adjust out the difference.
Stuart Burnett <srburnet@rmc.com>
Richmond, VA USA - Monday, September 29, 1997 at 12:10:39 (EDT)

Ian, I've been noticing the same port/starboard differences this season and they have been significant. I had my bottom and keel faired a couple of seasons ago and I'm glad I did, but I don't think that is the source of any port/starboard differences. Here are three theories. (1) The wind aloft is blowing at a different direction than the wind at the surface. If the wind aloft is backed, then it will help a twisted main on port and luff a twisted main on starboard. This is a recognized phenomenon which is one way in the northern hemisphere and the other way in the southern (I hope I have it the right way around). (2) The transducer may be getting more turbulence on one side or the other. (3) Your mast is too far to starboard. I eased my mast about four turns on the uppers to port and it seemed to help my speed relative to other J/105s. Let us know if you can confirm any of these theories.
Nelson Weiderman <nhw@ids.net>
Wakefield, RI USA - Monday, September 29, 1997 at 11:49:15 (EDT)

Keel fairing. Has anyone ever had their J105 keel faired? If so, did it make much of a difference? I experience quite better speed on one tack (port) than the other (starboard) and can't figure out why. I checked the shroud tension, etc and thought it might be a full holding tank or diesel but wasn't (both located on the port side and therefore extra ballast). Then someone suggested the keel, saying that brand new boats aren't necessarily faired perfectly. Any comments?
ian farquharson <ianf@speedware>
toronto, ont canada - Monday, September 29, 1997 at 10:13:52 (EDT)

This is testing message. Hope you enjoy the forum.
Lai <c.h.lai@tdc.org.hk>
Hk - Monday, September 29, 1997 at 04:52:32 (EDT)

Re: Crew limits There is no need reason to change the current crew limits. the boat is easy to sail with 5 people, and the sixth would not have anything to do. As it is there is almost not enough for 5 to do except when dousing the chute. If the crew limit is raised then to be competitive you will always have to carry near the max weight. We saw this happen in the J 24 class, with everyone pushing the weight limit. One of the atractive things about the J105 as compared to other offshore one designs is that you don't need a lot of crew. I suggest that if we want to sail with a large crew, let's add a symmetrical spinnaker, more sails and 4 more crew members. Better yet, we could just slap the J105 logo on a J35 which already has all those things. Lucky Dubie
ray groble <raymond.groble@rosshardies.com>
chicago, il USA - Friday, September 19, 1997 at 16:48:00 (EDT)

Barber Hauling. I have to sail mid-week in a white-sail event which is a reverse triangle course. Means two-thirds reaching with either class jib or number 2/3 genoa. I think barber hauling makes sense for the reaches but have not yet worked out a simple approach. Currently I have someone at the front pull down on the clew but it also pulls it inboard too much because their arms are not long enough! Anyone have any simple suggestions? Does trimming the lazy sheet (around the bow cleat) work?
ian farquharson <ianf@speedware.com>
toronto, ont Canada - Friday, September 19, 1997 at 15:08:37 (EDT)

many thanks Bill. it makes sense - I'll give it a try (I'm also going to try wing on wing in 5knots or less and see what happens (not in a race though!). I'll keep you posted.
ian farquharson <ianf@speedware.com>
toronto, ont Canada - Thursday, September 18, 1997 at 10:33:11 (EDT)

By "heat and burn" and "steer agressively" I mean you need to constantly work the boat in light air. Apparent wind is the key, and you need to feel it on youy neck hairs. Heat the boat up until you feel wind on the beam. Look up at the masthead fly and make sure the wind is just forward of the beam. As your boatspeed increases, start to burn off the speed by driving deeper, to where the masthead fly is about 135 degrees from the bow. Then start to heat again. As for the tack line, I tell my crew to play it as agreesively as you would the afterguy on a conventional spinnaker. Running downwind in 15 knots or more of breeze with the class kite we ease the tack almost 3 feet to help rotate the kite to weather up high. Sighting from behind the wheel looking forward I see a big arc of the kite to weather. In light winds the tack line is barely eased, with the tack near the pole, because with the apparent wind on the beam you're esentially reaching. As for wing on wing, I have yet to see it used effectively under 18 knots true for a sustained time, and even then it is very tricky to fly.
Bill Sutton <billsutton@aol.com>
arlington, va USA - Wednesday, September 17, 1997 at 21:56:17 (EDT)

