What's new

Laser 2 stuff; one piece mast mystery and hull dissection

joe c

banned
Some msg back and forth with @LaLi revealed that the 1980 masts might be the same as every other year. im pretty sure ive seen some documentation with the same mast i have on my boat. its a single piece. has the same step and tensioning mechanism. (internal by way of bolt jack screws in the plate on the foot). i did find the aftermarket masts that were being made in 2011/12 but this is not one of them. those were euro/aus from what i could tell. selden and proctor made (?) looking at photos i found online, those look nothing like this one. so just posting pics of my mast for anyone interested. i picked up another laser2 this past week for parts and have the 2 piece next to it for comparison. some definite differences. different spin pole location. the halyard sheave is in a different location and about an inch and a half difference in length to the halyard block center. for reference...in the photos...i have the foot eyeballed flush with each other. discuss.

i also dissected the hull of the laser2 i bought. it was delaminated from the deck. some significant osmosis. and horrible oxidization on the gelcoat. i really was only hopeful to get the mast which i got. plus a very nice rudder and dagger standing rigging and a nice set of sails.. i pulled everything from the hull then peeled the deck off. somethings i noticed. first. this hull did not have mainsheet cleats on the gunwhales. there was no blocking for them either. so they specifically blocked for specific options. they did not block every boat the same then just added options as ordered etc. they blocked for the options specifically. at least if you were to go by this. the other thing i noticed is that the blocking is only 3/8" what looks to be a 5 ply marine ply. so its not very thick stiff. i pulled the mast step out. it is a solid piece of somehting i havent looked into yet. ipe maybe? when i replaced the one in my boat it appeared to be sitting on a plywood pedestal. and just bonded to the step with bonding putty. that is exactly how this was. i kept the actual hardwood step. so if anyone is replacing one....i have the dimensions and angles to fabricate new if needed. otherwise nothing interesting. just run of the mill production boat fast and nasty. pics attached of the carcass. one full bulkhead aft of the mast step. forward of the dagger trunk. one supporting bulkhead under the cockpit aft of the mainsheet block. the aft section of the cockpit floor sits on blobs of bonding putty. the dagger trunk supports a lot of it and the mast step too. hopefully this is some good info people can use later. messages_0 (41).jpegmessages_0 (40).jpegmessages_0 (39).jpegmessages_0 (38).jpegmessages_0 (37).jpegmessages_0 (36).jpegmessages_0 (35).jpegmessages_0 (34).jpegmessages_0 (33).jpegmessages_0 (32).jpeg
 

LaLi

Well-Known Member
I've scratched my head for a couple hours now but the masts still don't make sense :confused:
Could you measure the pole ring height on both? Please measure the gooseneck height, too, as I don't have a number for that. But what I do have is a weak hypothesis to test :D

_
 

joe c

banned
One piece mast
24" to gooseneck center
34" to spin pole ring

2 piece mast
24" to gooseneck center
46" to spin pole ring

Lengths are from flat of plate. Not on the tongue
 

joe c

banned
after laying them next to each other....realizing my spin pole is going to be in a different location. so now what to do? hmmm......
 

joe c

banned
nothing is ever easy. so whats the difference here? im guessing cleaner air. i have the laser olympic spinnaker from fogh. im guessing the same as the red white and blue one. but that pole location is drastically different on those 2 masts. id say close to the difference in the 2 masts i have.


yjYrrl.jpgLaser-2-Europeans-2.jpg
 

LaLi

Well-Known Member
Alright! The pole ring on your 2-piece mast is at the max high position, and the other one is about 10 cm up from the minimum. Both extremes have been widely used during the history of the class, and you actually found a rather good pair of pictures to demonstrate those. In the 1990s boats the top position was the North American standard, and the low one the European. These corresponded to single- and double-ended pole systems, but as your pictures show, people did mix and match, too. (8602 actually has an interesting bridle-style topping lift, which I've seen only once or twice before.)

The difference is more philosophical than practical: do you want the pole to be maximally extended when the outboard end is high or low? The low position makes sense in that it keeps the sail farthest from the rest of the rig in light air. The difference is minimal, though, and the sheer length of the pole makes it even less of an issue. The top position can be argued for that the geometry minimizes the need for a pole downhaul/foreguy. I'd probably fit one anyway just to be safe, although I've never seen a single-ended/trolley system include it.

History lesson: there is reason to believe that the "old" one-piece mast, with the low pole position and spinnaker halyard above the diamonds, was the original L2 mast. You can see those details in what I understand was a prototype boat from 1979 (I'll see if I can upload the picture later), and with you having a similar spar, it looks like that was what the first few hundred production boats had as well.

_
 

joe c

banned
Alright! The pole ring on your 2-piece mast is at the max high position, and the other one is about 10 cm up from the minimum. Both extremes have been widely used during the history of the class, and you actually found a rather good pair of pictures to demonstrate those. In the 1990s boats the top position was the North American standard, and the low one the European. These corresponded to single- and double-ended pole systems, but as your pictures show, people did mix and match, too. (8602 actually has an interesting bridle-style topping lift, which I've seen only once or twice before.)

The difference is more philosophical than practical: do you want the pole to be maximally extended when the outboard end is high or low? The low position makes sense in that it keeps the sail farthest from the rest of the rig in light air. The difference is minimal, though, and the sheer length of the pole makes it even less of an issue. The top position can be argued for that the geometry minimizes the need for a pole downhaul/foreguy. I'd probably fit one anyway just to be safe, although I've never seen a single-ended/trolley system include it.

