assessing age of standing rigging

[Chiara’s slave]

Maybe those of us who’ve actually experienced rig loss are keener to replace rigging than those who haven’t. Any bit of wire that has no provenance is immediately replaced on any boat of mine.

 

[WoodyP]

Went through exactly the same with GJW some years ago. GJW said they required everything from the survey to be completed, but when pressed regarding the rig age they backtracked and said this item was not an insurance requirement, so I did not need to do. My rig was just over 10 and not yet 15 at the time. As a matter of interest, what interaction did you have with GJW over this issue? Was this a surveyor telling you to change it or GJW?

It was GJW after l sent them the report that they required. I also had to replace guard wires, which were knackered, a bronze stopcock, which was fine,
At 10 years l had to replace fuel lines, plastic bowl on the cav filter with a metal bowl, fuel filler pipes to the two tanks and a few other matters. I just did what I was told without argument.

 

[fearmhuir]

Instead of a time based replacement schedule, sparsmaker Seldén advises replacement after 20 000 miles sailed (provided that the rig has been correctly tensioned).
Makes a lot more sense IMHO.

Is that written anywhere in Selden's knowledge base?

 

[geem]

Is that written anywhere in Selden's knowledge base?

I hope not. Our rigging is 10 years old with way more miles than that! The boat is substantially rigged though and gets regular inspection. My plan is to re-rig in 2024 but got an Atlantic crossing to do first

 

[Tranona]

Not sure of which type of fitting failures you are referring to, but if these fittings (chain plates, mast tangs...?) remain in place, then the 10 years standing rigging renewal requirement appears to be even more pointless and wasteful.
To me this issue seems to be a parallel to your recent post about skin fitting renewals.

The difference I think is that claims for rig failure (whatever the cause) are real and expensive. Insurers do not seem to make an issue over seacocks despite all the scaremongering and I would guess it is because the number of claims from failed seacocks is negligible. Even where items have a manufacturer advised replacement period such as saildrive diaphragms this is not a condition of cover - in fact they never ask whether a boat has a saildrive or not. Again (like seacocks) the don't seem to fail and result in a claim.

The major difference between these largely static items and yacht rigging is that the latter is a complex stressed structure made up of many parts and connections. Failure of just one small component (a cotter pin for example) can lead to loss of the entire rig. If that happens mid Atlantic on a nearly new 46' boat as was reported in a recent thread here the claim runs into tens of 000s (any currency). Salvage costs, getting a rig out to the Canaries (or boat back to Europe) and so on. Even on a high value newish boat that is a big chunk of the insured value and on say a 20 year old Bavaria that might wipe out most of the insured value and result in a write off. Even a back of the envelope figure based on what I have just paid for new sails, standing and running rigging and a new furler for my modest boat a claim for a lost rig would be as much as 50% of insured value.

 

[BabaYaga]

Is that written anywhere in Selden's knowledge base?

I hope not. Our rigging is 10 years old with way more miles than that! The boat is substantially rigged though and gets regular inspection. My plan is to re-rig in 2024 but got an Atlantic crossing to do first

The figure 20 000 miles sailed as 'lifespan' for standing rigging has been communicated by Seldén representatives on several occasions.
It is also mentioned on page 64 here:
https://support.seldenmast.com/files/595-540-E.pdf

 

[BabaYaga]

The difference I think is that claims for rig failure (whatever the cause) are real and expensive. Insurers do not seem to make an issue over seacocks despite all the scaremongering and I would guess it is because the number of claims from failed seacocks is negligible. Even where items have a manufacturer advised replacement period such as saildrive diaphragms this is not a condition of cover - in fact they never ask whether a boat has a saildrive or not. Again (like seacocks) the don't seem to fail and result in a claim.

The major difference between these largely static items and yacht rigging is that the latter is a complex stressed structure made up of many parts and connections. Failure of just one small component (a cotter pin for example) can lead to loss of the entire rig. If that happens mid Atlantic on a nearly new 46' boat as was reported in a recent thread here the claim runs into tens of 000s (any currency). Salvage costs, getting a rig out to the Canaries (or boat back to Europe) and so on. Even on a high value newish boat that is a big chunk of the insured value and on say a 20 year old Bavaria that might wipe out most of the insured value and result in a write off. Even a back of the envelope figure based on what I have just paid for new sails, standing and running rigging and a new furler for my modest boat a claim for a lost rig would be as much as 50% of insured value.

