Why are dinghies swapping the trusty Vang for a GNAV?

Wandering around the Dinghy Show, I started playing a little game: “Spot the kicker.” Not the bloke offering free stickers (though he was enthusiastic), but the boom vang—the bit of rigging that pulls the boom down and stops the mainsail turning into a baggy windsock the moment you ease the mainsheet. On the older designs, it’s right there: a very visible chunk of control stringage (and bruising potential) living below the boom. On a surprising number of newer boats, though, the kicker had apparently… vanished.

It hadn’t gone missing. It had simply been spelt backwards and moved to a more civilised address.

A GNAV is basically an inverted vang: instead of pulling the boom down from underneath, it pushes it down from above, using a compression strut between mast and boom. Same job (boom control, leech tension, twist control), different geometry—and crucially, far more space in the cockpit because you’re no longer trying to limbo under a kicker system at the worst possible moment. Manufacturers and chandlers are very open about this being the headline benefit: removing the conventional kicker gives a “huge gain in cockpit space”.

And that cockpit space isn’t just about comfort (though I’m absolutely in favour of any innovation that reduces the number of times my kneecaps meet stainless steel). On modern dinghies—especially the ones designed around active manoeuvres, rapid tacks, and crew moving forward aggressively—clutter below the boom is a genuine performance penalty. One review of a performance dinghy with a GNAV points out it helps the crew stay right forward because there’s more room to move. In plain English: less rig to trip over, faster crew movement, cleaner boat handling.

There’s also a “modern rig” design logic at play. As boats evolve, there’s been a steady push towards cleaner control layouts, fewer snag points, and systems that are easier to operate under load. GNAVs aren’t magic—your mainsail still needs proper leech control—but by moving the hardware above the boom, you can often create a tidier, more ergonomic set-up for controls and crew. (And anything that reduces the chance of snagging a toe strap, a buoyancy aid toggle, or your dignity is a win.)

So why don’t all boats have a GNAV? Because sailing, like plumbing, is full of compromises. A GNAV introduces compression loads through that strut and into mast/boom fittings, and it can influence how forces are fed into the mast (i.e., you’re pushing rather than pulling). That’s not automatically a problem—GNAV systems are widely sold and supported—but it does mean the boat needs to be designed (or sensibly modified) to take those loads. Older designs were engineered around the traditional vang geometry, and class rules or “if it isn’t broken…” conservatism can keep the old system in place.

Which is why the Dinghy Show pattern makes perfect sense: newer boats (or newer iterations of designs) are increasingly built with GNAV-friendly layouts, while older designs keep the kicker because it’s familiar, class-legal, easy to source, and already works. Plus, many of us have spent years perfecting the art of not sitting on the vang tackle—why give up that heritage now?

Bottom line: the move from vang to GNAV is mostly about space, movement, and modern ergonomics, with the same underlying purpose—controlling boom angle and mainsail twist—just achieved in a way that’s kinder to crews, knees, and frantic tacks. And if nothing else, it gives you one more sailing word to explain to unsuspecting family members: “No, it’s not a typo. Yes, it really is vang backwards.”