By "het and burn" and "steer agressively" I mean you need to constantly work the boat in light air. Apparent wind is the key, and you need to feel it on youyr neck hairs. Heat the boat up until you feel wind on the beam. Look up at the masthead fly and make sure the wind is just forward of the beam. As your boatspeed increases, start to burn off the speed by driving deeper, to where the masthead fly is about 135 degrees from the bow. Then start to heat again. As for the tack line, I tell my crew to play it as agreesively as you would the afterguy on a conventional spinnaker. Running downwind in 15 knots or more of breeze with the class kite we ease the tack almost 3 feet to help rotate the kite to weather up high. Sighting from behind the wheel looking forward I see a big arc of the kite to weather. In light winds the tack line is barely eased, with the tack near the pole, because with the apparent wind on the beam you're esentially reaching. As for wing on wing, I have yet to see it used effectively under 18 knots true for a sustained time, and even then it is very tricky to fly.
Bill Sutton <billsutton@aol.com>
arlington, va USA - Wednesday, September 17, 1997 at 21:54:48 (EDT)

Bill, what do you mean by "steer to heat and burn" and by "steer aggressively"? Also, do you mean that you let off the tack line in puffs and then put it back on in lulls? Also, ever tried wing-on-wing in less than 5 or so knots?
ian farquharson <ianf@speedware.com>
toronto, ont Canada - Wednesday, September 17, 1997 at 18:02:53 (EDT)

Regarding light air sailing on the J-105: I'm in my 5th season with Blonde Attack on the Chesapeake. The big challenge has been getting the boat going in light air, which we have our share of. The next big challenge was getting a fair PHRF rating, which I firmly believe we have at 84 with 155% genoa and 95 meter sail or 93 in one design configuration (this against a J-35 rating of 66). Note we sail with shoal keel. No question the boat is sticky under 8 knots true. Upwind is a struggle, but downwind in the really light stuff we're almost as fast as a J-35. Kite shapes have evolved over the past few years with max luff and lot of area of high (Mid girth/foot ratio exceeding 100%.) Steer her to constantly heat and burn, and sail by braille: throw your wind instruments away. Keep the masthead fly on the beam inthe reaalylight stuff, and ease the tack line in puffsand sail deeper. Tack line should fly straight up from the pole. If it falls off to leeward you're too hot. Bottomline is that you gain big time by steering the boat aggressively. Same is true for a J-35. Their polars are nowhere near dead down until almost 18 knots true.
Bill Sutton <billsutton@aol.com>
arlington, va USA - Tuesday, September 16, 1997 at 20:40:11 (EDT)

Bob, again on the light air. It got me thinking. When the wind is extremely light and everyones sails are sloppy, I am thinking I will try wing-on-wing again. On our mid-week white sail races wing-on-wing does keep you bobbing along in the right direction at least (and no worse than other boats it seems). Until now, I have assumed it is too risky, but if no-one is really moving much anyway and you are heading backwards almost - what is the risk? stay tuned.
ian farquharson <ianf@speedware.com>
toronto, ont Canada - Tuesday, September 16, 1997 at 11:58:54 (EDT)

Bob, I started last year out at PHRF 72 and it was clearly unfair. This year we are rated at 78 which actually makes a difference (the other J105 over here won CORK which is a big regatta in Kingston, in PHRF) but they typically have stronger winds. I think you have a point about the light air. In even a moderate breeze you can always try wing-on-wing but not under 15 knots. I find that you have to reach so high in light air just to keep some boatspeed, that you lose too much distance to the symetrical chutes. Sometimes feels like you are heading backwards! I guess they would argue that it is unfair when the wind picks up that we have such oversized reaching chutes? Who knows whats fair? regards
ian farquharson <ianf@speedware.com>
toronto, on Canada - Monday, September 15, 1997 at 14:33:26 (EDT)

