Mast Problem another candidate for the Darwin award

[zoidberg]

By chance I was pointed towards a brief article in the online 'Practical Sailor' publication, which often has valuable insights to share. I'll reproduce some of the text as it has relevance...

My Alado furler system was installed for 3 years on my Newport 27 and the 3/16” forestay (purchased separately at the same time) snapped near the top of the bottom turnbuckle while under way ( that's 4.78mm in metric ). The fact that the system contains its own halyard system is not more advanced that the other systems that use a masthead forestay. Since the system is essentially floating on your forestay, the lateral weight caused by furling and winds on the jib are being forced upon the fittings at the top of the mast and right above the turnbuckle on the bow. On conventional furling systems the masthead halyard tightens the luff tape on the jib which helps to take some of the side loading. Stainless steel is strong when tensioned, but can break like a paperclip under constant side loads, which is exactly what happened to mine. Luckily everyone on the boat was safe and I was able to recover everything.
Kevin Cerini

As you point out, Alado’s integral halyard design has its drawbacks (see “PS Tests the Alado Jib Furler,” PS December 2008), but it offers an affordable alternative to conventional designs and a few advantages to the DIY installer. Integral halyard furlers like the Alado and CDI have a long history of use, particularly on boats in the under 35-foot range—but we’d look at more conventional designs for more rigorous offshore work. The furler we installed for our report never gave us a problem over six years of testing but your experience raises questions. As you mention, the integral halyard setup means the halyard/luff tape does not relieve headstay tension as it does on a conventional furler. In our experience, as long as there is adequate backstay tension, properly sized hardware, and free movement in the toggles and turnbuckles, the integral halyard design should not result in harmful side-loading. Several other factors may have contributed to the failure, including fatigue (which can happen at the dock), corrosion (often invisible), or a material defect. Clean breaks near the terminal like the one you describe also occurred our straight-pull testing of wire terminals, so side-loading isn’t the only possible culprit (see “Mechanical Terminal Pull Test,” PS April 2017). The chief advantage of the integral halyard system is that it can be installed fairly easily by the do-it-yourselfer—but the latest generation of conventional furlers have also simplified their installation (see “Genoa Furler Refit: a Semi-DIY Project,” PS October 2019)

I draw no conclusions, other than to note my own boat is similar in size/displacement and that I've installed 7mm s/s wire on all standing rigging. I also will not take it to sea without toggles on the ends of every bit I suspect may need 'em.... despite what experience some riggers and contributors wish to offer.

I've learned the hard way.

 

[Refueler]

By chance I was pointed towards a brief article in the online 'Practical Sailor' publication, which often has valuable insights to share. I'll reproduce some of the text as it has relevance...



I draw no conclusions, other than to note my own boat is similar in size/displacement and that I've installed 7mm s/s wire on all standing rigging. I also will not take it to sea without toggles on the ends of every bit I suspect may need 'em.... despite what experience some riggers and contributors wish to offer.

I've learned the hard way.

Fine ... but first thing that comes to my mind .. a hanked on foresail puts forces on a forestay in many directions .... but rarely do you see one give way.
Back to Plastimo etc - My own view is that even though the chain plates are more than strong enough for the job - despite some posters claims - I am reluctant to have forestay pinned to them. I much prefer the stay to be fastened to the stemhead .. so furler does not have to carry all the tension.

 

[Praxinoscope]

Fine ... but first thing that comes to my mind .. a hanked on foresail puts forces on a forestay in many directions .... but rarely do you see one give way.
Back to Plastimo etc - My own view is that even though the chain plates are more than strong enough for the job - despite some posters claims - I am reluctant to have forestay pinned to them. I much prefer the stay to be fastened to the stemhead .. so furler does not have to carry all the tension.

The tension on the furler doesn’t take all the tension if the forestay is pinned to the chainplates, the primary tension is between first hole of the chain plate which is pinned to the stem head, and the holes to which the forestay is pinned, the furling gear is above these points so tension should not change on the furling gear.

 

[ghostlymoron]

What's a Darwin award?

 

[Praxinoscope]

What's a Darwin award?

It was a thread maybe a couple of year ago, awarded to those who didn’t engage brain before doing something, hence Darwin Award for ‘lack of evolved intelligence’.
Maybe someone else can explain it better.

 

[ctva]

It's a bigger than YBW thing...

Darwin Awards: Logic Rules!

 

[AngusMcDoon]

Back to Plastimo etc - My own view is that even though the chain plates are more than strong enough for the job - despite some posters claims - I am reluctant to have forestay pinned to them. I much prefer the stay to be fastened to the stemhead.

