Dismasted? How old was your rig?

[Birdseye]

There is no evidence at all that failure is time based.....................The ten year limit is purely based upon statistical data .

???

 

[vyv_cox]

???

Well, I thought my explanation was clear enough. A well set-up shroud with correctly swaged ends, sealant in the top of the lower swage to prevent corrosion, will last indefinitely. Exactly the same equipment is used in architecture with no requirement even for inspection, never mind regular replacement. As this thread has shown the cause of dismasting is often nothing to do with the cables, which is the part that we are compelled to replace.

 

[doug748]

This is an opportunely-timed thread for me as I am wavering over standing rigging replacement on our Sourherly 115 from 2002

She has done only 12,000 miles and never been sailed hard by previous owner or us in the three years we have had her.

One of the local marine engineers ran some electrical impedance tests last summer, which he says are a good way to test for corrosion

Results did not show up any issues. Both he, and a couple of other people I have sought advice from, say that Southerlys of this vintage are over-engineered and pretty bullet proof, and they can't see any evidence from deck level of anything indicating.

The burning question of how long to push it for, and what arguments to muster for an insurer in the case of a failure, has been on my mind, which is why I am finding this thread helpful.

No one has mentioned electrical impedance tests - am I naive to be placing confidence in this?

Sorry, I don't know a lot about testing but regular inspection is never a wasted exercise.

I had a forestay stranded at the top swage at about 15yrs, you could just make it out down the top of the furling extrusion. Whilst I would be happy to keep the rest, I would be uneasy if the forestay approached that point. The forestay get a ferocious wigging throughout the year, particularly if the sail is left on over the winter. Others have spoken about similar experiences.

Of course logistics may mean that it is more cost effective to do the lot at the same time.

 

[Yngmar]

...sealant in the top of the lower swage to prevent corrosion...

This is something I've been wondering about. My rig is one year old, with Sta-Lok swaged fittings, but no sealant in them (and that seems to be the way all I've looked at are, with the exception of swageless fittings, which are a different story entirely - I did put sealant into the one inside my roller furler). So there is some water pooling in the top of the bottom fittings, which can't be good, especially if it wicks into the small crevices left by the roller swaging (see below photo of a roller swaged fitting cut in half and polished).

I rinse them with freshwater whenever I give the boat a wash, but have been wondering if it wouldn't be better to seal them with a bead of sealant (non-acetic curing type). After a good flushing and gentle drying with the heatgun, that is. Or should that have been applied before swaging and doing it now won't get it into the areas between the strands?

 

[vyv_cox]

This is something I've been wondering about. My rig is one year old, with Sta-Lok swaged fittings, but no sealant in them (and that seems to be the way all I've looked at are, with the exception of swageless fittings, which are a different story entirely - I did put sealant into the one inside my roller furler). So there is some water pooling in the top of the bottom fittings, which can't be good, especially if it wicks into the small crevices left by the roller swaging (see below photo of a roller swaged fitting cut in half and polished).

I rinse them with freshwater whenever I give the boat a wash, but have been wondering if it wouldn't be better to seal them with a bead of sealant (non-acetic curing type). After a good flushing and gentle drying with the heatgun, that is. Or should that have been applied before swaging and doing it now won't get it into the areas between the strands?

I thought that Sta-lok recommended applying sealant to swageless fittings before making up? I have always done that - it squeezes out of the top when screwed up and makes a good job of keeping water out. On my swaged fittings I add a bit of grease or Waxoyl to the top surface occasionally. I would not add anything before making up a swage, it might well interfere with the bonding. Drying with a heat gun is well worth doing.

I cannot see your photo, would be interested to see it. I cut open a swage with stress corrosion cracking at about 15 mm of the end but could see no water penetration at around 20 mm.

 

[Mr Cassandra]

Please don't forget S/S chainplate bolts I had 60,000 euros worth of lost rig when the countersunk head bolts failed below deck.
Haven insurance were fantastic.

 

[Yngmar]

I thought that Sta-lok recommended applying sealant to swageless fittings before making up? I have always done that - it squeezes out of the top when screwed up and makes a good job of keeping water out.

