Ideal CE on Different Points of Sail

BMP

Junior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2022
Posts
66
Reaction score
5
Location
PNW
If you had a rig with an adjustable CE, how would you change the lead on different points of sail?
i.e. More lead for running less on a beam reach.
Is there much advantage to being able to adjust the CE?
Or is lead more of fix it and forget it?
Thanks
 
If you had a rig with an adjustable CE, how would you change the lead on different points of sail?
Change headsails and reef the fore/main/mizzen.
 
Thanks,

I was more interested in what the ideal lead would be on different points of sail, like 2% close hauled, 1% close reach, 0 beam reach, 20% running,etc.
I know how to do it by feel when I'm sailing but was playing with the geometry of a T-mod crab claw rig with a canting mast which would allow you to move your CE anywhere you want it on any point of sail. I was wondering if it is better to have the CE stay at a fixed distance from the CLR or if it is better to have it move as the sails are moved from vertical to horizontal, or if it needs to be independently adjustable.
 
I was more interested in what the ideal lead would be on different points of sail,
Lead is a constructed concept that only matters when comparing like rigs and hulls. The physics of the matter is that it is best if the aerodynamic body vector of the "sail" passes directly over the hydrodynamic body vector of the hull with the rudder centered. But because both of these body vectors change with heel and speed, you are chasing a moving target. It would be best if the T-mast was located directly over the CG, but even this is subject to change as the rotation of the T-mast changes the location of the CG. You could probably get very close with an fully integrated control system for rudder, T-mast, and "sail" using nulling PID widgets for rudder and T-mast position and troque.
 
Actually, a bit of weather helm is beneficial when beating. The rudder generates more lift when it is slightly to leeward.
 
Actually, a bit of weather helm is beneficial when beating. The rudder generates more lift when it is slightly to leeward.
True, but that is more a function of the moment caused by heel on the hull, some vessels go to weather with the rudder centered like they were on rails. Suffice it to say, that the maximum performance is extracted when sail driving force (i.e. aerodynamic body vector) and the hull drag (i.e. hydrodynamic body vector) combine to produce minimum moment on the center of mass. All the strings in todays modern sailing vessel, each and every one of them has some effect on the location and direction of the driving force.
 
From racing, we found that all winning boats have enough weather helm that let you "feel" it.
 
From racing, we found that all winning boats have enough weather helm that let you "feel" it.
Again true, but whether that "feel" comes at 1 degree rudder or 5 degrees of rudder is a function of hull form. But it does point out the whole reason and principles behind PID controllers.
From the Wiki page on PID controllers
It was not until 1922, however, that a formal control law for what we now call PID or three-term control was first developed using theoretical analysis, by Russian American engineer Nicolas Minorsky.[9] Minorsky was researching and designing automatic ship steering for the US Navy and based his analysis on observations of a helmsman. He noted the helmsman steered the ship based not only on the current course error but also on past error, as well as the current rate of change;[10] this was then given a mathematical treatment by Minorsky.[4] His goal was stability, not general control, which simplified the problem significantly. While proportional control provided stability against small disturbances, it was insufficient for dealing with a steady disturbance, notably a stiff gale (due to steady-state error), which required adding the integral term. Finally, the derivative term was added to improve stability and control.

Trials were carried out on the USS New Mexico, with the controllers controlling the angular velocity (not the angle) of the rudder. PI control yielded sustained yaw (angular error) of ±2°. Adding the D element yielded a yaw error of ±1/6°, better than most helmsmen could achieve.[11]

The Navy ultimately did not adopt the system due to resistance by personnel. Similar work was carried out and published by several others in the 1930s.

Edit to add: It is interesting to note that modern AC helmsmen are given "quickening" cues for steering while foiling, as the rules prevent direct system control.
 
It is a function of hull form, and heeling which changes the underwater shape of the hull. I remember controls courses and the PID. Dampening also affects steering. However, returning to the OP's question, I think your first answer is correct. Changing sails and reefing is the tried and true way to change the CE. Also, he needs to take into account that as the boat heels the CE moves outboard. Probably the rigs with the easiest and fastest changing CE are windsurfers and kitesurfers.
 
If you had a rig with an adjustable CE, how would you change the lead on different points of sail?
i.e. More lead for running less on a beam reach.
Is there much advantage to being able to adjust the CE?
Or is lead more of fix it and forget it?
Thanks

The 3D force diagram of a keel boat can actually be solved and even 'real time' is well within the capabilities of today's computers. The sails swinging off center, the shift in aero moment, and heel are all significant factors, as are waves at the surface and below.

The most obvious advantage of being able to adjust CE would be to keep the keel producing the optimal share of lift -presuming it is more efficient by having lower induced drag.

The rudder is always a balance. If there is no weather helm, the rudder is not resisting leeway for it's drag. In lee helm the rudder lift is adding force to lee, contributing to drag. The optimum is the rudder contributing lift but not so much that induced drag is high. As Gonzo notes, that is done by feel.

Adjusting CE is done all the time -primarily by heeling the boat to it's "groove". Lifting daggerboards, shifting sail trim...it's a constant adjustment.
 
I agree. If you are racing, there is constant adjustments being made. For cruising or daysailing, it is possible to be more relaxed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMP
If you could bring the CE all the way to the luff of a sail without compromising anything then you would have no tendency to round up with the sails well eased on a broad reach/run.

My boat is easy to balance on a beat in most wind strengths (with a little weather helm), but when I then ease off onto a beam reach in strongish winds the weather helm becomes significant. So in that case a shiftng forward of CE would be helpful. An outboard sheeting position for the genoa would be the simplest solution (reducing return at the leach and so reducing heeling force from the rear part of the sail), or simply changing to a dedicated asymmetric.
 
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making any potentially dangerous or financial decision, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.

  • Back
    Top