I appear to have the last J-105 being raced PHRF on the US side of Lake Ontario. There were about five J-105 when we purchased our boat two years ago but all of these boats have been sold, are for sail or are not raced. Our PHRF rating seem to preclude being competitive in the light winds of Lake Ontario (average wind speed about 7-8 knots.) I have talked with most of the former owners and got the general sentiment that on windward-leeward course (90% of our races) that a J-105 has no chance with a PHRF rating of 75. I have also spoken to sailors in Lake Erie and they have expressed the same sentiment. We are about 2-3 boat lengths slower then a J-35 on the upwind 1 mile beat and significantly (5 minutes +) on the Leeward leg. We have a Sobstad 110 sq. Meter spinnaker but have difficulty keeping it filled in winds less then 10 knots. Our 90 sq. Meter sail gives us better boat speed and lower angles but we are not close to the predicted speed polars from US Sailing. I would be interested in hearing from other J-105 owners who sail in similar conditions. Are we missing something which would allow us to sail down wind more competitively? Do other sail makers do a better job on A-chutes? Is PHRF biased against sprit boats in light air windward - leeward races? We have thought of using a symmetric spinnaker with a pole. Has anybody tried this? Whats the result.
Bob Kreilick <Kreilick@Chem.Rochester.edu>
Rochester, NY USA - Monday, September 15, 1997 at 13:05:57 (EDT)

Is there anyone who has a used 89 sq meter kite for sale? We do mostly windward leewards here, wondering f I would get better results with the larger kite in PHRF.
Mike kelly <PuffatWYC.juno.com>
Honolulu, Hi USA - Sunday, September 14, 1997 at 03:33:03 (EDT)

Re Crew Weight Limit: In response to George Petkovic's thoughts regarding crew weight limits, let's please remember that suggestion of using a 173 lb. average for six (1,038 lb total) didn't come from any illusions that the average adult male weighed in at 173 lb. Current class rules were developed, largely in the Chesapeake ? , based upon the premise that crews would be mixed male/female or family groups. Limit used to be even lower. Fleet 3 I believe sponsored current limit based upon typical three couples. At 161 lbs average, current limit is indeed restrictive, since even with a lot of weight training, only way to get six males on the boat is to include teenagers or really light weight people. We suggested compromise at 173 lb, since there is data to show that typical IMS crews average 173 lb per person, mixed crews or not. At 1,038 lb total, that limit wouldn't place a mixed couple crew at a disadvantage but would still allow a six male crew to meet limit if you just took some trouble to balance out crew size mix. If you go to 1,200 lb, a mixed couple crew would be disadvantage in heavy air, and there are a good number of actively raced mixed crew boats in the Chesapeake and NJ who would care about the change. For the record, it's not a personal concern--our crew (all male) can make the current weight limit, the suggested 1,038 lbs compromise limit or the 1,200 lb limit,depending on which crew mix I choose. Suggestion was just an attempt to find middle ground that wasn't too exclusive on either end of the spectrum.
Andy Skibo <adsaas@aol.com>
West Chester, PA USA - Wednesday, September 10, 1997 at 22:44:08 (EDT)

Experienced female crew member available for J 105 North American Championships in Chicago. 5 years racing experience , bow and pit. Weight 120#. Have own transportation and lodging. Please email me at birvin@erols.com
Megan <birvin@erols.com>
MD USA - Thursday, September 04, 1997 at 11:35:21 (EDT)

In reply to one of Andy Skibo's topics for potential class review; if in Mid-Atlantic J/105 Fleet "most owners feel that the boat can be driven most effectively, especially in heavier air, with six pairs of hands", and "other owners however, are put off by the idea of acting like we're still in collage training for wrestling" (to make the class crew weight), then it's a no brainer to change the class rules so that the maximum crew weight is 1200 lbs.(545 kgs.) with no limit on number of crew, or six people of unlimited total weight. If in fact we agree that the boat can be raced more effectively with six crew rather then five, then it's arrogant for the weight police to presume what average weight separates a human from a gorilla. In a world where both average height and weight have been steadilly increasing, a 173 lbs. adult male may soon feel that he is living on the Planet of the Apes. Also, 1200 lbs. of crew weight represents only about 15% of J/105 displacement. In comparison, Lake Michigan PHRF allows ten crew or 1800 lbs. for J/105's, which is 50% greater then the class crew weight proposal of 1200 lbs. I have spoken to a number of J/105 owners on Lake Michigan (Fleet #5) who support this type of class rule change. In fact, one of them has decided to sail with only four of his regular crew in the NA's, because he is unable to meet the class weight limit with his regular five. He certainly is not a happy camper with the present crew limit requirements.
George Petkovic <ilse@mcs.com>
Chicago, IL USA - Wednesday, September 03, 1997 at 19:10:40 (EDT)

