Bought a Never splashed Colvic Countess 33 on eBay, Looking for infos

[Fr J Hackett]

Doubt it!

Me too.

 

[Spyro]

Anyone seen or heard of it? oops I don't suppose you will have heard it if he ever got his super duper electric motor working.

 

[Wansworth]

Jane Austin in Pride and Predudice comments that our neighbours ,to paraphrase,are there to amuse and distract us?

 

[GregOddity]

Covid, family deaths(plural) , Brexit, world gone mad… there’s been a slight delay.

We’re thinking a shade of Blue for the hull. Sails and power train are getting dressed for the party.

“O ye of little faith”

 

[Fr J Hackett]

A little behind schedule and your initial forecast but as they say the best laid plans of mice and men.......;

I look forward to seeing and hearing more particularly about the internal refit and power train. Got them windows in yet?

 

[Wansworth]

Covid, family deaths(plural) , Brexit, world gone mad… there’s been a slight delay.

We’re thinking a shade of Blue for the hull. Sails and power train are getting dressed for the party.

“O ye of little faith”

Compared to Ship Happens your nearly finished??

 

[38mess]

Great to see you guys back online. Good luck with the work ahead ?

 

[Graham_Wright]

Welcome back Greg.

 

[GregOddity]

Thank you all. All best laid plans and all that ? I will shortly be posting updates on what we're up to

 

[GregOddity]

I’ve read everywhere that the Colvic Countess 33 is quite under canvassed.
Having said that I am by no means an expert on the subject and would love to hear someone with expertise on the matter. I recently purchased a mast. It’s a Kemp mast that was rigged with double spreaders and although used it’s in perfectly good condition and the reason for being changed was that one of the spreaders broke and the owner used that as a sign of Neptune to buy a new mast with in-mast furling.

Now the decisions before me are: the Mast was sleeved and extended to 14m. The Countess 33 sail plan calls for a 12m mast. Extend sail plan by 1m bringing the mast height to 13m instead of the 12m that the original sail plan calls for? It would be relatively easy to cut the mast above the sleeve leaving it at 13m
Would this be beneficial on a vessel that seems to have a very conservative sail plan? This would also include perhaps extending the boom and adding a circa 30cm bowsprit for the genoa. Considering that I’m a very early reefer and not knowing the pitfalls of such a decision makes for an interesting subject to ponder. Yes, I understand sails and having a couple of Ocean crossings and a “few” miles on gaff rigged vessels I’m not a complete idiot. Just a partial one.

Swept back double spreaders is the next pondering subject. Swept back for me means reinforcing the contact areas of the sails and not my preferred option as I tend to get very finicky with anything that touches my canvas.
Again, my experience comes from Gaff but from what I’ve read and from the few thousand miles that I sailed in the last couple of years on “modern” vessels there’s a lot to be said about the subject but all my instincts say simple and strong is better. Which is which being the question when you throw in the cost factor for good measure.
Of course, I can fabricate the spreaders, but single spreader as the original design or keeping the double spreader arrangement? Is the design of the mast specific to double spreaders or can it be altered to single spreaders?

And these are the very beautiful uncertainties of the sail plan for Oddity at the moment. Finishing my tea, throwing a few more sailing curses to all the idiots on the gas stations that left me on reserve and off to bed.

 

[Just_sayin']

Are the windows in yet? ??

 

[GregOddity]

Are the windows in yet? ??

Nope. Windows are not a priority at this stage. They were leaking for 30 years I’m sure a few more won’t make a difference either way.

 

[anoccasionalyachtsman]

Right, there's a lot of unknowns in that lot.

I guess that it's fractional - because it's got swept back spreaders. I don't think you've got your chainplates in yet, so they'll need to be fabricated to suit their new position.

You almost certainly want to keep it double spreader because the tube size will be lighter for a given length thanks to the better support. (Single spreader would have meatier tube, in theory at least).

You'll want to move the mast forward from its designed step to compensate for the changed combined centre of effort..

True, swept back spreaders are in contact with the sail more frequently, but it's really not that big a problem, and will be alleviated by your patches. If you were to change the spreader roots for inline then you'll really want to change it back to masthead rig because you'll lose the backstay effect of the sweep back and need to achieve forestay tension with just the backstay - and that wouldn't be good with the lower forestay fitting. You could fit runners of course. Personally, I'd keep it fractional - it looks better.

Rig height - well looking at pictures I think the standard rig looks surprisingly well-proportioned, and if I were ordering up a new mast would probably stick with it. On the other hand, the racer and Med sailor in me says to go for the extra couple of metres - especially since it's you that'll be paying for the extra wire, rope and sailcloth...

Boom length, well that could be longer too, but you're limited by the mizzen, so only longer by the distance forward you move the mast.

I've probably missed something, but that gives you stuff to think about.

 

[William_H]

I would be leery of the splice in the mast. A weekness which will appear I think near the unsupported part of the mast. I would not be afraid of under canvassed. Less is often good especially when wind comes up. You can compensate with extra code 0 jib on bow sprit or similar if you decide you need it.
As said I would stick with 2 spreader arrangement for better support of the mast. Aft swept spreaders can mean you don't need running back stays and can do without inner forestay making tacking much easier and kinder on jib. I would not go to a lot of trouble to move mast base forward. (in moving from a mast head to fractional design. But you do need to get chain plates robust and aft of abeam the mast. Where original design might have had chain plates abeam. ol'will

 

[GregOddity]

Right, there's a lot of unknowns in that lot.

