Brake Vang!

[Ian McColgin]

It seems to me that the use of nylon rope and the claim of broach prevention are problematic at best, and that Brion’s critique was both gentler and more on target than the defensive response.

The choice of nylon line is not really helpful for the vang function. With all that stretch to take out, what you really have is a poor vang. Properly engineered, a vang-preventer will provide adequate braking as the boom transits the boat that it will not require further shock reduction in a stretchy line.

The claim that the vang prevents broaches to leeward is misleading at best. Perhaps the claim is based on misunderstanding the sequence of events.

To back up on this issue a bit, the vang-brake may reduce slightly the turning speed of a boat with the sail aback. The trade-off is that by letting the sail gybe, it completely eliminates the ability of an alert helmsman to get back on course before the sail is so fully aback that it forces the boat around.

Further, even with the sail shifted to the other side without hanging up on the backstay or damaging gear, the boat will often continue rounding up at least to wind abeam and none of this considers what’s happening to the spinnaker.

But all this is about accidental gybes. Language varies but many of us view an accidental gybe and any consequent misadventures as something different from a broach, which is induced by a following sea where the stern essentially falls past the bow. Power boats and human powered powered boats can broach, not just sailboats.

The gybe and broach may or may not be combined. Obviously if your stern is square to the seas, you can err in, and thus broach in, either direction. Only the broach to leeward results in an accidental gybe which, if you get the spinnaker aback into the bargain, may result in the “death roll” - a good time to reflect peacefully on the fact that you secured all hatches, clipped in all crew tethers, and have made your peace with whatever all-mighty you know.

Finally, I don’t think that Brion’s remarks were too tough. Rather, they contained the information about the risks of this vang-preventer that should have been made plain from the start had the developer gone far enough to fully trouble-shoot the rig. In development, a fully potential failure analysis is not always available but the developer should at least be conscious of risks and provide safety thoughts, especially in the case of gizmos that may work on a boat of a ton or so and sail under 100 feet versus a 6 ton boat with four or five hundred feet of main. This exact vang-preventer is considerably safer than things rather like it that one can easily make from these directions but the developer does not provide information showing these risks to the imitators he seeks.

There are some pretty over-engineered over-priced goofy bits of “innovative” hardware out there and the efforts of all who look at problems with not only fresh eyes but also with a zest for using ordinary, available and cost-effective materials in their novel solutions are to be encouraged, sometimes with a splash of cold water about safety but still encouraged.

G'luck