Rigging life

Tranona said:
Doubt there is any serious research or information sharing. Rigging failure on cruising boats is rare and more commonly of fittings rather than wire. However I expect a common factor in claims is that the rig was over 10 years old. Not surprising because most boats are over 10 years old. This is an association, not necessarily a causal factor, but at some point a decision was taken based on the notion that is you stopped insuring over 10 year old rigs claims would reduce. Once that decision is taken it becomes "fact" and others follow. Doubt there has ever been any assessment that has actually happened. There are many prohibitions in our lives that come about for exactly this kind of thinking with absolutely no before and after evidence to support them.

Many years ago I supervised some research into investment decision making to find out how well actual outcomes marched the predictions on which the decisions were made. Unable to find any meaningful connection for 2 reasons. First lack of data and second the persons who made the decision were long gone and nobody current was interested.
Click to expand...

The research only need to be their own, and other insurance companies claim data - it is their business, so they don't need to look much past that. I agree it's probably not much more serious than that. The root cause of failure is probably not important to them, in other words it wouldn't matter if the mast fell down due to wire failure, fatigue due over/under-tensioning or a component failure - the end result is the same, and the claim will be submitted. We may care about those details but I doubt an underwriter does. There are exceptions to this, and I'm sure those who have exotic or experimental materials may have clauses in their contract to that effect.

Root cause analysis tends to happen when there are multiple instances of the same event, which is why insurers tend to share data but in terms of preventing claims on something that is hard (or impossible) to inspect beyond doubt leaves interpretation of historical data, and assumptions from "experts" their best line of defense.

They will also have assessors who are current or ex-surveyors, and there is enough information in the commercial realm regarding metal fatigue and failure that they can draw a defendable reason for their decisions.

Note these are their decisions - they only need to have enough of a risk to make it stack up on a spreadsheet. I'm not saying I agree with it, or don't. I was just saying that I can understand the thought process.
 
I checked the report, the reason the guy gives for wanting a hull anode fitted is that he found evidence that there may have been one fitted before.
 
I lost a couple of strands in some dinghy shrouds this Summer, I think they about 15 years old and will have spent 98% of their life not very tight, as the rig tension goes on with the jib.
I think there is some substance behind rigging fatigue and/or corrosion causing failure some time in its teenage years?
Funny stuff that 'stainless'.
 
Quandary said:
And how does storing the rig in a loft for six months every year contribute to rust or work hardening?
Click to expand...
I wasn't judging either way, just pointing out that the assumption that taking the rigging off makes it less likely to fail is not based on anything useful. Obviously the storage won't contribute, but bending the wires and fittings into coils certainly will while tensioned rigging will not. I wouldn't dream of coiling my battery cable and bending the lugs every year, rigging wire is more hardy but the science is identical. As I also said, none of this matters given that the industry has decided 10 years is a thing whether we all agree or not, that's just the way it is.
 
Quandary said:
I used to winter our Sigma38 ashore with the mast up occasionally, when we were comissioning our Finngulf which replaced it, I slept (or lay) aboard one night on the cradle at Largs with the mast rigged, there was a summer gale and the vibration was horrendous, seemed as if the hull was going to shake off the keel, I resolved never to subject a boat to that again.
Click to expand...
But if you had kept your Finngulf afloat all year round with mast up, it would have been absolutely fine in a sheltered place like Tarbert, as boat and rig designed to be on water. And would have saved masses of wasted effort in dropping and restepping mast (plus boom, rigging, sails etc). Most of our boats will outlast us, so makes no sense to lift ashore each winter as a job creation scheme :)
I certainly came to the conclusion that removing the rig caused more wear and tear than leaving up.
 
Having the boat ashore outside my windows in winter was a great luxury for me because I enjoyed not having to get in the car to visit it, it got a lot of attention, here on Loch Gilp we use a crane which come up from Motherwell twice a year controlling the timing of the lift and requiring the mast come down, we all do it in the Club here, the moorings are vacant in winter. In Carrickfergus with a travel hoist the boat came out for a few weeks in early spring and was used for the rest of the time , the mast stayed up but that was before I was shaken and stirred at Largs. It is a question of location.
 