I guess that it's fractional - because it's got swept back spreaders. I don't think you've got your chainplates in yet, so they'll need to be fabricated to suit their new position.

You almost certainly want to keep it double spreader because the tube size will be lighter for a given length thanks to the better support. (Single spreader would have meatier tube, in theory at least).

You'll want to move the mast forward from its designed step to compensate for the changed combined centre of effort..

True, swept back spreaders are in contact with the sail more frequently, but it's really not that big a problem, and will be alleviated by your patches. If you were to change the spreader roots for inline then you'll really want to change it back to masthead rig because you'll lose the backstay effect of the sweep back and need to achieve forestay tension with just the backstay - and that wouldn't be good with the lower forestay fitting. You could fit runners of course. Personally, I'd keep it fractional - it looks better.

Rig height - well looking at pictures I think the standard rig looks surprisingly well-proportioned, and if I were ordering up a new mast would probably stick with it. On the other hand, the racer and Med sailor in me says to go for the extra couple of metres - especially since it's you that'll be paying for the extra wire, rope and sailcloth...

Boom length, well that could be longer too, but you're limited by the mizzen, so only longer by the distance forward you move the mast.

I've probably missed something, but that gives you stuff to think about.

Ill post the pics of the mast, so it’s easier to understand. I’m going sloop instead of ketch. Funny enough I was told the spreaders were swept back, but I found only a baby stay attachment point on the front of the mast so I’m assuming it was not fractional. I also never saw the old spreaders so no idea if they were swept back.

You didn’t miss anything, it’s me that am a bit the worse for wear and did not really supply the facts.

Basically, I don’t know how to gage the “meatiness” of the mast and find myself assuming the double spreaders had been a consideration for exactly that reason.

I’m not much of a racer (except if there’s another boat close by and looking like it’s gaining on me) but the idea of a bit more line to hang my tea towels does appeal to me. It’s that extra half knot.

Well yeah… there’s always the paying for it

 

[anoccasionalyachtsman]

I would be leery of the splice in the mast. A weekness which will appear I think near the unsupported part of the mast. I would not be afraid of under canvassed. Less is often good especially when wind comes up. You can compensate with extra code 0 jib on bow sprit or similar if you decide you need it.
As said I would stick with 2 spreader arrangement for better support of the mast. Aft swept spreaders can mean you don't need running back stays and can do without inner forestay making tacking much easier and kinder on jib. I would not go to a lot of trouble to move mast base forward. (in moving from a mast head to fractional design. But you do need to get chain plates robust and aft of abeam the mast. Where original design might have had chain plates abeam. ol'will

The sleeving is invariably at the bottom, and happens because the 'standard' extrusion length is (or certainly used to be) 40 feet. Any taller and you need two bits joined. The internal sleeve then makes that section way stronger, and as it turns out is ideally suited to the gooseneck area to take the extra stress and mast winches etc..

 

[GregOddity]

I would be leery of the splice in the mast. A weekness which will appear I think near the unsupported part of the mast. I would not be afraid of under canvassed. Less is often good especially when wind comes up. You can compensate with extra code 0 jib on bow sprit or similar if you decide you need it.
As said I would stick with 2 spreader arrangement for better support of the mast. Aft swept spreaders can mean you don't need running back stays and can do without inner forestay making tacking much easier and kinder on jib. I would not go to a lot of trouble to move mast base forward. (in moving from a mast head to fractional design. But you do need to get chain plates robust and aft of abeam the mast. Where original design might have had chain plates abeam. ol'will

I’m fabricating the chainplates well above spec. I almost had a seizure when I saw the 2mm plate ones installed.

I am leaning toward the double spreader as I like the idea of a better mast support. I’ve recently seen mast do a “dance” that I did not like to see my mast doing.

I must admit I’m very tempted to have on more metre on the mast. Just unsure how it would affect the righting moment on the boat..

 

[GregOddity]

The sleeving is invariably at the bottom, and happens because the 'standard' extrusion length is (or certainly used to be) 40 feet. Any taller and you need two bits joined. The internal sleeve then makes that section way stronger, and as it turns out is ideally suited to the gooseneck area to take the extra stress and mast winches etc..

Sadly, on this mast the sleeving has been done on the top. I did inspect the rivets individually and found no signs of visible stress with the naked eye.

 

[William_H]

I’m fabricating the chainplates well above spec. I almost had a seizure when I saw the 2mm plate ones installed.

I am leaning toward the double spreader as I like the idea of a better mast support. I’ve recently seen mast do a “dance” that I did not like to see my mast doing.

I must admit I’m very tempted to have on more metre on the mast. Just unsure how it would affect the righting moment on the boat..

re righting moment. if you picture the boat laid down to horizontal your additional mast height weight plus stay wires and sail will have the same leverage as 10 times the weight on the keel. Does it matter. It all depends on if you are going to have the boat laid down to horizontal. or more importantly if you worry about that. if you ahve the patience to plow through Racing Rules of Sailing you will find formular for stability that are considered a standard for ocean racing. takes in to account ballast weights mast heights etc. You could do well to compare your proposed mast height to that formular fro comparison. ol'will

 

[anoccasionalyachtsman]

Serve me right for saying invariably...