There are no rules! You can make the sail as narrow and genoa-like or as broad and deep as you like. Often 90 percent of the sail would roll, and the remainder (the top part) would be left hanging.įor cruising sailors it has always been easier. Specially developed furling systems eventually made them more practical, but they were difficult to furl evenly because of their girth. Most of the time they ended up lashed to the deck. That made the sails difficult to douse and hard to stow. In addition, traditional nylon spinnaker materials were too elastic to allow the sail to remain flat, and it was necessary to use composites with high-modulus fibers. The sail challenged the strength of the entire rig. Not only did the sail work like a genoa, but the loads were genoa-like as well.
#Code zero vs genoa code
Racing Code Zeros built to this limitation might get a little inside 90 degrees true wind angle, but not any closer. To prevent an “arms race” they imposed a minimum 75 percent girth restriction.
Subsequent treatment of these sails by various handicap rules made the problem even more difficult. While unable to attain true close-hauled angles except in the lightest conditions, the sails were still a vast improvement over a fractional jib in the same conditions. The first sails flapped at the back end and tended to carry large amounts of curl in the luff, but gradually the shapes were refined.
Could a sail this big be made flat enough to sail at very close angles and still fly? The wider and larger a sail, the more overall camber it needs or it just flaps. The fundamental dilemma was that shaping was needed to support this extra area. By comparison, a genoa has a mid-girth of 50 percent. The original Whitbread rule required that the “mid-girth” be no less than 70 percent of the foot length. Asymmetrics function well at relatively high angles, but could they be pushed further? So, naturally, creative minds wondered if it was possible to make an asymmetric spinnaker that could sail upwind, or at least nearly upwind. Whitbread rules didn’t allow masthead genoas but permitted masthead asymmetric spinnakers. Thus, Code Zero was the perfect name for a sail that could sail at closer angles than any spinnaker in the inventory.
Codes 2, 3, and 4 were used at progressively broader angles. Although every team had their own version by the end of the race, Paul Cayard and the winning EF Language team first realized the sail’s potential and got the lion’s share of the credit for its development.įor most syndicates the spinnaker designed for the tightest wind angles was designated as the Code 1 Reacher. What makes the Code Zero more useful are advances in furling technology, which can make them easier to handle, and the addition of bow sprits of various lengths that help create more space for the sail.ĭuring the 1998-99 Whitbread Race, the term Code Zero was coined to define what was basically an upwind asymmetric spinnaker, its shape and geometry born from the limitations imposed by the class rule. Genoa-powered boats don’t get as much benefit since they already have a good sized reaching option. These usually are fractionally rigged but have spinnaker halyards that are well above the forestay or even masthead. Ease that non-overlapping jib out on a reach, and there is just not that much sail there to power the boat up. These sails are particularly useful on modern racing and cruising boats which now feature non-overlapping jibs as primary headsails. Often referred to as the “Code Zero,” it is essentially an asymmetric spinnaker designed to act like a large, loose-luffed reaching genoa.Ĭode Zero Spinnaker Photo Provided By Quantum Sails Fortunately the last 25 years have witnessed the development of specialty light to moderate reaching sails that are just the ticket. We search for anything that can get us going. An Asymmetric Spinnaker Designed to Act like a Large, Loose-Luffed Reaching GenoaĪs we settle into the dog days of summer here on the Chesapeake Bay, wind is an ingredient often in short supply.