What about an official J/105 Class Rules addendum for the 89 sq.m. spinnaker dimensions (maximums and/or minimums) for the 1997 NAs, which are scheduled to start in 29 days? As to the sailmakers cutting their throats by building chutes that do not conform to class dimensions; NAs race management needs to supply sharp razors in the form of sail measurement check-in prior to the first race.
George Petkovic <ilse@mcs.com>
Chicago, IL USA - Tuesday, August 26, 1997 at 10:05:56 (EDT)

Lyle, sure the shape can be different. Here's the rule (from the website): (SLU+SLE) * .25SF + (SMG-.5SF) * (SLE+SLU)/3 where SLU (luff) shall not be greater than 14900mm nor less than 13600mm, SLE (leech) shall not be greater than 11900mm and SMG (mid-girth) shall not be less than .65SF(foot). Any sailmaker that would deliberately cheat would be cutting their throat.
Nelson Weiderman <nhw@ids.net>
Wakefield, RI USA - Thursday, August 21, 1997 at 14:21:54 (EDT)

I have a question about spinnakers. Recently in a J/105 class race we noticed one of our competitors flying a kite that had a considerably different shape than our standard 77 square meter sail. He insisted that it measured out as a class sail. My question is this: Can a sail be different shaped and yet be a "class" sail. We want to encourage our sail makers to make us fast sails. Yet are we on a level playing field when our sails are different? Thanks for your input in the matter gang.
Lyle Russell <LRUSSEL@NEW-HOLLAND.COM>
USA - Monday, August 18, 1997 at 13:30:45 (EDT)

Some Questions: I am a new owner of a J-105 (#74). I have extensive OD and PHRF racing experience. For the past three years I owned and raced a J-80 on San Francisco Bay. Here are my questions. 1. If you are winning in PHRF, what are you doing down wind? Are you using a Jumbo? What wind strengths? (All?) How are you flying it? What angles are you sailing? 2. Who is currently making fast sails?
Dick Callahan <dickc@logal.com>
Hingham, MA USA - Monday, July 28, 1997 at 11:58:51 (EDT)

RE: my earlier message. This is sometimes called a "takedown line"
ian farquharson <ianf@speedware.com>
toronto, Ont canada - Friday, July 25, 1997 at 09:25:25 (EDT)

re: Retrieving line techniques I would love some input on the retrieving line for douses. I have used it and other techniques for both windward and leeward douses (gathering the foot first on leeward douses and pulling the clew around on windward ones). The only problem is that it sometimes gets wrapped around the chute (or something else)when you next hoist. I am sure there must be some simple trick to avoid this? Does it get rigged over the Spinn sheets like the tack line (or under)? Do you have foredeck always check it runs free upwind? I have heard of some people tying it off somewhere but this caused us more problems. Many thanks ian farquharson, Sonic Boom Hull# 136
ian farquharson <ianf@speedware.com>
toronto, on Canada - Monday, July 21, 1997 at 10:29:55 (EDT)

I see by all the recent topics that there are several areas that need to be addressed at the Chicago event during an owners' meeting. Hopefully each fleet will have spokesperson there to give the opinion for that region concerning rules modifications and recommendations for any changes to the class rules. Having brought my deep keel 105 to Annapolis last Sept. to compete with the local shallow draft boats did in no way diminish the feeling of one design competition. The 6 sec. factor really did not come into account in more than one race. Only more head to head events with both type of boats will prove if the 6 sec. difference is equitable. I'm hoping that just because the NA's are in deep keel territory does not discourage owners from the Ches. area from bringing their boats to Chicago. As far as using the bigger kites for the event, I don't think it presents a problem as long as everyone is notified well in advance, such as the case this year. My inclination is to believe that barring any class rule changes, the 77 sq. mt. chute will be used next year in Newport for the NAs. I think it is in all of our best interest to have a strong national set of class rules for the NAs. I know that if I'm trailering my boat to an event, all I want is an even chance to compete with the locals and that we're all on the same page as far as crew weight, onboard equipment and sail measurements. We need to set upif it's not already in place, those people who will be entrusted to insure that the forementioned areas are adhered to for the NA event. It's great that the regional fleets are evolving with the things that are working best for their conditions, but while maximizing the speed potential of the 105, it's the sense of equality among competitors that makes for great one design racing. See you on the line in Chicago!!
Bob Taylor <RTaylor985@aol.com>
Jamestown, RI USA - Thursday, July 17, 1997 at 21:38:42 (EDT)

