Hi Randy,

Things are more or less fine.  Have been way too busy this year.  Seven day
work weeks the norm lately trying to get various work projects done before big
rains come.

Well, thank you for the vote of confidence, but I am not sure I deserve such
accolades.  I'll give you my *opinions* on the topic with the caveat that they
reflect my preferences/experiences.

As for specific sailmakers--that will be more difficult.  I am always a fan
of having the sailmaker look at the boat/rig in person to get the best possible
product.  The peculiarities of each individual rig (and rigging) can really
make a difference--especially with respect to reefing systems and other
adjustments that vary from boat to boat even within the same class.

If you can't find a local loft that you like/trust (I am suspecting that
there aren't many in your area), I would then be careful to take lots of
notes/measurements of critical items affecting the design, bend on your existing sails
and note any deficiencies or things you would like to change (possibly even
marking the old sail(s) to reflect changes), and send/take the sail(s) with you
when discussing the replacements.

There have been big changes in the sail loft industry over the past several
years.  The most noticeable trend has been the 'offshoring' of much or all of
the actual sail production.  Many lofts try to conceal this to some degree, but
an increasing number never cut or sew a single sail.  Most rely on an
extensive computer database of existing class designs, or if they lack a design for a
particular boat, they input 8-10 measurements and generate a new design based
on general proven design criteria.  You can usually choose from a list of
options, but might be somewhat limited in specific design changes/modifications. 
The design is sent electronically to actual production loft in Hong Kong,
Taiwan, and now China, and the sail is cut and sewed there.  The whole process is
very quick, and shipping is usually very fast.  Some of the biggest names in
sailmaking send all but there most exotic laminated/formed racing sails
overseas.

It is not necessarily the case that these overseas lofts produce inferior
products.  Indeed, most have fairly exacting quality standards, use the same high
quality (mostly domestic) sailcloths such as Bainbridge, Contender,
Challenge, etc.  In most cases, the product will be indistinguishable from that coming
from a domestic loft.  As is the case with most industries that go overseas
for reduced labor costs, there is some degree of either a cost savings to the
end consumer, or increased profits for the seller.  I am just cynical enough to
believe that it has been more of the latter than the former.

As with so many other industries, many of the smaller, independent lofts have
gone away entirely, or have effectively become franchise outlets for 'chain'
sailmakers.  The few independent shops that remain and actually sew sails are
mostly struggling and/or have had to find strategies to survive.  Many of my
favorite old lofts are entirely gone.  The loft closest to me will only do
repairs or custom spinnakers.  They found that sewing ballistics nylon items for
the military was about 100 times more profitable.

The most common adaptation among the few remaining lofts that actually sew/do
custom work is the farming out of the cutting portion of the sailmaking. 
After a design is agreed upon, a computer image of the panel layout is sent to
one of several panel cutters (some domestic, some foreign) where the panels are
computer cut via huge computer controlled flatbed plotter/cutters.  The cut
panels are numbered and shipped back to the sailmaker for final sewing.  I find
this strategy an acceptable compromise, as the potential for modification is
still great considering that most of the nuances still happen during sewing and
final installation of details such as reinforcement and hardware (cringle,
headboard, etc.) installation.

Philosophically, I prefer to support the few remaining independent
lofts--even if some of the cutting is still farmed out.  There might be a small price
premium for doing so, but I want to insure that we still have someone left that
can operate a sewing machine, and that will be there in the future when I want
to try something custom or outside of the norm of stock computer designs.

So, as for specific sailmaker recommendations, I have to say that the options
are dwindling.  I must preface my comments by saying that I have not had any
sails made or modified for more than two years, and that I have only used two
lofts (one now gone, and one sold) in the past five years.  That said, I can
provide a few names for you to call/query that I have used in the distant past,
and for which I have some faith that the integrity/quality has probably not
changed much.

