Masthead arrangement for gaff rig with fidded topmast

[Stephen]

I have to build new hounds trestle trees and bolsters and yoke for the mast - a gaff rig with a fidded topmast.
The existing masthead is falling apart, and is no longer close to being a traditional layout due to past efforts at keeping her going - so there's not much there for me to copy or pattern off of.
I also want to clean things up aloft and get rid of some unwanted weight. I can easily knock off about 80-100 lbs by doing a well planned re-rig.

I'm looking for some pictures of traditional gaff rig mastheads with a fidded topmast. Ones that would clearly show some construction details for all these parts. Do you have any detailed pictures of other English workboats' mastheads?
I have Leather's 'Gaff Rig'. That's been the most help so far. Also Cunliffe's Hand Reef and Steer.
Seems hard to find some decent close up pictures of what I'm looking for.

In particular I need to see how a yoke goes together and supports a spreader.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Thee and me both, although in my case Ed Burnett advises me not to try it.

There are fairly clear drawings in John Leather's "Gaff Rig", as I recall. However,

Smacksman's website is brilliant for photos of details (http://www.alberta-ck318.freeserve.co.uk/)

here is a picture from it: http://www.alberta-ck318.freeserve.co.uk/image70.jpg

I find Smacksman's solutiom to the "topmast fid problem" quite brilliant, and a nice piece of engineering.

[ 07-05-2005, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: Andrew Craig-Bennett ]

[George.]

Andrew's picture is almost exactly Dalia's setup - works very well, and is lean and light. I'll see if I have a good picture of it on file.

[George.]

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid176/pfa42c4bca566c0573daeff40f613c636/f36740e1.jpg

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Very impressive, George!

[Stephen]

Thanks guys - exactly what I'm looking for.
In the first pic from the smack website:
Do you think there is a steel plate on the yoke or is the yoke itself sufficient?
And the yoke is just two pieces running fore and aft, correct?
Is there a preference to whether the forestay passes inside or forward of the spreaders? I could rest the soft eye of it on the throat halyard crane or a peak halyard bolt further up to achieve either lead. It was previously on a thumb cleat - but this was rotted out.
Do you think you could stand on those spreaders without standing lifts to the mast cap?
Andrew, why has Ed warned against you trying anything?
George - nice leather work and serving. Do you have bolsters fitted under your shroud eyes? Your forestay passes inside the spreaders, correct? Where are you going to hang your staysail halyard block?

[George.]

The shrouds have Flemish eyes with aluminum "sleeves" (bolsters?) to make sure. They were fitted by the manufacturer.

On the lower ends, around the deadeyes, I made Flemish eyes myself, and finished them off with stainless wire seizings.

There is no forestay on that picture - only temporary cheap nylon ropes, which I used to keep the mast up when first set up. The forestay is outside the spreaders now, I believe - I can't imagine how it would be inside, or maybe I misunderstood your question.

Staysail halyard blocks - as well as jib halyard blocks. I tied them around the mast after all was set up, using many turns of nylon rope. I check them periodically (i.e., monthly or so, when I go aloft for a general checkup), and change the rope when needed. So far (2 years +) it has not been needed... ;)

[ 07-05-2005, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: George. ]

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Originally posted by Stephen:
Thanks guys - exactly what I'm looking for.
In the first pic from the smack website:
Do you think there is a steel plate on the yoke or is the yoke itself sufficient?
And the yoke is just two pieces running fore and aft, correct?
Is there a preference to whether the forestay passes inside or forward of the spreaders? I could rest the soft eye of it on the throat halyard crane or a peak halyard bolt further up to achieve either lead. It was previously on a thumb cleat - but this was rotted out.
Do you think you could stand on those spreaders without standing lifts to the mast cap?
Andrew, why has Ed warned against you trying anything?
George - nice leather work and serving. Do you have bolsters fitted under your shroud eyes? Your forestay passes inside the spreaders, correct? Where are you going to hang your staysail halyard block?There is a steel band running round the yoke, but no steel plate on it. The fid is usually steel. Elsewhere on the website you will find a very clever fid arrangement.