Re: Pentex Cloth. While the intial reports of Pentex have been favorable, a few reliable sailmaking sources have told me that it doesn't not handle stretch well at all. Experiments in a few class mainsails (Star for one) showed that the draft blew aft in the main too quickly. Other J classes have not permitted because of this, and I'd recommend that another class first demonstrate the cost/durability trade-off before the J/105 class considers allowing it.
Jeff Johnstone <jeffjboats@aol.com>
Newport, RI USA - Thursday, July 17, 1997 at 16:52:43 (EDT)

Re: J/105 Issue of J/105 "Two Design". The critique of the Chesapeake Fleet's use of a shoal draft as a one design choice is unreasonable. (For the record, I'm from NJ and wasn't involved in the setup of the Chesapeake fleet.) For anyone who sails in the Chesapeake and the Mid-Atlantic regions, the shoal draft version of the J/105 is the only practical choice. We have notoriously thin water in these regions and buying a 6.5 ft. draft boat is far too restrictive. The reason you don't see many used deep draft boats available for sale here is that only a few were sold in this area to begin with. (I know of only two deep drafts in both region combined.) The entire rest of the 35+ boat fleet is shoal draft. To my knowledge, all new boats sold in the region have been shoal draft. Given those numbers, would anyone suggest that the regional fleet management could do anything but use a shoal draft as the one design basis?? Johnstones' statement that "80% of the boats sold are deep draft" might be true nationally,(someone should check recent sales) sales), but it certaily isn't true in this region. Furthermore, the claim that "there aren't any shoal draft boats available" is simply not correct. Three were sold last fall. Three were listed for sale this spring and at least one is listed for sale at this very moment. All shoal draft, because that's what's here. Fleets don't get started in a vacuum by one or two owners; they get started by a group of 5-8 active racers who compare notes on what works for the region. Shoal draft was a "no-brainer" for the Chesapeake.
Andy Skibo <adsaas@aol.com>
West Chester, PA USA - Wednesday, July 16, 1997 at 21:40:03 (EDT)

RE: "one-design" racing of the J/105. Just some food for thought from someone who follows this forum. It seems that "one-design" in the J/105 is whatever the first two guys in the local fleet define it to be. On the Chesapeake (actually that should read Annapolis, as that's basicly where the Chesapeake fleet is), the class sails are used and all but one boat has the shoal keel. If you want to do "one-design" here you have to buy a shoal keel. This has been further reinforced by CBYRA which only recognizes the SD version of the 105 for "one-design" starts at sanctioned events. Of course this introduces the interesting problem of a "one-design" with two different keel configurations that are rated 6 secs different. Somehow, that doesn't seem particularly "one-design" to me. I looked at buying a used boat earlier this year, but since 80% of the boats built have been deep keels (according to Allan Johnstone), there are almost no used shoal keels available. Of course this works pretty well for the local dealer, as the only practical option is to buy a new boat. Maybe it should be called the J/105 "two-design".
Stuart Burnett <srburnet@rmc.com>
Richmond, VA USA - Wednesday, July 16, 1997 at 17:22:02 (EDT)

At the Levels last year the J105 raced as a one design fleet with 155% genoa and 110 sq m asym. In Lake Erie, PHRF has rated the J105 equal to the J35 @ 69. No way in light air. Way in heavy air. I'm considering re-applying for a Class rating (around 90 or 93) for the fall and see where that takes us. If we routinely sailed in 15 knots of air or better, the class boat with either the 77 or 89 sq m chute would be just fine. But, in anything under, the J105 is severly under powered. And, even though there is a lot of talk about family cruiser useage, all of us know of the rocket ship under our feet. Fast is fun. Our own class newsletter focuses on speed speed speed. True, those high teen speeds happen at high winds with class size sails. I think many J105's were purchased due to their speed potential (among other reasons) and in light air it would be like getting a Corvette and putting a Lumina 6 cyl engine inside. I'll report back on how my experiment works after spending the end of last year and 1st half of this year racing with a 69 rating.
Skip Malm <wish105@en.com>
Concord, OH USA - Tuesday, July 15, 1997 at 22:37:45 (EDT)