1) My loft of choice, until sometime about a year ago, was Hogin Sails in
Alameda, CA.  Bob Hogin was delightful to work with, seemed philosophically
aligned with my priorities, and was willing to try new things.  He ended up farming
out the cutting, but would spend endless time with me discussing the ultimate
design.  Bert Felton also used him for something like 20 years, and was never
disappointed.  Alas, Bob retired about a year ago, and sold the business to
two brothers who have kept the Hogin name.  At least one of the brothers was a
loft manager for a local North Sails loft, so he has some experience under his
belt.  Bob stayed on for a while to 'tutor' the two brothers in his methods. 
I have only met one of the two brothers (I believe his name is Steve), and I
liked him and his approach.  I have been waiting a while to hear of others'
experiences before having a new sail made there.  I would like to see them
survive--even prosper, as they are very convenient to me in terms of access.  I
have heard mostly good things about their product.  I know they had some
difficulty early on in finding good help, and there might have been some less than
perfect work during those early days.  I have more recently heard that the
product is now very good, but that delivery on schedule has been a problem (probably
due to being shorthanded in the loft).  I know (secondhand via Bert) of an
owner of a Vancouver 25 who just ordered a full suit of new sails from them. 
Bert and I are going to carefully monitor/evaluate the process.  Their website
is www.hoginsails.com

2) Another local independent loft with which I did business many years ago is
Pineapple Sails--also in Alameda, CA.  They still make their sails on site,
and, at least the last time I used them, were very helpful and knowledgeable. 
I know they have moved to a much larger facility, and I am not clear on what
has/has not changed.  I know that many of the local racing fleets use them
extensively.  Their website is www.pineapplesails.com

3) One of my all-time favorite lofts is Carol Hasse and Co. Port Townsend
Sails.  I haven't had anything done there for almost ten years, but I loved her
over-the-top-anal-retentive-perfectionist-Germanic approach to sailmaking (we
have similar neuroses).  Bob Hogin always told me that her sails were really
overbuilt, and priced accordingly.  I suspect that this is true, but I don't
mind overbuilt when I am going offshore.  Anyway, I don't know what has/has not
changed with Carol and her loft in the years since I have used them, but I
suspect they are still a topnotch loft.  There is a real prestige factor with
having a suit of their sails--and this reputation isn't based on nothing!  It
might be fun for you and Larry to take a trip to Port Townsend and discuss sails. 
If you haven't been there, it is truly a sailor's paradise.  Their website is
www.porttownsendsails.com

4) The final 'loft' that crossed my mind is one I know nothing about save for
an article I read in Good Old Boat Magazine (May/June 2004 issue).  It is
Yager Sails and Canvas in Veradale (near Spokane), WA.  Again, I cannot speak
from any direct experience, but in reading the article, I was impressed with the
heart of this family business.  Apparently they have quite a following with
Eastern Washington and Idaho lake sailors.  If nothing else, I thought you guys
might be able to trailer one or both boats there for a consultation/estimate. 
Their website is www.yagersails.com

If you need further options/commentary, let me know.  I could ask some
Northwest friends which lofts they prefer.

OK.  On to design.  I am not a sail design expert.  What I know is based on
the variety of boats I have sailed, or what I have learned in talking to
sailmakers and other sailors.  One thing is certain--there is infinite opinion on
the best approach to any given sail, and I too am stunned at the spectrum of
options.  Also, sail design is forever evolving, and is therefore something of a
moving target.

I can tell you that what I would have told you ten years ago has completely
turned upside down.  I used to hate roller-furling and thought full-battened
mains were stupid.  Well, guess what?  I have both on the Flicka and really
wouldn't want to be without either for the kind of sailing I now do.  Probably
best if I tell you what I have learned about the options and have you make up
your own mind by getting further input from your chosen sailmaker.

Let's start with the mainsail:

A) Reefing:
I personally cannot imagine being without at least two reefs on any boat.  My
M15, with two reefs and storm jib, would stand up to truly hellish conditions
(30-35 knots with gusts to 40) on San Francisco bay.  With only one reef and
a storm jib, I was only good for about 20-22 before things got really
uncomfortable/unsafe.  I am adding a third reef to my Flicka main for storm conditions
offshore (more for heaving-to in conjunction with a para-achor), but that
might be beyond your intended use.

One of my pet peeves with sailmakers is when they do not sew the horizontal
axis of the first and second reefs perfectly parallel to each other and the
boom.  The last thing I want to have to do when pulling in one or more reefs is
to have to adjust the topping lift (due to differing boom height established by
reefing cringles/points).