I agree that rig failures often have expensive consequences and it is understandable that insurers focus on rigs (and force boat owners to do so, by their requirements).
But as you mention, there are many causes to rig failures. How many are directly related to the standing rigging being +10 years old? Furthermore, how many of these would not have been picked up early by regular inspection?

 

[jwilson]

Selden has previously published the suggestion of ".... 25,000 miles or once round the world".

There are two big variables - one is the rig: my modern AWB was recently next to a similar length Westerly: mine has 6/7/8mm wires for a bigger sail area. The Westerly had nothing smaller than 7mm and cap shrouds of some 10mm (and a heftier mast section). Funnily enough I'd changed my wires at 12 years of age, and the Westerly's rig was 20 years old with an owner with no interest in changing it.

The other variable is how hard is the boat driven: very few private owners push their boats as hard as racers.

 

[geem]

The figure 20 000 miles sailed as 'lifespan' for standing rigging has been communicated by Seldén representatives on several occasions.
It is also mentioned on page 64 here:
https://support.seldenmast.com/files/595-540-E.pdf

When I first got my current boat there was no rig replacement information except the babystay and backstay on the main mast had been changed 2 years earlier. We had the rig replaced by the boatyard over the winter but told them to not change the backstsy or babystay. Those were the only two wires with strand failure at the swage terminals.
We didn't bother re-rigging the mizzen mast. We only did that in 2021. I suspect we'll over 20 years old.
Nobody has mentioned about the difference between hydraulic swaging and Stalok fittings. Stalok fitting tend not to be associated with wire failure at the entry to the fitting unlike hydraulic swaged fittings. How many people have asked to see the calibration certificate for the riggers swage machine?
Swages out of calibration are likely to fail earlier than perfectly formed swages.
Whether you used hydraulic swaged fittings (done well or badly), stalok terminals, rigging wire size all has a bearing on life expectancy of the components in the system as well as age/mileage. It's a tough call for insurance companies so hardly surprising that they don't go into that much detail. For them it's all a gamble so they stack the odds in their favour

 

[davidaprice]

We had a presentation from our local rigger here in Helsinki. He told us that many cruising boats here still had their original rigging from the 1980s, and it was still fine. Of course we don't do much offshore sailing here, mostly staying within the coastal archipelago, and the water here is brackish so maybe less corrosive? Also, we take our masts off for the winter so all rigging gets a look over once a year.

The rigger told us that a common failure he saw was fracturing of the fittings inside the mast into which the T-terminals lock. He recommended checking them visually with a torch from the hole on the opposite side.

 

[geem]

We had a presentation from our local rigger here in Helsinki. He told us that many cruising boats here still had their original rigging from the 1980s, and it was still fine. Of course we don't do much offshore sailing here, mostly staying within the coastal archipelago, and the water here is brackish so maybe less corrosive? Also, we take our masts off for the winter so all rigging gets a look over once a year.

The rigger told us that a common failure he saw was fracturing of the fittings inside the mast into which the T-terminals lock. He recommended checking them visually with a torch from the hole on the opposite side.

I am not a fan of T terminals. I have seen failed ones.
Our rig is substantial and simple. A heavy single spreader mast. By comparison to friends with the same boat we have 11 less rigging terminals on the main mast. Rigging fails at termirnals so we like simple.
All rigging uses eye fittings to tangs on the mast. The mast tangs are through bolted to the tang on the other side of the mast. M14 bolt with roll pins.
5.5mm mast wall thickness. 12mm rigging wire on a 44ft boat. The bottom of the mast rigging is also eye fittings to bottlescrews with seperate stainless steel toggles.

 

[vyv_cox]

The rigger told us that a common failure he saw was fracturing of the fittings inside the mast into which the T-terminals lock. He recommended checking them visually with a torch from the hole on the opposite side.

Yes, I have photographs of cracks in the T-ball fitting in the mast, both from the ball entry and in the rivet holes holding it to the mast.

 

[Fimacca]

Local riggers will do safety inspections and advisories around me for £100 ish pounds. You then decide if your insurance company has a copy or not dependent on your text!
Safety first.......