Thanks for the offer, Bill. Just trying to get up to speed on the J/30 has been keeping me very busy. I don't think that switching fleets would help my performance very much. Obviously, I'm also a real advocate of one-design racing. We have between 8 and 15 boats on the line for about 20 races/year in Annapolis. It was in that context that I made my original posting. The forum discussion about using a non-class legal A-sail and providing spinnakers to out of town boats with class legal sails provoked my question. We've also been dealing with the sails issue and I think the One-design Rating helps simplify it. It seemed to me that if the class assoc. pushed the various PHRF organizations to rate the J/105 in a One-design Rating mode it would have several benefits. As I see it they are: reduced costs (no need for separate PHRF and class-legal sail inventories); enhanced competition (all J/105s are sailing with similar inventories); and devlopment of one-design racing vice handicap (people buy J/105s because of the above reasons and then form real one-design fleets). There is one significant glitch to the above, though. That is the fact that there are two different configurations to the J/105. And of course, all of this is predicated on getting a fair rating from the local PHRF handicappers. The J/30 has been around long enough to get a stable rating base, your fleet hasn't had the time to establish that level of history
Joe Ruzzi <jmruzzi@tasc.com>
Alexandria, VA USA - Tuesday, July 15, 1997 at 10:08:37 (EDT)

Pentex is a relatively new polyester sailcloth by Challenge. To quote from the July/August issue of Sailing World "It's like a 'super Dacron,' featuring 2.5 time the stretch resistance while retaining Dacron's durability. This fiber appears to have a bright future, especially in one-design and club-level PHRF racing." According to my sailmaker, Pentex is visually indistinguishable from Dacron. Since the Class rules specify Dacron (it is strange to specify "Dacron," which is a trademark of DuPont rather than the generic "polyester"), Pentex would, strictly speaking, be illegal. The question for owners is whether the Rules should be changed to specify "polyester" for the main, making this new cloth class legal. Opinions?
Nelson Weiderman <nhw@ids.net>
Wakefield, RI USA - Monday, July 14, 1997 at 09:30:55 (EDT)

Regarding Joe Ruzzi's query about One Design ratings for the J-105, PHRF of the Chesapeake began allowing boats to be rated in their one design configuration provided the boat design conforms to nationally recognized rules for the class. This motion was introduced by the J-30 class, but it applied to the J-105. In may the handicappers rated the J-105 One Design configuration at 93, allowing a 6 second adjustment for the 100% jib and 3 seconds for the class kite, which at 77 sq. meters in considerably smaller than a non penalty kite per PHRF of the Chesapeake guidelines. An important point here is that PHRF ratings and rules are administered by the regional PHRF organizations, and what applied in the Chesapeake (and Potomac River) will be different elswhere. Anyway, Joe, the J-105 fleet in Annapolis is going great guns. We'd love to have you join our fleet!
Bill Sutton <billsutton @aol.com>
Arlington, Va USA - Sunday, July 13, 1997 at 21:22:24 (EDT)

As an interloper from the J/30 class, I'd like to chime in and pose a question. PHRF has recently begun rating J/30 in one-design mode. That is, rating the boat as it come off the designer's board (or computer) and in compliance with the one-design rule. For us that means a 163% genoa, and overlength spinnaker pole. On the Chesapeake the one-design rating is now 138. Any deviation is assumed to be an attempt to make the boat go faster and results in a rating penalty. It seems to me that a one-design rating would quell this problem. Has the J/105 fleet investigated this?
Joe Ruzzi <jmruzzi@tasc.com>
Alexandria, VA USA - Thursday, July 10, 1997 at 21:32:42 (EDT)

Re: 89 sq meter kite at NA's. Here is excerpt from class newsletter going out this week: "There is one modification in class rules that will be in effect for the North Americans. Because only one boat in Chicago's 12 boat fleet has a 77 sq. meter spinnaker, the regatta will be run using the 89 sq. meter spinnaker (.75 nylon). Out-of town qualifiers who use a local Chicago boat will be provided with one 89 sq. meter spinnaker drawn by lot. The fleet is also having extra spinnakers built." The flip side option would be to have the fewer number of out-of-town boats bring enough 77 sq meter kites for the local boats. Regarding national rules, Jay Corcoran is right in saying there is no widespread support for changing the official class kite from 77sq meter.
Jeff Johnstone <jeffjboats@aol.com>
USA - Wednesday, July 09, 1997 at 07:49:44 (EDT)