Classically, the forestay soft eye rests on the throat halyard crane, and the forestay passes below the spreaders. To pass the forestay above the spreaders makes the mast head longer, adding weight aloft. Smack builders tried to keep their mastheads short, to concentrate the wringing loads in a small space. Worth on the other hand commends long mastheads.

The spreaders do indeed require standing lifts to the mainmast cap, since in the case of a smack the spreaders are horizontal,not angled to bisect the angle made by the topmast backstays (topmast shrouds to some!) with them.

Ed Burnett has cautioned me against fitting a topmast as he points out that it would be a very short topmast and the heel would not come low enough for it to be lashed against the mast when lowered, my hounds being set somewhat high (pole mast) so as to allow enough drift to the throat halyard upper block strop.

I am thinking about this; frankly I am tempted to lower the hounds a couple of feet and fit a topmast.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Another picture from Smacksman's website, showing the forestay arrangements on two second class smacks (about the same size as Carlotta)

http://www.alberta-ck318.freeserve.co.uk/image75.jpg

[Don Kurylko]

Stephen,

In a couple of photos on your website, there appears to be a fitting at the hounds that looks like a metal casting or fabrication. What is that? Is that what needs replacing?

[Stephen]

Yes, there is a fair bit of aluminum up there - one of which is the yoke that I'm replacing. Should be pretty straight forward - but I want to see all my options before I start cutting anything.

[Meerkat]

Small boat version...:
http://home.xtra.co.nz/hosts/david77/5.jpg

[Don Kurylko]

Any close up photos of that metal yoke? I'd be very interested in seeing the original hounds arrangement, if possible. Do you think it could be original enough to have some historical significance? It would be a shame to scrap it, before documenting it in some way, if it does.

[Stephen]

I believe the boat has had at least 2 complete re-rig jobs in it's life - judging from early photos (1919 being the earliest I've found)and from letters and documents of previous owners I've unearthed.

I believe her mast to be original - but very little if any of the hardware on it.

Most pilot boats built post-1900 were pole masted and many with fidded topmasts that were built earlier changed to a pole mast.

In the 20's she did not have any hounds at all - she sported an elaborate "Marconi Topmast" - which was a topmast mounted directly on top of the mainmast's cap - socketing into it.

Some Beken pictures from the late 30's show a close similiarity to how she is currently rigged. At this point a lot of steel bands and steel spreader holders and a steel yoke cover,etc were employed into her rig. I feel I can eleviate a lot of weight from her masthead by incorporating her spreaders and yoke,etc into a traditional layout like the smack pics above.

The aluminum yoke that I'm wanting to get rid of was fabricated in the 1990's. It replaced a steel one that reportedly weighed a good deal. Inside this aluminum is a puzzle-work of oak pieces. Looking at it, I would say it was possible to put together a better design for a new version. I won't be throwing the thing in the garbage - it will live in the pile of other useless junk I have from the boat (among the old worm steering gears ,cut off hollow boom ends, keelbolts, aluminum topmasts , ships wheels , bent anchors, tufnel blocks, etc, etc, etc.....) to be passed on to the next keeper of the boat, many years from now.

perhaps as the pile grows it will take the form of a second boat! smile.gif

If you still want a picture I can send you one.

[Don Kurylko]

Thanks for the history, Stephen. I would really appreciate seeing any photos you have of the hounds, yoke and spreader sockets.

Cheers,
Don

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Stephen is certainly right; Bristol Channel Pilot Cutters were sold off to yachtsmen who followed the fashions of their day in re-rigging them.

The chances of anything original surviving are remote.

I also have a pile of boat bits which I have removed from the boat, but won't dispose of, just in case some future generation wants them - and Mirelle is half the size and two thirds of the age!