History lesson: there is reason to believe that the "old" one-piece mast, with the low pole position and spinnaker halyard above the diamonds, was the original L2 mast. You can see those details in what I understand was a prototype boat from 1979 (I'll see if I can upload the picture later), and with you having a similar spar, it looks like that was what the first few hundred production boats had as well.

_
Cool! Thanks. That answers a lot of questions. Kinda fun. And yeah..be cool to see another pic of one.

Thanks again.

j
 

joe c

banned
Cool! Thanks. That answers a lot of questions. Kinda fun. And yeah..be cool to see another pic of one.

Thanks again.

j
so...setting up my topping lift stuff and down haul for the spinnaker pole. im going with the trolley at least initially. so i guess my question is, why no down haul in this case? the crocker videos show it not being adjustable on the fly. starting with shockcord tied to a fairlead forward of the mast on the deck, then going forward to a cheek block, then back aft to a block near or at the mast foot. with a piece of 4mm line tied to the shock cord to give it some stretch but not stretch when the knot its tied with hits the block at the mast.. so the block acts as a stop for the shock cord. in essence limiting the amount of stretch by having a stop of sorts. so the line is tied with a stopper knot forward of the block, so as the line runs through the block, it stops when the knot hits the block. the only thing that runs through the block at the foot of the mast is 4mm line. with the shock cord tied forward of the block. ive got the basics correct here, right?

the topping lift is setup going from the end of the pole up to the block on the mast, then hanging freely down the front exterior of the mast. it ends tied to a block with becket. the adjuster line runs through the block to each side. both run down to blocks to either side of the mast, and out to clam cleats with handles tied. (seen in photos) so pulling on one side pulls the block on the lift line down. with tension being held by the shock cord on the down haul. or the tension from the wind in the sail. mike crocker has it going to a block with a bunch of line running aft into the cockpit. im not going to do that unless theres a good reason i should. Screenshot 2022-02-04 8.05.07 PM~2.pngScreenshot 2022-02-04 8.07.09 PM~2.png

it seems over complicated, but it also seems fairly simple. i think this is exactly what i'm seeing in the photo i've attached. i guess my only other question is, since the halyard is one continuous loop that also works as the retrieval line, wouldn't it be good to have a really little retrieval line like 3 or 4 mm bowlined to the end of the halyard? instead of running that 5mm line all the way up to the center of the spin?

so much to figure out.

just totally new at this aspect of rigging stuff. thanks for any help advice.
 
Last edited:

LaLi

Well-Known Member
im going with the trolley at least initially. so i guess my question is, why no down haul in this case
We talked about this earlier - if the pole ring on the mast is in the "top" position, then the pole points downward on a reach, and the guy itself (supposedly) keeps the pole from skying even at high heeling angles.
Fundamentally I think it's a cultural thing. The original single-ended system (with no downhaul) was what Australians were used to having on their national classes in the 1970s, while Europeans wanted something similar what 470s or Fireballs had, that could be end-for-end gybed. Most double-ended pole systems need a downhaul anyway, so it was possible to drop the pole ring lower on the mast, too, if that was one's philosophy (see my previous post :rolleyes: ).
(Fun fact: if you have a downhaul, you can't "Dutch gybe" a single-ended pole... but we can talk about the different gybing techniques later.)

ive got the basics correct here, right?
Right :D

the topping lift is setup going from the end of the pole up to the block on the mast, then hanging freely down the front exterior of the mast. it ends tied to a block with becket. the adjuster line runs through the block to each side. both run down to blocks to either side of the mast, and out to clam cleats with handles tied. (seen in photos) so pulling on one side pulls the block on the lift line down. with tension being held by the shock cord on the down haul. or the tension from the wind in the sail.
The double-ended system was the European standard. The North American had only one cleat, on the front edge of the mast. Looks like both of your masts have screwholes for Clamcleats there. That could be rigged as a 2:1 as well, and a becket on the block is useless in both systems.

mike crocker has it going to a block with a bunch of line running aft into the cockpit. im not going to do that unless theres a good reason i should.
That's neither a standard feature nor a necessary one.

is, since the halyard is one continuous loop that also works as the retrieval line, wouldn't it be good to have a really little retrieval line like 3 or 4 mm bowlined to the end of the halyard? instead of running that 5mm line all the way up to the center of the spin?
5 mm is a bit thick there. The standard line was 4 mm prestretch. Also, bowlines don't run through the blocks in the cockpit!

_
 

joe c

banned
ok, so topping lift just goes to the clamcleat on the mast. gotcha! and oh...look there....its even noted on the mast schematic. :) thats what i was hoping to do. way easier. plus i dont like the control line running across the shock cord for the trapeze like in the photos. something about that really bugs me.

5mm halyard is what ive found all over the web on the line schedules. i was initially thinking a line bowlined wouldnt have to travel back through the blocks, but that would mean there would have to be a bunch of spaghetti all over the cockpit since it functionally should be a fairly decent closed loop with no slack. so i was thinking about it incorrectly. i think ill try the 5mm retrieval/halyard line and see how it goes. i can switch it to something smaller if its dumb. being able to grab one line to raise and retrieve it is definitely the way to go though.

i guess ill skip the down haul for now and see how things go. i totally agree on the guy holding it in place. can always add later if needed.

i do suffer from analysis paralysis on occasion.

thank you!
 
Top