Also, I hate it when they don't stagger the sewn-in points for first and
second reefs.  I always install different color ties for first and second reefs so
that I don't inadvertently tie/untie the wrong ones.

You will want to consider how deep you want the first and second reefs.  If
you are going to use existing boom-mounted hardware such as fixed cheek blocks
and eyes, you will need to make sure that the cringles for new clew(s) will
give you the correct amount of down and outward haul, and this will limit the
depth of your reef(s).   Remember, you are trying to flatten the main in
addition to reduce sail area when you reef, so you don't want a baggy foot caused by
insufficient outhauI for the new clew cringle(s).  I am a big fan of boom
track-mounted sliding cheek/turning blocks such as those offered by Schaefer for
just this purpose.  These allow you to change depth of reef without having to
drill new holes for moved blocks/hardware.  You might want to query the list to
see what depth of reefs are common (vertical distance from boom to first and
second reef points).  Like everything on the list, I would sift the
information carefully to see if there is a trend.  It would be helpful if they could
provide relative wind speeds per reefed sail plan (including headsail) so that
you can get some sense of the various transition points.  You will no doubt get
some bozos claiming that you don't need a second, or even first reef.  They
are the same ones that will claim that a boat goes faster the more it heels. 
Ignore their input!

You will need to think very carefully about how reefing tack cringle
placement will be affected by your method of reefing.  if you use fixed tack hook for
reefing, is the top inside of the hook parallel with the tie points and clew
cringle?  if not, you might need to have that cringle raised or lowered
slightly to keep from loading the much less strong forwardmost center tie point when
you retension the luff.  Do you have a second hook on the opposite side of the
boom for a second reef?  Same concern applies.  I like to be able to leave
the first reef fully tied-in when pulling in the second reef.  Most often, you
will be reefing in progression and regression.  You want to be able to shake
out the second reef and return to first reef without having to reinstall first
reef.  Make sure you have adequate hardware (cheek/turning blocks, cleats, tack
hooks, etc.) to do this.

Make sure that the reefing lines for the new clew(s) for all reefs are led
well forward on the boom, or if you prefer, led forward, down, and back to
cockpit.  You will want to get to the point where you can reef while underway or
while hove to (I always chuckle when I read about people trying to reef by
pointing/holding the boat dead into the wind--good luck!!), and this requires that
the end of the boom be out over the water (rendering boom-end cleats useless
because they are unreachable).

Also, when thinking of reef placement, think long and hard about where the
mainsail luff slugs are placed.  You want to minimize or eliminate the need to
remove a mast track sail stop in order to pull down/pull in new reefing tack. 
This is one of the most important aspects of mainsail design for me, and often
the most overlooked.

B) Bolt-Rope vs. Slugs:
To me, this isn't even a question, but for many on the list, it is still an
issue.  Unless you are a Grand Prix racer-type, I can't imagine going with a
bolt rope.  Yes, there is probably some infinitesimally small increment of
aerodynamic advantage to a bolt rope, but I know I would have blown my brains out
long ago if I had to deal with a bolt rope every time I was cruising and came
into an anchorage.  There is nothing fun about a mainsail draped all over your
cockpit and blowing off into the water while single or short handed.  If you
are into masochism and really want to go the bolt rope route, I will forgive
you, but just don't ask me to flake your sail at day's end!

I am adamant about dictating to my sailmaker the interval of all sail slugs. 
They are notoriously bad at getting this right.  Many factors will affect
this distance, including:
1) the aforementioned reefing tack cringle vs. slug and track-stop placement
2) how much sail you want to extend on either side of mast/boom when flaked
(remember, a properly flaked sail is one where each flake has the slug in the
middle, and the sail folds at far port and far starboard--not folding at the
slugs themselves), and in considering this, space them as evenly as possible
(reefing permitting) so that you don't have a weird bundle)
3) the size of your existing mainsail cover (if you have one), as too big a
bundle (caused by to much slug interval) will not fit under the cover.
4) where your battens fall, and how they will affect flaking (very few
sailmakers pay attention to this, but it is the kind of thing that drives me crazy
when I am flaking a mainsail daily).

C) Loose-Footed vs. Bolt or Slug-Footed:
I must disclose that I have never owned a loose-footed main, so take my
comments with a grain of salt.

