DJE
Well-known member
Titanium - really? If you don't like stainless then go back to good old galvanised mild steel.
Should regulations be introduced for masts and rigging in the leisure market?
- Thread starter Concerto
- Start date
Supertramp
Well-known member
Completely agree with you. For someone without 50000 miles under their belt I am still left wondering whether to replace rigging at 10, 12, 15, 20 years or whether if it looks OK it probably is OK. When I wasn't sailing 50000 miles, I did learn the benefit of preventative maintenance, increasingly linked to high tech assessment techniques to "get inside" moving parts and structures. And I agree that increased control and legislation is unlikely to help me as an individual. If I was setting off round the world I would consider replacing my chain plates. For local coastal sailing I wouldn't. Unless rust appears....
robtoujours
New member
Are you trolling or just ignorant?
If the latter then there is information available using any search engine.
The obvious benefit is for older boats where long term crevice corrosion is an issue and a higher degree of safety is required, eg offshore cruising. The costs are 30-40% higher than 316, which may or may not be worth it. Mine are all external, so I wouldn’t need more than 316 if I were to replace them. Bronze is another option.
Know-how: Chainplate Replacement
Haven’t heard of any Ti related failures as alluded to by others, which I suspect is also BS hearsay.
Daydream believer
Well-known member
So your point is????
Daydream believer
Well-known member
Many years ago I saw 2 breaks in the same day. It was a gaffers race & I saw the mizzen on a Thames barge go over the side. Shortly after I saw the sprit ( Is that the term) in the topsail of another break. I understand 2 broke that day. It was quite a mess of ropes & an exciting moment to watch. The crews, however, coped admiraly; as if breaking the topsail bit was a common occurance; although I am not so sure about that. I do recall sailing on a barge many years later & seeing it bend quite alarmingly, though so one might assume they may have broken often in their commercial days when the boats were being pushed too hard.
I wonder how the OP's surveyor would have got on issuing his licence for the rigging on those boats prior to the race
I wonder how the OP's surveyor would have got on issuing his licence for the rigging on those boats prior to the race
Mark-1
Well-known member
Not the friendliest of tones for your sixth post on the forum....
Kelpie
Well-known member
I think the point is that the rigging on a boat can experience very different levels of stress. An undercanvassed and heavily rigged westerly is putting less strain on its rig than an AWB with a bigger sailplan and skinnier wires. So it's quite arbitrary to put a ten year lifespan on both.
Environmental factors come in to it too. Warm and salty environments are worse than cold freshwater ones.
But in general I concur with the observation that rig failures are almost always related to missing or poorly installed components. The two I have seen (neither of them my own boat) both involved a lost clevis pin. That could happen to a rig at any age.
lustyd
Well-known member
Tranona
Well-known member
That design is notorious for poor aspects of design and construction, particularly the chain plates. A video was posted here recently of a live mast collapse on one in Thailand caused by a chain plate pulling out having failed at the point it passed through the deck. Sailing Kittiwake also had chain plate failure on their Tayana with the plate pulling away from the hull. They replaced with external stainless plates bolted through the solid hull.
You are right, older boats, as I pointed out earlier often have poorly designed and constructed chain plate systems, not helped by passing them through first teak, then cored GRP to internal ply webs or bulkheads and sealing the top with poor quality sealant. Just reflects the technology of the times. The unfortunate thing is that such arrangements were most common on up market boats aimed at the offshore and bluewater markets where their inadequacies are well tested. Fortunately most designers and builders learned quickly and this is now yesterday's problem, although of course these boats are still in active use so owners will still need to be aware of the issues.
The important point, though is that these problems only relate to a tiny minority of boats in use and does not provide any justification for some kind of regulations or compulsory inspections. Much the same as the fuss about keel security which only affects a tiny minority of boats and in very specific circumstances. The vast majority of boats will never experience either keel problems or mast loss so the sensible thing is to insure against the risk of such a rare event, while taking precautions about the known factors that increase the risk. That is what insurance is for and it is a much more effective way of managing the consequences of such rare events.
Daydream believer
Well-known member
Any material will fail if its fatigue level is exceeded during its designed life, so your link does not actually prove anything, other than its installation should be subject to correct design assessment. Similar situations probably occur with SS rod rigging which need consideration earlier than some owners might like
Caraway
Well-known member
I don't remember any reference to MOTs in The Art of Coarse Sailing.
Sandy
Well-known member
As a youngster I had a mast snap! One of the reasons I refuse to get in a dinghy these days, although getting a wet arse is my primary reason.
Personally, I've had the rigging replaced after 10 years. I used Allspars in Plymouth; it was an education walking round the mast with Andy as he spotted several 'creative fixes' to make things fit that the previous riggers did. The takeaway for me was find a rigger than you can trust and let them cast their expert eye over the standing rigging.
I am not in favour of regulation, as a boat that is taken out in a F3 on a sunny day will have nothing like the forces placed on it as a boat in a F7> over several days on an ocean passage.