Why bother holding a national class regatta if it is not sailed with class sails? The 86 sm spinnaker is not the national class spinnaker. the following are the minutes of last year debate on the issue. Spinnaker Size: ....But with a show of hands, 70% of owners present favored keeping the current size. Reasons cited for increasing the spinnaker size: 1) the appeal of only needing one spinnaker for one-design and PHRF, 2) increasing market appeal by having boats sail faster, 3) improving performance in light air conditions, 4) Chicago fleet has used larger spinnaker in class and had good response. Reasons against changing: 1) Most of the 152 boats delivered have a current class spinnaker and making them purchase a new one will decrease chance of participation in class events; 2) If spin size were increased, minimum cloth weight would still likely be .75 nylon, meaning that J/105s in light air areas would still buy a second spinnaker (light air .6 poly runner), 3) the current class chute is a good all-around cruising spinnaker and fulfills the boat's mission as a family sailboat Does each hosting fleet get to alter the national class rules to suit their individual needs? Or does the class as a singular entity vote on what are the class sails will be? I guess in missed this year's vote.
Jay Corcoran <jayc@bellatlantic.net>
stone Harbor, nj USA - Tuesday, July 08, 1997 at 22:13:41 (EDT)

My son and I have just ordered a j105 for use on San Francisco Bay. We have hull #181 scheduled for a fall delivery. We are considering North and Quantum as sail providers. We'd appreciate any thoughts from customers of either loft. I've used north mostly in the past. Thanks in advance.
John Sullivan <jsully@ns.net>
Granite Bay, CA USA - Sunday, July 06, 1997 at 14:56:59 (EDT)

RE: Massachusetts Bay J105 Championships Corinthian YC, Marblehead, MA July 12 & 13th, 1997 Skipper's Meeting 9:30am, Saturday 3 Races, drop marks, No throwout One-Design Jib and Spinnaker Have 5 entries submitted to date. Moorings available (free) for Fri-Sun for boats with entries received by Friday Noon @ CYC. Call me if you have any questions on recpt (508-744-8573 (machine); 508-744-6500 (w) or EMail back. For those with confirmed moorings Radio CYC Dock Master, Bob Hastings, on channel 16 or 69 when entering Harbor. We will try to accomodate late entries, but no promises. Interest has been expressed to organize a Massachusetts Bay Fleet to facilitate J105 One-Design Racing in this area. This can be done at the Cook-out on Saturday @ CYC Pool. Hope to see you here...jcn, cycrc
John C Nystedt, CYC Special Events <tbkcos@shore.net>
Salem, MA USA - Thursday, July 03, 1997 at 17:46:20 (EDT)

John - What can I tell you? The J105 is the boat for you! I have hull #136 Sonic Boom and love it. Had a C&C 27 before that. I alternate between racing and daysailing frequently and my family don't know how to sail. The 105 is perfect because I can take it out on my own in 20knots + (even put the chute up with the snuffer on my own and the autopilot) so with 2 people it works great. It always moves along nicely, even in very light air so you rarely use the engine. The cockpit area is absolutely huge (you spend more time above deck than below). This also comes in useful when you want to take 10 people out for a joyride. Any other questions you have, don't hesitate to contact me Ian Farquharson ianf@speedware.com
ian farquharson <ianf@speedware.com>
toronto, on Canada - Thursday, July 03, 1997 at 16:12:31 (EDT)

Dear J/105 sailors, My wife and I have been racing, day sailing, and occasional weekending in our J/24 for 10+ years, on and around Buzzard's Bay, MA. We're now considering a move to a larger, stiffer, faster boat, better suited to deal with typical Buzzard's Bay conditions, and would welcome your thoughts on the J/105 for: @ 2-person day sailing and short cruising (particularly in ~20 knots and big chop) @ beer-can mid-week PHRF [our local venue would be the no-spinnaker BYC series where a Swan 38, rating I hear like a J/29(!) does very well] @ regional regattas, ideally supporting 1-design Also, what other boats did you folks consider before choosing the 105? Thanks.
John Toole <jtoole@whoi.edu>
Woods Hole, MA USA - Wednesday, July 02, 1997 at 12:20:20 (EDT)

Guestbook entries from earlier in 1997.

Back to the J/105 Class Association.

Nelson Weiderman