I know many who swear by a loose-footed main.  There argument is that it is
much easier to modulate the foil (sail draft) shape--especially in light
air--when you don't have the friction of a fully attached foot hindering outhaul
adjustment.  I have a hard time faulting that argument, but I can't help but
think there is another side to the coin.  I am going to guess that the outhaul
cringle/eye would have to be much more heavily reinforced, as the entire foot
load (in addition to the existing clew load) is now upon that one cringle.  Your
boom hardware (especially whatever slide is employed at the boom slot/track at
outhaul) would really have to be very strong.  On a stock M15 (and I believe
M17 too), there is no such outhaul slide, and the bolt rope slot is fairly
small.  I would be very concerned about making this conversion without some input
from the sailmaker (and a good one at that).

In any event, I am not sure that any performance advantage alone would be
reason enough to warrant doing this.  There is no question that sail removal
would be much easier.  I know some on the list have gone this route, and would no
doubt love to comment.  Again, I would consider the source (in terms of
historical context of the poster) before going with any one recommendation
(including mine!)

D) Battens:
I mentioned before that I was not previously a fan of full-battened mains. 
When I bought the Flicka, I decided I would give them a chance before having a
new main made.  Well,  I have to confess that I really love my full battens,
and would probably do them again.

Here is what I like:
1) The sail literally drops and flakes itself.  I know that this partially a
function of design and slug placement, but I absolutely love this feature.  In
the Pacific Northwest, where (as you know) the winds are often capricious at
best, I find I will now not hesitate to haul up the main at the slightest
breeze because I know that it will be easy to do, and easy to lower again when the
wind dies.  I do have lazy jacks in addition to the full battens which makes
it even easier.  I actually sail more than I used to (as opposed to motoring)
because it is easier.

2) The sail doesn't make much or any noise.  Do you know that horrible
flapping sound that occurs when you are forced to flog the main in a big gust (let
out until luffs and leave there while it flutters/beats itself to pieces), well
that is almost entirely absent with a proper full-battened main.  I have
literally eased the mainsheet and let the sail luff for five or ten minutes until
it is safe to reef (ferry passing or tight pass) with virtually no noise, and
no sailcloth-destroying flapping.  I had heard about this advantage, but had
not really experienced this for extended periods prior to sailing the Flicka
(was a factory installed option on my Flicka--Bert does not have).

3) I can, with my particular batten system, make batten tension adjustments
to tweak sail shape.  I have strap/buckle adjusters at each batten.

In the interest of full disclosure, however, I have to identify the downsides
of full battens;

1) They are more complicated.  Full battens require a different system of ma
st attachment than a simple bolt rope or slug luff.  The problem is that the
batten load at the luff must be transferred to the mast via some kind of
articulated means that does not allow the batten end to twist or chafe against the
mast.   The system I have (Ruttgerson Battcars) is about the simplest available.
 Each batten has a small slugged car with four wheels.  The slug rides in the
mast groove/slot just like a normal slug or bolt rope, while the little
four-wheeled car rides outside/aft side of mast along either side of the
groove/slot.  Most modern full-battened systems now employ an external track that mounts
into the existing mast groove/slot, and has ball bearing external cars for
each batten that slide smoothly up and down the external track.  These systems
are very expensive introduce added complexity.  I like my simple Ruttgerson
system.  It works well as long as I keep lubricated with Sailkote lubricant.

2) The main is more difficult to pull down when on a deep reach or run and
main is full due to added friction of batten cars and transfer of load to luff
side batten ends.  I have had to round up a few times to lower main when I
probably would have been able to pull down a conventional slug-luff main.

3) There is the potential for increased chafe at the shrouds at batten
pockets.  I am careful about this, and I use my vang to control shape when on a late
reach or run to keep the top part of the main/leach from twisting off both to
control chafe and to recapture lost drive.

4) Sail stowage: There is no doubt that a main with full battens is going to
be harder to stow below with battens installed.  This is only really a factor
for off-season or trailing.  On my Flicka, I remove the battens and stow them
separately, but they still are quite long.  Fortunately they fit in a groove
in my quarter berth, so it is not an issue.