Quandary, it sounds like you have looked after your rigging impeccably. I would be very happy to have a boat where the owner has taken such care.

10 years is just a fact, the prospective owner can make of it what they will.
Many insurance companies seem more interested in how the thing is looked after and inspected rather than random times or dates. 10 years seems to have entered the realm of urban mythology.

I would have the furling foil off though and look at that stay with fixed attention - I must admit that I do tend to replace it at about 10 years, though this is largely because I don't have the mast down too often.

.
 
Moodysailor said:
The research only need to be their own, and other insurance companies claim data - it is their business, so they don't need to look much past that. I agree it's probably not much more serious than that. The root cause of failure is probably not important to them, in other words it wouldn't matter if the mast fell down due to wire failure, fatigue due over/under-tensioning or a component failure - the end result is the same, and the claim will be submitted. We may care about those details but I doubt an underwriter does. There are exceptions to this, and I'm sure those who have exotic or experimental materials may have clauses in their contract to that effect.

Root cause analysis tends to happen when there are multiple instances of the same event, which is why insurers tend to share data but in terms of preventing claims on something that is hard (or impossible) to inspect beyond doubt leaves interpretation of historical data, and assumptions from "experts" their best line of defense.

They will also have assessors who are current or ex-surveyors, and there is enough information in the commercial realm regarding metal fatigue and failure that they can draw a defendable reason for their decisions.

Note these are their decisions - they only need to have enough of a risk to make it stack up on a spreadsheet. I'm not saying I agree with it, or don't. I was just saying that I can understand the thought process.
Click to expand...
See you agree with me - there is probably no hard evidence that rigging over 10 years old is more likely to fail than under. If that was indeed the case then insurers would demand replacement at 10 years as a condition of renewing cover - and they don't. It only happens when a new application is received, usually on purchasing a new boat. So if the rigging is 8 years old there is no condition and insurance could then continue for years until either the boat changes hands or it is old enough to require a complete new survey.

As doug 748 says later - it is an urban myth with no documented support.
 
Tranona said:
See you agree with me - there is probably no hard evidence that rigging over 10 years old is more likely to fail than under. If that was indeed the case then insurers would demand replacement at 10 years as a condition of renewing cover - and they don't. It only happens when a new application is received, usually on purchasing a new boat. So if the rigging is 8 years old there is no condition and insurance could then continue for years until either the boat changes hands or it is old enough to require a complete new survey.

As doug 748 says later - it is an urban myth with no documented support.
Click to expand...

I never said I didn't agree with you - I merely said I understand where the insurance companies are coming from. Boats are a passionate and personal thing for the owners, risk insurance is a data game for the underwriter.

Neither of us have first hand experience from within the insurance industry so we are just sharing opinion, there is no need to try and claim a 'win'. It is a discussion forum after all, we are all allowed our own opinions.
 
From a theoretical point of view, fatigue of wire shrouds is far more likely to occur in the outer strands than in the centre. Cyclic motion causes greater displacement at the OD of the wire bundle, assuming all the fittings are in line and fair. The restraint provided by the swaged fitting or possibly by the spreader contact increases the stress locally, so this is the most likely failure point.
 
vyv_cox said:
From a theoretical point of view, fatigue of wire shrouds is far more likely to occur in the outer strands than in the centre. Cyclic motion causes greater displacement at the OD of the wire bundle, assuming all the fittings are in line and fair. The restraint provided by the swaged fitting or possibly by the spreader contact increases the stress locally, so this is the most likely failure point.
Click to expand...
All the failed dinghy shrouds I've seen, and that's quite a few, have failed at the top or bottom, never seen one fail at the spreader..
Which isn't what one might expect, as the bend at the spreader changes every tack etc etc.
 
I’m just going through the standing rigging replacement process at the moment . My standing rigging is 20 years old , not sure about it sailing history , a recent inspection highlighted several “ misaligned cap shrouds “ so , for peace of mind I’m having all of the rigging replaced . I’m new to boat ownership so I’ve googled and asked more experienced salts for their advice / opinions . To unstep the mast , replace the standing rigging , re step the mast dock tune and pin etc , £2900 , this will be carried out in Suffolk . I’ve spent lots of time looking for approximate prices for a 30 foot masthead sloop , forestay, baby stay , upper and lower shrouds , 4 in total and 2 backstays. 35 foot mast But to no avail . Hopefully this will add to the wealth of accurate information on this excellent forum , and give others a idea of potential cost of boat ownership .
 
