Talk:Junk rig

Untitled
Thanks, Mbbradford!

Happy wanderer 17:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious about the deletion of the link to the Junk Rig Yahoo Group - I understand that in most cases, a discussion group isn't an appropriate encyclopedic source, but this one includes discussion by some of the experts in the field cited elsewhere in this article.

And I also understand that Wikipedia guidelines discourage linking to registration-only sources, and most Yahoo Groups would count as registration-only, but this particular group isn't, really - you have to register to post and to look at the photos section, but anyone can read the posts or search for information, which seems to be why one would wish to avoid registration-only sources to begin with.

I'm not married to the link, but I did find it extremely useful myself, and probably wouldn't have discovered it had it not been in a previous version of this page. --grant 22:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't object to the yahoo group either. It was deleted by an administrator based on the policy to avoid links where you needed to register, and also because Wiki is not supposed to be a list of links to other info as much as it is supposed to paraphrase the info from other sources in the article. If there was something you really liked on the yahoo group page, please paraphrase it and include it in the article. You can still reference it that way, I guess! mbbradfor d 16:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We have a reference in the Current Research section that refers to the removed external link, so that needs to be fixed. I will do it in a few days, if no-one else does.
 * I am not sure that "avoiding links where you need to register" is viable these days. To avoid spam one has to register before one can contribute to anything these days, including Wikipedia. Static web pages are not the only good resource; access to experience and advice is also useful to the study of any topic. The moderator of the yahoo group was disappointed, and expressed the view that it was odd that commercial links would be allowed, but a reference to a free resource would not. SuW 14:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Traditional Junk and Modern Junk a false distinction?
(Boatmik (talk) 06:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)) Wikipedia article takes pains to divide the rig into "Traditional" with sheetlets controlling the sail by running to the ends of the sail battens up the back edge of the sail, and "Modern" with the sheets running to the boom. There are a number of articles that make the same distinction ... with the Traditional Junk ubiquitously having the sheetlets.

Junk Rig is a functional definition
The explanation of a few years ago was that the intrinsic feature of the Junk Rig was the sheeting loads are carried through the battens and there is "not much" of a boom.

There are two functions involved: 1/ Reefing - As the halyard is eased to reef the sail and each batten in turn comes to rest of top of the bottom one it would become difficult for a sheet going to the boom to control the angle of the sail without the sheetlets. ie The sheetlets keep everything at more or less the correct angle to the wind despite the stack of loose sailcloth and battens that pile up at the bottom of the sail as it is reefed.

2/ The sheetlets also produce the camber or depth of the sail which is cut flat. A flat sail doesn't produce as much driving force as one with the correct amount. As the sail is restricted from rotating at the back by the sheetlets the battens are forced to bend and the correct camber is produced.

The "Modern Junk" does not have either of these defining feature

The biggest question is, why is the junk rig not found on the Borobodur ship relief since it is said to be attributed to the Javanese?. And why was it that it is not widely adopted by the Austronesians. Instead, we only see it on chinese ships. Aren't the Austronesian using the tanja sail instead aka lateen sail? i have a lot of doubts on the references cited on this particular fact and the historian behind this. It includes the etymology of Junk which clearly is from the Chinese Hokkien dialect but wrongly attributed to the Javanese citing dubious accounts. Not only this, I have read this article 10 years ago together with the main article on Junk, the fact has completely changed which surprises me.

Is the Modern Junk rig really a Balance lug
Westerners have a rig that is the same as the "Modern Junk" called the "Balance Lug". I would argue that the "Modern Junk" is a Balance lug sail a chinese like outline because it does not have the sheetlet control system of the historical Junk.

The reefing system on a "Modern Junk" was used on American Racing Canoes in the 1870's "Dixon Kemp Manual of Seamanship" but there they were referred to definitely as balance lugs - though they did not have quite as many battens and they did not have a Chinese-like outline.

Illogical Nomenclature
There is an illogicality involved with the term of Modern Junk too.

a/ If there the only form of evidence of traditional junks have sheetlets then a similar sail without them is not a Junk. b/ However if there were a proportion of historical boats that used a conventional sheet and boom ... then there is no "Modern" Junk.

So logically ... it would appear that the "Modern Junk" can't win. It is a false distinction both ways.

Etymology
The etymology very clearly is chinese from the dialect of Fujianese (Hokkien) spoken by people coming from the east coast of china. It is called "jun" for "chuan" the mandarin word for ships. The Javanese and Malay have different words; both prau and perahu respectively. These Fujianese were traders who were actively plying their trade in the Straits of Malacca from 10th century to 16th century. The admiral Cheng Ho sailed down in the 13th century. Interaction of the chinese traders with the Malay and Javanese natives resulted in the transmission of the word into both languages respectively. A third point is that it while it doesn't seem right for Westerners to name this rig (it has a chinese name and probably Malay, Vietnamese I would expect - the originating place should be given a preference) but here we are defining the rig according to our tastes rather than looking at the probably very precise nautical terms from the indigenous areas or to choose our own definitions of the technical features that distinguish it from other rigs. Nomenclature Junk from malaysian Djong - actually Javanese! .... found two refs on the same webpage.
 * The references are wrong about this.

Junk 2 (jŭngk)n. A Chinese flatbottom ship with a high poop and battened sails. [Portuguese junco or Dutch jonk, both from Javanese djong, variant of djung, from Old Javanese jong, sea-going ship.] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Also here ... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/junk

Junk - Junk\, n. [Pg. junco; cf. Jav. & Malay jong, ajong, Chin. chwan.] (Naut.) A large vessel, without keel or prominent stem, and with huge masts in one piece, used by the Chinese, Japanese, Siamese, Malays, etc., in navigating their waters. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. (in the same reference as above

Not sure of the level of scholarship of the Dictionary sources as they group a whole lot of craft with different names and functions under this one generic term ... there is very little material available in English on this rig.