Before deciding on this feature, read kame Richard's excellent treatise on
full battens on the Pineapple website:
http://www.pineapplesails.com/articles/fullbatt.htm


As for conventional battens, the new trend is for the top batten to be full
length even if the lower battens are conventional length.  This results in
better sail area in the top 1/3 of sail, and I definitely think it is worthwhile. 
Many lofts do this as a matter of course now.

You will have to decide whether to go with the more exotic tapered battens or
standard battens.  I have used both, but most cruising boats I have sailed
have the conventional fixed thickness batten.  Probably not worth obsessing over.

E) Sail Cloth:
This is one area where I would defer to the sailmaker that you feel most
comfortable with.  Slight differences in sailcloth weight and brand/type are not
going to be as critical in the mainsail as they will in headsails.  Probably a
high quality Bainbridge or comparable conventional dacron weave will be
sufficient.  Longevity is a function of UV exposure, proper handling and storage
(flake or roll, don't stuff!), keeping dry, keeping tension off of control lines
when stowed (outhaul, etc.), etc.

There are some cool new cloths out there that maintain strength in lighter
weight cloths via lamination and high tech weaves.  I would be more inclined to
use these in a headsail than the main.  Most are more expensive, and are
fussier about care.

F) Hardware/extras:

As stated earlier, I am pretty anal about quality and longevity.  I like
triple stitching that is available at a modest extra cost for all seams.

I tend to like extra/aggresive reinforcement at batten pockets, cringles,
reef points--all of the traditional high-load areas.  It costs a little more on
the front end, but could save a trip or expense in repairs.

There are new lightweight composite headboards that save on weight aloft, and
do not scratch the mast or stain sails (the aluminum rivets usually do the
scratching).

You will want to think about whether you want stainless, nickel, or brass
grommets and other hardware.  In saltwater environments, I have experienced
discoloration and sail stains with brass.  I think I favor good quality stainless
for that reason.

Consider adding one or more draft stripes to your main (and jibs).  It really
helps you monitor sail shape/draft/twist, and is cheap.

I like to add tell tales along the leach at each batten.  This is by far the
best indicator of proper laminar flow.

Make sure and verify your mast groove/slot diameter and remind them of this
at the time of ordering.  Look at the different slug types available and choose
the one best suited/easiest sliding for your mast.

Be specific if you want the Montgomery 'M,' 17, and your hull number on the
sail.  Some sailmakers don't include.  I really don't like the 'M' on my M15. 
It looks much more like the MacGregor (yuk) 'M' than it does the far superior
Montgomery 'M.'  Bert's had the better M, and he would always tease me about
mine.  Be specific with the sailmaker about the size and shape of these.  A
template would not be a bad idea.

OK, on to headsails:

First, lets assume that you are going to go with furling.  I think that is a
good idea--especially since the M17 is a small boat with a small foredeck, and
because you are single or short handed most of the time.

Just as with the full-battened main, I never thought I would consent to have
furling on my own boat.  I used to like to call it 'roller-failing'-- a term I
believe the Pardeys coined years ago.  Well, now I have it on my Flicka, and
I don't see me going back any time soon.  As with the FB main, I find that I
am much more likely to unfurl/refurl sails when the wind comes up and dies
frequently.  When we sail on Bert's Flicka, we find that we motor more when the
wind is light or fickle, as neither of us is fond of dealing with hassle of the
constantly hoisting and stowing his hanked-on genoa (never mind getting it in
and out of the &*#$*& deck bag).

So, with all due deference to the Pardeys (and I do love them),  I am a
heathen convert.

As for specific furlers, well, let me say this.  I am in the process of
shopping for a new furler for the Flicka.  Mine was inadvertently damaged in the
move, and the replacement parts might cost more than a new unit.  I have looked
at all available models, and will be looking very carefully again at the big
'Sail Only' show here in April to see what changes have been made.

I think you are on the right track to consider a furler with a flexible foil
for relative ease of removal/trailering.  I am sorry to say, however, that I
am not as much of a fan of the CDI furlers.  I looked at them when I was
considering adding furling to my M15.  I also looked closely at the construction and
halyard system of Fred's while I was aloft on his M23.