 

[AngusMcDoon]

The tension on the furler doesn’t take all the tension if the forestay is pinned to the chainplates, the primary tension is between first hole of the chain plate which is pinned to the stem head, and the holes to which the forestay is pinned, the furling gear is above these points so tension should not change on the furling gear.

I would summarise it as this...

1) If used as in the picture in #23 then they are strong enough for the life of the boat. They take little load. Fit & forget.

2) If used as shown in the picture in #17 they are strong enough subject to 2 provisos...
2.1) If they get bent, most likely during mast raising or lowering, replace them.
2.2) When the forestay is replaced, replace them regardless, because they are effectively part of the forestay

 

[vyv_cox]

I would summarise it as this...

1) If used as in the picture in #23 then they are strong enough for the life of the boat. They take little load. Fit & forget.

2) If used as shown in the picture in #17 they are strong enough subject to 2 provisos...
2.1) If they get bent, most likely during mast raising or lowering, replace them.
2.2) When the forestay is replaced, replace them regardless, because they are effectively part of the forestay

I have been trying to find a decent photo of my Facnor furler and forestay attachment but this is the best I have come up with. The arrangement is as the picture #17 but I think Facnor's 'Meccano' may be thicker. The clevis pin whose head can just be seen holds the forestay, two or three holes up from attachment of the strips to the stem fitting.

 

[Refueler]

The advantage of fastening forestay to stemhead instead of to chainplates - is you can unfasten chainplates from stemhead and raise complete furler to do any maintenance, without having to think about mast now has no forestay taking load.

"AngusMcDoon" ... you can post as many laughter smilies as you like ... doesn't change fact that a) its valid method actually stated by Plastimo ... b) allows more flexibility in any work needed ... c) allows an existing forestay arrangement to continue to be used when changing from hanked to furling.

 

[Refueler]

The tension on the furler doesn’t take all the tension if the forestay is pinned to the chainplates, the primary tension is between first hole of the chain plate which is pinned to the stem head, and the holes to which the forestay is pinned, the furling gear is above these points so tension should not change on the furling gear.

Yes - OK splitting hairs .... I regard the chainplates for be a part of the furler overall.

 

[Praxinoscope]

The advantage of fastening forestay to stemhead instead of to chainplates - is you can unfasten chainplates from stemhead and raise complete furler to do any maintenance, without having to think about mast now has no forestay taking load.

"AngusMcDoon" ... you can post as many laughter smilies as you like ... doesn't change fact that a) its valid method actually stated by Plastimo ... b) allows more flexibility in any work needed ... c) allows an existing forestay arrangement to continue to be used when changing from hanked to furling.

sorry don’t quite get your point re fastening forestay and chainplate to the stemhead, as it is on mine but incorrectly fitted at the moment, if it is fastened in that way you still have t remove the clevis pin completely to remove the chainplates so your mast will still be unsupported until clevis pin replaced.
Anyway wouldn’t dream of undoing the forestay without using the spinnaker halyard as a temporary forestay, so mast would not be without some form of support.

 

[VicS]

sorry don’t quite get your point re fastening forestay and chainplate to the stemhead, as it is on mine but incorrectly fitted at the moment, if it is fastened in that way you still have t remove the clevis pin completely to remove the chainplates so your mast will still be unsupported until clevis pin replaced.
Anyway wouldn’t dream of undoing the forestay without using the spinnaker halyard as a temporary forestay, so mast would not be without some form of support.

He has a stud with a nut on each end rather than a simple clevis pin.
He can remove the nuts and take the side plates off leaving the forestay bottlescrew still attached while carrying out whatever maintenance is needed

All this bs about how to fix the forestay and furler to the stem head but are you any closer to getting an answer to your real question about getting some forward bend in the mast?

 

[Refueler]

sorry don’t quite get your point re fastening forestay and chainplate to the stemhead, as it is on mine but incorrectly fitted at the moment, if it is fastened in that way you still have t remove the clevis pin completely to remove the chainplates so your mast will still be unsupported until clevis pin replaced.
Anyway wouldn’t dream of undoing the forestay without using the spinnaker halyard as a temporary forestay, so mast would not be without some form of support.

That is why my setup is fastened by threaded stud bar and not clevis pin. I can remove nut each side and chainplates are easily disconnected - with stud bar still carrying forestay.

VicS is correct - it does not answer how to correct mast.

Question .... how much tension is on babystays ? On Cap shrouds ? THEY can actually induce curve if stays are not balanced fore / aft ... or to wrong direction ...