I've done it too on the one swageless fitting I have on the forestay bottom (although the recommendation seemed to flicker between sealant and no sealant when I looked it up, and now I can't find the instructions on the Sta-Lok site at all). But my concern was about swaged fittings.

On my swaged fittings I add a bit of grease or Waxoyl to the top surface occasionally. I would not add anything before making up a swage, it might well interfere with the bonding. Drying with a heat gun is well worth doing.

Thanks, sounds good - I shall be doing that.

I cannot see your photo, would be interested to see it. I cut open a swage with stress corrosion cracking at about 15 mm of the end but could see no water penetration at around 20 mm.

Photo should work now. This was a brand new swage, cut and polished for demonstration purposes.

(another photo of the same)

 

[Frank Holden]

Your new mast fittings is exactly how mine are done, not only on the lowers but all the side rigging except I fitted an anti crush tube inside the mast.

Mine is a mast head rig so for and back stays connect to mast head fitting.

Yes, mine also has the anti crush fitting... don't know why but it and my camera never crossed paths....

 

[dgadee]

Twice. Once off Dutch coast in a F9 when I was turned over by a breaking wave. Second, couple of years ago, when a Sigma wasn't looking out as they came up on port to a racing mark.

On current boats I keep an eye on rigs but no idea how old these are. They seem fine.

 

[Neeves]

Yingmar, One nicely prepared sample, two good photos, thanks.

Jonathan

edit - though explain to me - you can put sealant, or something, to reduce water ingress. What stops any water running down *(wicking down) from inside the cable higher up. Your photos clearly show holes - these are there all the way up the cable - so unless you have sealant higher up and injected through all of the porosity I cannot see how sealant at (or around) the terminal does anything - except cosmetic.

If you took the cable end, before the terminal is attached, and soaked it in sealant - maybe under pressure? then I can see that the terminal is sealed, the sealnt would squeeze out - but I'm slightly sceptical of simply wiping anything on post connection.

I must be missing something.

close edit

Further edit

But it does not matter what you do, it does not matter what care you take, I suspect if you buy and new yacht and simply leave it for 15 years - the insurance company will still demand you replace the rigging.

Yet, as mentioned, they do not demand new chain plate bolts, no-one demands new keel bolts (or anything more than a casual inspection) - and rigging can last for decades and decades.

Yet we are told its statistical.

close edit

 

[temptress]

It is perhaps worth mentioning that my insurer is happy for the rig to be inspected every year by a pro rather than a 10 year replacement of all standing rigging. They even put that in writing, mind you I am with Pants who are more realistic than most.

Same here....

 

[DownWest]

Talking to some Canadian friends, who sailed on the Great Lakes, nobody paid much attention to the 10yr idea, as their boats were on the hard for half the year with the masts off. They reckoned that the fatigue was halved as the rigging was not subject to wind or other natural vibrations while stored.

 

[Kelpie]

I tend to think that damage is more likely to happen whilst stepping and unstepping the mast, and that this is when kinks and bends are likely to happen. I could be totally wrong, though, it's just a gut feeling.

I've heard of people slackening off their rig whilst ashore- probably the worst thing you can do!

 

[dunedin]

I tend to think that damage is more likely to happen whilst stepping and unstepping the mast, and that this is when kinks and bends are likely to happen. I could be totally wrong, though, it's just a gut feeling

Thanks my thinking also - wires much more subject to being pulled at the wrong angle and/or damaged during removal/refit and whilst lashed to a mast lying ashore than when left up

 

[Neeves]

I'd be interested to know where the wire comes from.

Different product - I have been testing shackles and find many do not meet specification. They are not unsafe as such - but you should get what is advertised. The failed shackles are imported by reputable companies from China.

The data was put to the importers. They immediately arranged for testing to be conducted, some in America and some in China. Unsurprisingly the results they achieved were within specification.

But it takes time for me to buy and then test shackles and the interval between me buying my shackles and them testing their shackles is around 9 months - one would think they came from different batches.