They are probably fine for smaller, less expensive boats, but I just did not
like the overall design.  When I found out that the ball bearing upgrade to
either the FF1 or FF2 units brought the price near or over that of the Schaefer
SnapFurl CF-500, I gave up on the CDI units entirely.  The Schaefer snapfurl
is, if I understand correctly, the only other semi-flexible unit out there that
allows partial 'reefing' of a sail while underway (there are many small units
that allow full-out, full-in furling, but not partial reefing--that requires
at least a semi-rigid foil rotating around the headstay.

Here are the things (that I know of) that I don't like about the CDI units:

1) No ball bearings/races except at high optional cost.  I have sailed on a
lot of boats with furling (now including my own), and one of my biggest
criticisms of the earlier/cheaper units is too much friction at the drum/head leading
to extreme difficulty in furling/partial furling while under load.  The
newer, better units on the market have all addressed this--and it is included on
all but the CDI.  The Schaefer even uses the same exotic open Torlon bearing
system as their big boat furlers.

2) Closed drum: I really don't like the closed drum design of the CDI.  The
trend has been away from closed drum for years now, as you want to access the
entire drum in the event of an over-wrap or other problem.

3) Internal halyard:  While clever, I am not impressed by the internal
halyard of the CDI.  I saw that on Fred's, and was not happy with how difficult it
seemed to be to access/repair should the need arise.  I really doubt that you
could get the kind of decent luff tension you would want with this system.  The
Schaefer (and almost all others) utilize the boat's jib halyard to hoist an
upper swivel that slides up and down the extrusion (also on Torlon bearings). 
This seems a lot more fail-safe to me, and certainly easier to adjust luff
tension.

4) General quality:  Everyone raves about the CDI quality, but I am not sure
I see what all the fuss is about.  It seems much more toy-like than the
offerings from Harken, Schaefer, Profurl, etc.  Granted, it is much cheaper (without
bearings), but for my money, I think I would go with the Schaefer.  I will
stand corrected if someone can prove to me otherwise, but I almost never see the
CDI units on offshore boats, or on higher end small boats.  I know they are
good about standing behind their product, and that their warranty is great, but
that is of small comfort to me if I have a failure offshore.

OK, enough of that little rant.  On to actual headsail choice:

I learned a very expensive lesson when I got the Flicka.  It came with the
original (still very good) 120% genoa that had been converted to furling, and a
new 140% genoa (hardly used).  Before sailing the boat, I grabbed both of
those sails (and the main) and brought them home to California.  I took them to
Hogin (then still Bob Hogin) and sent them out for cleaning and some
modifications.

When I returned to Friday Harbor and went off on a three week trip two years
ago, I quickly realized that the idea of using my existing 120% or 140% for
about 80% of wind conditions (light to moderate) was not going to work as
planned.

You see, both my 120% and 140% genoas were both garden variety, cross cut
sails(what we are all used to--with stacked horizontal panels).  The problem with
a furling cross-cut sail is that the cloth weight of is the same from luff to
leach, and all throughout the sail.  In order to have a cross-cut sail that
is going to be heavy-duty enough along the leach in heavier airs (and when
partially rolled-in/reefed), you end up with too heavy a cloth along the luff
where a lighter cloth would be much more desirable (sets, holds shape
easier/longer in light air.

So, when we had three weeks of mostly 0-6 knots of wind, I was very
disappointed to learn that my huge 140% cross-cut genoa was too heavy to fill/draw.  It
just sort of hung there like a big wet bedspread--no shape at all.  I didn't
have my whisker pole on board for that trip.  I am sure I could have poled it
out off the wind to compensate a bit, but the lesson was clear:  If you want
to maximize sail area options with a single furling headsail, get a very well
designed tri-radial cut furling sail.

The tri-radial cut allows the various panels to be of different weight or
even type of cloth.  The mostly vertical panels near the leach are of heavier
cloth (as they need to be), and the panels closer to the luff are lighter (as
they want to be, and will be rolled-in anyway when conditions warrant heavier,
stronger cloth.

Furthermore, I threw lots of extra money into these two genoas by adding a
foam luff.  A foam luff is a sewn in dacron/foam unit that runs along the luff
just aft of the furler extrusion.  I knew from sailing on other boats with
furling that you can't hope to roll in more than about 40-50% of a furling sail
without getting a pronounced 'belly' in the forward draft of the sail (just
where you don't want it when you are trying to reduce/flatten sail area).  This
'belly' is the result of the fact that the bottom drum and top swivel tend to
wrap the sail tighter at the ends, and this is compounded by the fact that the
edges of the sail are generally thicker than the middle due to folded cloth, UV
protective suncover strips, etc.

