Another breezy one - another spanking.

Don't replace it with a normal kicker or you really will never bend that mast. If you are worried about the GNAV arm then buy a stronger one from selden and fit that. http://www.seldenmast.com/products/dinghies_only/booms/gnav_system.html 

My point still stands... the longer the bury measurement of the mast the stiffer it will be. I would imagine that having these shrouds (spaceframe whatever you want to call it) slightly less than bar tight would make the mast feel like it was being supported over less of its length. This would allow more mast bend. If this is not the case then I still suggest more kicker. If you break the gnav then you've probably pulled it just about hard enough. Plenty of lube on all the gnav parts too should make things a little easier!

Originally posted by laser193713 I suspect that for that rig you want the leeward lower to be just slack most of the time.

The lowers really aren't lowers at all in a functional sense. What goes on with that rig is that its designed as a conventional unstayed rig in a deep hull, much like a Finn or an OK, except that instead of the deep hull with the top bearing being the deck, its a shallow hull, and the "deck" bearing is a ball bearing supported in place by what look like lowers but really ought to be thought of as wire deck beams!!

There aren't any other shrouds, it's basically an unstayed rig. Not sure what the purchase is (8:1?) but the EPS GNAV bars seem to be a weak point. The whole setup looks much less robust than say the 300.

Just looked at some photos to remind myself of the EPS setup and see that it only has lowers that attach at the boom. Basically the gooseneck is fixed, which makes me think that the kicker might not be quite so effective on an EPS.

I imagine a lot of the effort is trying to overcome friction and the relatively poor geometry in the gnav.