Without exception not one of the importers provided any QC data for the period when I bought my shackles - and they could have made a stab at the timing. I had fondly imagined that in with the shipping documents would be QC batch data that they could immediately pull out of their files. This did not eventuate.

The worry is - they do not conduct QC, or not as we know it, or the data actually showed the shackles for the period were out of spec. Note I am a cynic.

So returning to wire, where does it come from, who tests it (and more difficult - how is it tested?)

Rigging, generally last a long time, so any rigging requiring replacement now might be of 'western ' origin. Supply changes are increasingly rapid and it is possible wire now comes from China and its quality/longevity has not yet been tested. There is also the fear that wire might be bought on price.

Jonathan

 

[BabaYaga]

I tend to think that damage is more likely to happen whilst stepping and unstepping the mast, and that this is when kinks and bends are likely to happen. I could be totally wrong, though, it's just a gut feeling.

I've heard of people slackening off their rig whilst ashore- probably the worst thing you can do!

Thanks my thinking also - wires much more subject to being pulled at the wrong angle and/or damaged during removal/refit and whilst lashed to a mast lying ashore than when left up

I have now stepped and unstepped my mast 34 times in 34 years and must say that damage to the wires is what I have had least reason to worry about. More so about damage to the mast, including wind indicator, aerials and navigation lights... or to the boat (like dropping a spanner from 12 metres up)...
I guess it depends a lot on which method and what equipment you use for stepping/unstepping.
Up here, where this is an annual routine, there are mast cranes in virtually every marina. And they are normally operated by boat owners themselves, not by professional riggers.

Besides, leaving rig wire lashed to an aluminium mast over winter is not a good thing (to the mast).

 

[Kelpie]

Standard practice here is to lash the rigging to the mast, and if deck stepped this means protruding past the mast foot and dangling down. Leaving bottlescrews attached makes for more droop, more chance of things ending up on the ground etc. I just don't like the look of it and don't see the benefit.

 

[Kelpie]

I'd be interested to know where the wire comes from.

Jonathan

Me too. I asked this question recently on the forum and very little information appears to exist on standards and certification. In the absence of any information to distinguish them, it's tempting just to go for the cheapest.

 

[BabaYaga]

Standard practice here is to lash the rigging to the mast, and if deck stepped this means protruding past the mast foot and dangling down. Leaving bottlescrews attached makes for more droop, more chance of things ending up on the ground etc. I just don't like the look of it and don't see the benefit.

If that is indeed the practice, I can see your point.
However, unstepping the mast is a good opportunity for inspection and maintenance, which will save the boatowner a lot of money and trouble in the end.
Some good tips here, especially p.64 regarding winter storage.
http://www.seldenmast.com/files/1416926327/595-540-E.pdf

 

[JohnGC]

Many thanks for all of these replies and apologies for being slow to respond; I've been away for a while.

There has been a lot of comment about the use of ageing statistics by insurance companies. IE The 10 year replacement figure. But quite a few of us (me included) do not have this time limit imposed by our insurance companies. The requirement in these cases is for regular inspection or maintenance. I don't think anyone replying to this thread said their insurer insisted on the 10 year replacement. Maybe it isn't the wide ranging requirement I thought it was.

Statistical analysis is a great tool for determining the characteristics of a population; exactly what you need if you are an insurer. It is less useful as a guide for individual members of a population. Vyv states that there is no correlation with rig failure and age. At first sight the statement is at odds with statistics (and entropy). But Vyv is referring to the use of age to determine the state of an individual rig. Since the statistics take no account of use, abuse, quality or maintenance of individual rigs then they have little useful to say about them.

I think my comments about a programme of maintenance and renewal have been misunderstood (or more likely I didn't explain what I meant very well). What I don't mean, is a programme of replacing 1 or 2 parts of the rigging each year on a rolling programme. What I do mean is regular inspection, prompt adjustment, prompt repair and early replacement of parts found wanting. The next question for me is how I learn to do as much of that as possible myself. I plan to begin by asking the riggers when they replace my standing rigging in January.

John