I feel the urge to make comment on rigging wire life. From experience of mine and friends rigging that failed. it does seem like a time related failure mode of rigging wire in and at the entrance to the swage. Especially the bottom swage. It is not effected by racing the boat or the rigging being stored for winter off the boat.
Rigging wire can not be assessed by NDT or visual inspection. It fails without warning and IMHO replacement at 15 years is the onl;y safe approach. ol'will
 
Tasape said:
I’m just going through the standing rigging replacement process at the moment . My standing rigging is 20 years old , not sure about it sailing history , a recent inspection highlighted several “ misaligned cap shrouds “ so , for peace of mind I’m having all of the rigging replaced . I’m new to boat ownership so I’ve googled and asked more experienced salts for their advice / opinions . To unstep the mast , replace the standing rigging , re step the mast dock tune and pin etc , £2900 , this will be carried out in Suffolk . I’ve spent lots of time looking for approximate prices for a 30 foot masthead sloop , forestay, baby stay , upper and lower shrouds , 4 in total and 2 backstays. 35 foot mast But to no avail . Hopefully this will add to the wealth of accurate information on this excellent forum , and give others a idea of potential cost of boat ownership .
Click to expand...
I replaced my rigging on a 35footer this year with new 8mm wire from s3i. Cost less than half the figure you have mentioned. The yard dropped the mast. And stood it afterwards...this allowed me to rewire it and work on the mast head sheeves.
Whatever you do change the toggles at the top.
 
pandos said:
I replaced my rigging on a 35footer this year with new 8mm wire from s3i. Cost less than half the figure you have mentioned. The yard dropped the mast. And stood it afterwards...this allowed me to rewire it and work on the mast head sheeves.
Whatever you do change the toggles at the top.
Click to expand...
The boatyard are doing ALL of the work pandos .
 
Quandary said:
I am selling our Moody and the standing rigging while clean sound and well supported is approx 10 years old. (during which time the boat has not been raced and is only in commission for 6 months each year, in winter the mast is moused and wire and bottle screws loosely coiled and stored in our garage loft with the sails etc.). In my description I stated that I would have been happy to continue to inspect each year for up to about 15 years taking account of the light use, is a purchaser entitled to demand it be replaced?
Click to expand...

absolutley not! You are selling a used yacht which the buyer will have surveyed and make an offer to you based upon their own decision, informed by the survey.
Whatever you do, just sell the boat. Don’t offer to change anything, get anything certified nor offer to guarantee the life of anything like rigging.
 
langstonelayabout said:
absolutley not! You are selling a used yacht which the buyer will have surveyed and make an offer to you based upon their own decision, informed by the survey.
Whatever you do, just sell the boat. Don’t offer to change anything, get anything certified nor offer to guarantee the life of anything like rigging.
Click to expand...

Agree with what you say but, it may be worth having a rig survey (depending on cost) before any buyer's surveyor comes along, they tend to make silly comments like - the rig is 10 years old and I've only checked it at deck level - which leaves doubt in purchasers mind about whether it should be replaced.
 
Graham376 said:
Agree with what you say but, it may be worth having a rig survey (depending on cost) before any buyer's surveyor comes along, they tend to make silly comments like - the rig is 10 years old and I've only checked it at deck level - which leaves doubt in purchasers mind about whether it should be replaced.
Click to expand...

Thats a normal survey caveat that everyone gets in a survey. The surveyor will probably recommend you get a full rig survey from a rigger and an engine survey from an engineer. But if you get either of these surveys done as the boat vendor the veracity can be challenged and also the surveyor won’t consider the survey to be the property of the potential buyer.

as has been previously mentioned, just sell the boat. Don’t spend any money on it other than cleaning and tidying. Declutter,, clean, make sure it is dry and sell it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top