Summary
The reason I have not edited the existing article is I am not sure enough of my sources and I don't want to start a lot of backward and forward changes ... everyone deserves their due.

Be good to have some discussion on this. If my view is the correct historical and logical view the article could make the distinction more clear. The information about the "Modern Junk" belongs in the article for the moment IMHO ... it is quite useful and informative and is a derived rig but without the defining feature. Just the distinction may need to be made more clear. eg "There is a popular type of rig called the "Modern Junk" that has many of the features of a historical Junk, however it does not use the same sheeting method which is necessary to the functioning and definition of the historically correct Junk Rig"

Best wishes Michael Storer

Comparison With Bermudan Rig
Citation Needed?: you bet. There are some *very* contentious statements scattered among the reasonable. But a decent source is going to be hard to find. This is one of those topics where opinions tend to be highly polarised, and identifying a reliable and expert source with a true neutral POV will be very hard. I don't claim to be neutral - at least a junk rig enthusiast wouldn't say so.

I've taken the text from the page as it is at the moment and bolded statements I consider contentious. Perhaps multiple authors could achieve a consensus of what is and isn't neutral POV and perhaps separate

The junk rig is a simple and effective rig. The rig contrasts starkly with the Bermuda rig which is prevalent on modern production boats. In its most traditional form the junk rig is carried on an unstayed mast (i.e. a mast without shrouds or stays, supported only on the step at the keelson and the partners) however standing rigging of some kind is not uncommon.

'''The cost to rig a boat with a junk rig would typically be a fraction of the cost of a Bermuda rig, due mostly to the lower number of parts and adaptability of the rig to cheaper materials (especially the sailcloth.) ''' The junk rig typically produces less drive than a similarly sized Bermuda rig at low angles of attack (e.g. when sailing upwind, close-hauled) and this is especially pronounced in light wind. Performance close-hauled is perhaps the strongpoint of the Bermuda rig - key to winning a race with an upwind leg '''or outmaneuvering an opponent in battle.  The junk rig typically produces more drive than a similarly sized Bermuda rig when running downwind without a spinnaker'''. A junk rigged boat can let its sails out athwartships (and beyond.) On a Bermuda rigged boat the shrouds interfere with sails if the sail was let out until it was athwartship. The full battens of a junk sail prevent the sail from collapsing when running in light wind (dispensing with the need for a whisker pole.) On double-masted junk rigged boats, the sails can be flown wing-and-wing (i.e. on opposite sides of the boat) even when on a broad reach as can a Bermudan rig. The junk rig is well suited to downwind travel with its working sails.

'''The junk rig appeals to shorthanded sailing crews for many reasons, especially because the rig reefs very easily. To lessen sail ("reef") all that is required is to let out the halyard. In contrast, reefing sail on a Bermuda rigged boat would typically require crew to move about the deck - which increases the chance of falling overboard, especially during a high sea state which is typical of conditions which would encourage reefing.'''

It is typical to run the halyards (lines used to raise and lower the sail) and sheets (lines used to trim the sail) to the companionway on a junk rigged boat. This means that typical sailhandling can be performed from the relative safety of the cockpit, or even while the crew is below deck.

Junk sails are typically carried on a mast which rakes (slants) forward a few degrees from vertical, which can look odd to the unitiated. The forward rake of the sail encourages the sail to swing out, which makes the use of a preventer unnecessary. Another way to say this is that the sail is stable when swung out and doesn't return to the middle of the ship when the wind drops.

Other benefits of the junk rig over the Bermuda rig

Less flogging of sails (quieter)

Less danger of an accidental jibe due to balance of the sail

Less danger from an accidental jibe with a lighter-weight boom (lowest batten), although in Bermudan cruising boats the boom is usually tied to the rail for long distance downwind sailing

More options when reefing - more "reef points"

The sail can be constructed by an amateur - the cut is entirely flat

Other shortcomings of the junk rig compared to the Bermuda rig

The shape of the sail depends on the flex of the battens, and the battens do the opposite of what would be most desirable: they bend only a little when the wind is light, and they bend a lot when the wind is strong. Consequently, the airfoil developed in light wind doesn't have enough camber to develop much lift at low wind speeds. Perhaps the chief shortcoming of the junk rig is that it typically produces poor drive to windward in light winds.

The sail may remain almost entirely flat in light winds and develop unacceptable drive to windward

The fully battened sail is much heavier than a sail made entirely of sailcloth with modern battens.

The stiff junk battens disturb laminar wind flow over the sail -especially important when sailing to windward, or a point free.

Junk sails are relatively low aspect ratio, resulting in a lower lift-to-drag ratio; consequently the ship can't tack as close to the wind.

A junk sail has more running rigging aloft, adding to weight, providing more wind resistance and disturbing wind flow.

A junk mast is normally of solid wood and very heavy for its short length.

212.159.44.170 (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Junk rig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813113916/http://www.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/junks.html to http://www.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/junks.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Deck stepped masts?
There is a grave misstatement in the Disadvantages section: "Most modern production sail boats are deck stepped mast rigs, meaning the mast ends on the deck of the boat."

This is simply wrong; it's true only of small, trailerable boats. 2601:603:C80:C180:6119:359A:95:7D2B (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)