Personally, I've had the rigging replaced after 10 years. I used Allspars in Plymouth; it was an education walking round the mast with Andy as he spotted several 'creative fixes' to make things fit that the previous riggers did. The takeaway for me was find a rigger than you can trust and let them cast their expert eye over the standing rigging.
I am not in favour of regulation, as a boat that is taken out in a F3 on a sunny day will have nothing like the forces placed on it as a boat in a F7> over several days on an ocean passage.
flaming
Well-known member
I always find these threads about encroaching legislation enlightening.
Mostly because it quickly becomes clear to me that we're already doing far more than the people proposing the legislation are suggesting, and the usual suspects are railing against.
Our rig is inspected and serviced by a professional rigger every winter, and on occasion during the season too if we have any particular suspicions. For example one year we had a really nasty gybe broach in 30kts, much more violent than usual, and so as a precaution we had the rig inspected. A hidden kink in the mast side wall was found under the mast boot and the bottom section had to be replaced. No inspection and that rig probably would have snapped at deck level and come down one windy day that year.
About every other winter it gets a full removal and thorough fettling, which with the new boat's carbon stick includes any re-lacquering necessary. Standing rigging is replaced as and when necessary, though I don't think any of it has ever made it past about 7 years.
And at slightly longer intervals this was the case with my Dad's cruising boat as well. Don't think we ever went more than 3 seasons without a rigger involved.
I find it rather odd that people who are doing any sort of serious miles, or stressing the rig with racing, wouldn't regard this as simply necessary.
Not convinced it needs legislating for, but the inspection regime being proposed is at the low end of what I would ever accept on any boat I was going to do anything serious in.
Mostly because it quickly becomes clear to me that we're already doing far more than the people proposing the legislation are suggesting, and the usual suspects are railing against.
Our rig is inspected and serviced by a professional rigger every winter, and on occasion during the season too if we have any particular suspicions. For example one year we had a really nasty gybe broach in 30kts, much more violent than usual, and so as a precaution we had the rig inspected. A hidden kink in the mast side wall was found under the mast boot and the bottom section had to be replaced. No inspection and that rig probably would have snapped at deck level and come down one windy day that year.
About every other winter it gets a full removal and thorough fettling, which with the new boat's carbon stick includes any re-lacquering necessary. Standing rigging is replaced as and when necessary, though I don't think any of it has ever made it past about 7 years.
And at slightly longer intervals this was the case with my Dad's cruising boat as well. Don't think we ever went more than 3 seasons without a rigger involved.
I find it rather odd that people who are doing any sort of serious miles, or stressing the rig with racing, wouldn't regard this as simply necessary.
Not convinced it needs legislating for, but the inspection regime being proposed is at the low end of what I would ever accept on any boat I was going to do anything serious in.
Biggles Wader
Well-known member
The real issue here as always would be mission creep. Set up a system of compulsory inspection and you require full regulation of all those craft affected. This costs money and boaters would have to pay for it. Once that genie is out of the bottle every time there is an issue there will be calls for the regime to be expanded to cover wider areas and costs will be applied to the boaters accordingly. I cant see much in the way of upsides to this.
Fanny Haddock
N/A
The point being that even if you introduce a requirement for annual inspections, an MOB inspection, people will always work ways around it.
flaming
Well-known member
You don't really need regulation of craft for this. You just need insurance companies to require the inspections before they cover the boat. In theory that could mean a reduction in premiums. Probably offset by the cost of the inspection for those who have never considered such a thing, but rather welcome by those who have been doing this anyway....
Which when you consider who it is that is making the suggestion rather looks like the direction of travel.
Biggles Wader
Well-known member
We already have something like that with most insurance companies requiring a survey every few years or with every new policy, at least for anything more than third party risk. They could get much more rigorous over their requirements if they wanted to but my reading of it is that they want legislation and regulation to make that decision for them. Be careful what you wish for-----you might get more than you wish for.
dom
Well-known member
The trouble is that it can be quite hard to obtain a rigging assessment on rigs over 10-years old without a boiler plate recommendation to replace.
It's worth spending a bit of time finding someone who is prepared to do this in advance of commissioning them.
Kelpie
Well-known member
It's not much good for those of us whose nearest rigger is several hours away. I'd be looking at probably a day of travel time and an overnight stay before I'd even paid the rigger to go anywhere near the boat. Not something I'm going to fork out on on a whim.
I've also heard of too many people being let down by the professionals. Certainly my experience of surveyors has been mixed.
I've also heard of too many people being let down by the professionals. Certainly my experience of surveyors has been mixed.
Tranona
Well-known member
That will all be solved by setting national standards along with NVQs and upwards with a national scale of charges (extra charges for home visits and travelling time for more than 1km from base), an on line computer system to record the results and fines for non compliance. Supply of certificated riggers will expand rapidly along with a compulsory trade association. Plus of course compulsory fitment of titanium chain plates. You heard it here first.
All to solve a non existent problem.
