Changing the angle of the babystay

[zoidberg]

If I understand correctly, this is a permanent alteration, not a movable one like I was proposing?
Sounds extremely useful, certainly for a boat destined primarily for long distance passage making rather than short tacking.

It is entirely practicable to fit an attachment into your mastwall on the nose, a few feet above the existing babystay tang, and hang an inner stay from that to your preferred position further forward ( provided there's sufficient resistance provided to avoid lifting the deck ). This new inner stay can be readily detachable, top and/or bottom.

The noted riggers AllSpars conferred and advised, and provided me with one of these Selden T-Terminal mastwall backing plates, in size 7 - probably your optimum size. Easily fitted..... There are heftier models, for heftier tasks.

Into the backing plate is hooked the chosen Selden T-Terminal with rigging wire attached. My choice was 'Fork' but there are variants, including a T-Ring for a Dyneema stay. Your rigger will advise.

You wouldn't need to remove your existing babystay - until you decided it was redundant - but the above would most likely meet your needs. The MOA wil be able to give further chapter and verse.

 

[oldmanofthehills]

It seems inadvisable to delete the baby stay, but dinghy stowage is most useful for a cruising boat. However when all is said and done the baby stay is simply a bit of wire bracing the mast at near midway and its angle is in no ways critical provided that the top swivel has enough freedom. Moving it back would increase the tension needed to get the same support, but moving it forward would reduce it. If moving it forward then of course you need to make sure it cant pull up the deck. Moving top end too far up to make babystay parallel to forestay will change the dynamics of the mast, so I would suggest you don't do that without much further investigation.

 

[Achosenman]

I’m considering a babystay alteration on my boat for the same reasons. I thought maybe a bridle arrangement similar to the backstay might be possible. I haven’t asked the rigger the question yet.

I’m down on the boat today. I’ll let you know what he says.

 

[Achosenman]

The answer is yes, there are no reasons why not. He also suggested installing forward lower shrouds but that is more work and expense.

 

[Kelpie]

@Achosenman
Could you explain a little more about what you mean by a 'bridle arrangement'? I assumed you meant splitting the babystay in two to go to either side of the boat- but then your second post suggests otherwise.
Thanks

 

[Achosenman]

No you have it right.

My preference is a bridle attachment to either side of the cabin roof using the reinforcing frame that spans the cabin. The babystay is already attached to this now. The bridle will free up the center of the area and allow a tender to be stowed. The rigger mentioned forward lower shrouds as an alternative to the bridle. I think the extra expense makes it very much a non runner. He is very adamant that the boat needs a babystay or forward shrouds.

 

[claymore]

It's a Moody 39- fairly short mast, deck stepped, masthead rig.
I could ask on the MOA forum but thought it might not really be a boat-specific question.

Kelpie - the ink isnt dry on your bill of sale! Dont do anything - just sail it and work out any alterations as you go. A dinghy on Davits is not going to alter much in terms of trim to a Moody 39 and a ready inflated tender is a plus.

 

[Kelpie]

Kelpie - the ink isnt dry on your bill of sale! Dont do anything - just sail it and work out any alterations as you go. A dinghy on Davits is not going to alter much in terms of trim to a Moody 39 and a ready inflated tender is a plus.

Haha we haven't even had the survey yet, let alone completed the deal. If all goes well and we get the boat, we certainly won't be rushing into anything. So just thinking ahead at this stage.

I'd like davits for day-to-day storage, but for longer passages, especially ocean crossings, I think it's better to have the dinghy on deck. More compatible with a wind vane, too.

I'm still undecided about what kind of tender we really need, but anything without a rigid bottom is out of the question for reasons of robustness. The real debate is between something that rows (and/or sails) really nicely, vs something that can plane under outboard with a reasonable payload. I think the two requirements are probably mutually incompatible!