Anyone who tells you that you can furl a non-modified sail from genoa to
storm jib proportions and still have good (read progressively flatter) sail shape
is, frankly, full of it.  Adding the foam luff mentioned above is a means of
equalizing the thickness along the length of the luff so that, when rolled
properly, the 'belly' is largely eliminated.  This is all good, and is a good
strategy, but generally only extends the amount you can roll in somewhat.  I have
yet to test my particular sails in a real blow, but I am going to guess that I
will, with the foam luff, be able to roll down to about 35% effective jib
area without too much of a 'belly.'

So, what does all of this mean to you?  Well, here are my (expensive
conclusions):

1) If you want the best possible furling sail that will cover the broadest
possible range of conditions with good sail shape, do the following:

a) resist the temptation to get a huge rolling genoa.  It will only mean that
you will have a lousy shaped and sized sail when the wind really comes up.  I
am thinking that something like a 100% or 110% should be the absolute max. 
For San Francisco Bay, I will have made an 80% at max for the Flicka.  It would
be a MUCH better investment to get a big nylon drifter or reaching
asymmetrical chute for really light air.  This is exactly what I am now going to do on
the Flicka.  The existing 140% will likely be cut down to something much more
realistic or not used at all.  You might be able to get away with a slightly
larger genoa on the M17 due to its comparatively diminutive size and good
acceleration, but remember that larger will mean lesser performance (worse shape)
the smaller you roll it.

b) fork over the extra money for a really good tri-radial design.  You will
get a much more useful, fun, and versatile sail for the reasons mentioned above
(varying cloth weights where it counts).

c) Face the music that you will probably still need/want some kind of storm
jib.  Again, even the best rolling genoa will not likely render a good, flat
sail of storm jib proportions.  Chances are you won't need it that often, but
when you do, there is no substitute.  Remember to change to the storm jib EARLY
when you know you are going to need it.  One of the worst aspects of roller
furling is that you have to COMPLETELY unroll the sail to change it!  This is
another reason not to get carried away with the size of the roller genoa.  You
will have to roll out all 140% and get it off the furler before you can slip on
that storm jib!  One possible alternative is the 'Gale Sail' that clips over
a furled genoa.  They might not make them small enough for the M17, but a good
sailmaker can copy and scale accordingly.

d) Have them put lots of tell tales along the luff of the sail (top to
bottom).  This is the very best way to educate one's self about how to position the
jib sheet fairleeds, and to help you depower or power up when needed.  Put a
draft stripe or two on there also.  It really helps at night when the sails
look like white, shapeless blobs.

e) measure/tell/show your sailmaker your deck layout and sheeting angles. 
This is critical!!  They can move the clew/foot around to accommodate your
layout, or if needed, they can tell you the optimum placement of new leads or
tracks.  The best sail with lousy leads is worthless.

OK--that's all I have time for right now.  Send questions or requests for
further elaboration/clarification of any points, or if you think I missed
something.  If I think of anything else, I'll add to it later.

Feel free to send on to Larry if you don't think it will put him to sleep (I
know this is long, and I apologize).  Remember, this is just my opinion at
this point.  We are all learning all the time, and five years from now I might
change my mind on much of this.

Way too busy.  I guess that is better than the alternative, but there has
been absolutely no sailing this summer, fall, or early winter.  I hope to get out
on Bert's Flicka this weekend.

My Flicka came home on its new trailer in early November.  It now resides in
a big heated garage, and I am enjoying just going out there and sitting on/in
her during the evenings.  I hope to do a total refit this winter and coming
spring.  Probably won't be any money left over to actually go anywhere, but at
least she will be ready.  Don't know if I will be able to do San Juans or no. 
So much happening.  We'll see.

I am somewhat limited e-mail wise.  My old ibook is apart, and Tarn dropped
hers (works intermittently).  We are trying to make it until January/February
when the new Intel-chipped ibooks come out.  If I don't answer immediately,
that is probably why.  I am trying to check at least once a week.

Thank you, and the best of Holidays to you and yours!  Look forward to
hearing what you end up doing.

Scott