I think you ones more make a similar logical warp.
You are intepreting something in the way that is not correct.
But you're still saying that a jib hurts pointing ability, just less than what is expected from less satisfactory lift theories. How does that contradict my interpretation?
That was not the point.
The point was directed at your statement that I repeat below :
... but it looks like he screws up the correspondance between upwash and pointing ability. ...
In fact Gentry doesn't "screw" up, only in your intepretation of what he writes does that happen. Ergo, the error is to be found on your side of the story and not on Gentry's side.
Beside your statement
But you're still saying that a jib hurts pointing ability, just less than what is expected from less satisfactory lift theories
Shows you have not grasped the point in this respect either. We are not talking about "less satisfactory lift theories" we are talking about theories that are proven wrong (ventury effect) and the one that does explain what happens in full detail. You also seem to glance over the fact that the interaction between main and jib much limits the "hurting" of pointing. Yes, a sloop rig at its optimal pointing angle does sail lower than a uni-rig at its optimal upwind sailing angle, but sadly enough no-one was saying otherwise. Much more interesting is the "discovery" of how much more drive an added jib seems to give to a rig, disproproportionally to its size and how the difference between pointing angle is relatively small. Two things that are still not commenly understood by the larger public. Especially since many still believe that adding a jib hurts upwind performance while both the Gentry theory and practice show that adding a jib will enhance upwind performance.
But we can probably go at this for years.
Wouter