Think on it ... the mast could be made to curve opposite way or less by adjusting babystays ..... as long as masthead remains in same position related to fore and backstays. The only consideration to get mast to move through the upright to opposite curve - is that tension cap shrouds along with fore and backstays are slacked slightly .. if forestay cannot be slacked ... then backstays alone can suffice.

 

[vyv_cox]

All this bs about how to fix the forestay and furler to the stem head but are you any closer to getting an answer to your real question about getting some forward bend in the mast?

I have been assuming that once the mast was raked aft by connecting the forestay two holes up, the babystay would come into action and pull the mast forward.

 

[Praxinoscope]

Hi Vyv, sorry no baby stay on the Sadler 25, introduced on the Sadler 32 and 29.
Would be a lot easier if there was a baby stay.
But yes the mast will rake correctly when I shift the forestay up two holes on the chainplates, ad you said in #3.
Just waiting for combination of light wind, tide out and availability of ‘willing helper’, looks like Thursday may be when we can do it.

 

[Refueler]

Interesting ... have spent last period scouring various online articles / photos of Sadler 25 ... and yes ... no babystays ... just cap shroud at sides.... with some showing single babystay from same deck fastening as caps

I cannot help but wonder ... Sadler 25 is not a new boat ... so why now has this problem appeared ?

Second - if a plumb bob is suspended from masthead - where would bob be in relation to mast foot ?

 

[Praxinoscope]

Refueler.
Problem is a sort of serial, boat is not new to me but bought early in 2019 shipped on artic’from other side of U.K., so mast was obviously not erected, until it arrived here, all’s seemed fine for the rest of the season, we dropped mast in winter of 2019 intending to do some work on the head, then Covid, so 2020 not launched, then local council who run the harbour decreed no craning of boats in 2021 so first time since 2019 mast has been erected, and this is where I should have engaged brain before action, missed the point that the forestay had been connected to the chainplates two holes up and connected chainplates and forestay through bottom hole as can be seen in the early photo’s.
Spent half of this season trying to work out why couldn’t get mast to rake correctly and lose the slight bow aft at cross tree level.
Sudden dawning of my stupidity when the penny finally dropped that the forestay was in the wrong hole for this particular boat, and by raising it up I get the made rake I want.

 

[VicS]

Hi Vyv, sorry no baby stay on the Sadler 25, introduced on the Sadler 32 and 29.
Would be a lot easier if there was a baby stay.
But yes the mast will rake correctly when I shift the forestay up two holes on the chainplates, ad you said in #3.
Just waiting for combination of light wind, tide out and availability of ‘willing helper’, looks like Thursday may be when we can do it.

Like Refueler I have been studying photos of Sadler 25s and noted the absence of a baby stay or forward lowers, either of which would induce the required bend.

I notice that the single pair of lowers is attached to the same deck fittings as the caps.
Are the deck fittings exactly in line with the mast or are they slightly aft of it.
If they are aft ( and the spreaders swept slightly aft) tightening the caps ( while the lowers are still slack) will induce the forward mast bend you require .
The lowers are then tightened to limit this and adjusted to ensure there is no lateral bend .

My boat has the caps aft of the mast and aft swept spreaders. "Dinghy rig " they call it in the yard!

Refueler.
Problem is a sort of serial, boat is not new to me but bought early in 2019 shipped on artic’from other side of U.K., so mast was obviously not erected, until it arrived here, all’s seemed fine for the rest of the season, we dropped mast in winter of 2019 intending to do some work on the head, then Covid, so 2020 not launched, then local council who run the harbour decreed no craning of boats in 2021 so first time since 2019 mast has been erected, and this is where I should have engaged brain before action, missed the point that the forestay had been connected to the chainplates two holes up and connected chainplates and forestay through bottom hole as can be seen in the early photo’s.
Spent half of this season trying to work out why couldn’t get mast to rake correctly and lose the slight bow aft at cross tree level.
Sudden dawning of my stupidity when the penny finally dropped that the forestay was in the wrong hole for this particular boat, and by raising it up I get the made rake I want.

I dont see how raking the mast either way will affect the mast bend, There is nothing to influence the fore/aft position at spreader height unless the shrouds go aft of the mast as explained above

 

[Praxinoscope]

Vyv

yes both the uppers and lowers are marginally aft of the mast on the 25, so if the forestay is not correct ( a Point we now accept, tightening the lowers not only straightens the mast laterally (if needed) the also introduce a pull astern causing th mast to perform an ‘inverse’ bend.
With the forestay re-fitted two holes up the chainplates this should alleviate the aft pull of the lowers and hey presto the rake should be correct with no inverse bend.
Of course I could be wrong and this won’t cure it, but I do feel reasonably confident that this will solve the problem.