Rig Tension - exceptions?

[global_odyssey]

Last weekend I tensioned our main mast rigging and got up to about 10 to 12% of the wire's breaking strain (according to the gauge). This feels about right - I'm sure any more tension would fold the boat in half!

I'm assuming the recommended figures of between 15 - 20% are for hi-tech racing machines.

However, on our small mizzen (a fore and aft wire per side to the masthead and 1 half-height lower per side to prevent forward movement of the middle section, no spreaders) I can manage hardly any tension at all (according to the gauge) until there is a tendency for the compression to bend the mast backwards in the middle.
This is instantly worsened when the slack on the lowers is taken up pulling the mast backwards.

Can I assume that hardly any tension is required on these lower stays - they are just there to prevent the middle of the mast moving forwards under sail load, at which point they will be under tension?

Can I also assume the upper stays on a short mast dont require particularly high tension either? I'm sure this would simply cause damage!

Any answers would be much appreciated, especially from anyone who has done the same to their Nantucket Clipper or similar mizzen

<hr width=100% size=1>I've got wind......................
...............................in my sails!

 

[Mizzenrabble]

This may not be very helpful, but if you sail the upper reaches of the Blackwater you may get stuck in the mud and have ample time to contemplate your rigging tension whilst you wait for the tide.

Please refer to my earlier post regarding Mud!

I'm having a very muddy day. I've got it all over the car, my clothes, the kitchen, the hallway, and my dinghy.

You clearly don't have enough mud in your life. Perhaps I should move house to somewhere with less mud.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[boatless]

How strange...

Agree with part 1, if it feels right, it generally is.

Part 2 though. If I was given the mast and boat with no shrouds I would have used the 6 chainplates for 2 aft cap shrouds and a pair of aft and pair of fwd lowers...

That not being the case, designer must have meant to resist some forward load. The only forward loads are from the boom at the gooseneck and from 'panting' in waves. I'd choose panting, and therefore say that you are correct in going for minimum tension.

But, there was never a half height triatic attacment maybe? Or a half height mizzen staysail?

<hr width=100% size=1>