[Stephen]

Here you go:

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid177/p46d3a6459bb1f05e80f877808c10bc09/f3486c38.jpg

You can see one of the bolsters has cleaned up nicely - they will live to see another day of sailing....

[John B]

The big advantage I can see in those topmast arrangements is the way the spreaders are shifted forward of the mast so you have some freeplay when the gaff is flat off on a run.I can't have that on my pole mast ( its why I dream of swinging spreaders)but I see that you don't have that in the old set up Stephen. Its definitely worth having.

[John B]

I was just reading your site again Stephen. when I first read it ages ago and saw this Pic (was it on the front page?)
http://www.pilotcutter.ca/images/boat1.jpg
I thought OMG how can they sail the boat like that, You can't set a jib top without a topsail.
I nearly mentioned it to you but thought .. ah well, they've obviously got away with it.

Now I just spotted the caption further in the site. !!! "taken moments before the topmast collapsed".

A local boat lost its marconi topmast in our classics regatta this way earlier this year.!!

[ 07-13-2005, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: John B ]

[George.]

Originally posted by John B:
... OMG how can they sail the boat like that, You can't set a jib top without a topsail.
You mean like this?

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid152/pf6951adcb8427cb32e1fa2afa6e811a3/f5a3569b.jpg

[John B]

yup.

Although Schooner is a bit different to what I'm talking about .

[ 07-13-2005, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: John B ]

[George.]

I know. But running backstays could make it work on a cutter, too.

[John B]

Well, there's the point right there. You can get away with it for a while and then.....
"taken moments before the topmast collapsed".
Its bad practice full stop. The geometry is wrong when the jib topsail isn't opposed by a topsail to gaff to main leech to mainsheet circle of stress.

[Stephen]

Yep - John is right. You can see in the pic that the backstays were set up from the topmast cap too - and it still broke the topmast. And it happened on more than two or three topmasts before it was replaced by an aluminum ex-fishing boat mast - ugly, but bombproof.
I may try to build a bird's mouth spar and see how long that fares.

[George.]

Originally posted by John B:
The geometry is wrong when the jib topsail isn't opposed by a topsail to gaff to main leech to mainsheet circle of stress.I understand how that works when beating or even reaching. But when running with the boom let out, there is no circle of stress - even with a gaff topsail. Wouldn't runners be required then?

Come think of it, there is another meaning for the term "running" backstays... :D

[Ed Burnett]

You should be able to stay the topmast well enough to set the jib topsail without the main topsail. Certainly you don't want to have to rely on the main topsail to support the topsmasthead.

Looking at that photo, a couple of thoughts spring to mind.....

That jib topsail looks to be bigger than the working jib or staysail. Don't underestimate the tension required in the topmast headstay and halyard to get it to set well.

If that wire visible above the gaff is the topmast backstay, it doesn't seem to be aiming all that far aft. In other words, it does not have a very healthy angle to oppose the headstay. This means the backstay will be more highly loaded than it needs to be, and that most of this load will be translated into compression in the topmast. If the runner is also stretching and allowing the topmast to bend it is asking a lot for it all to stay up there.

Before breaking too many more topmasts, you might want to try moving that runner as far aft as you can to give the spar a bit more help.

Try to find the disease and treat that rather than the symptoms.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Thank you, Ed.

[John B]

I love these threads. ;)
Its always good to see you Ed, but as much as I hate it I'm going to disagree after a fashion this time.
There's a thread about a jetski breaking down and being rescued going at the moment. The thing about those things is the lack of backup. No redundancy.No way out when one system goes down.

Thats the point about setting that big jib top in 20 knots with no topsail. No redundancy.No assistance.
Much as I agree that you can do it, you can get away with it, I maintain that its bad practise. If the runner and the topsail were set, then the load is shared between the two.
I don't have to tell you guys .. Ed and Andrew particularly, about the negatives of double sets of runners or even the disadvantage in having runners go to the stern. Thats always the question isn't it. Better angle versus convenience. You can't pull them both on for short tacking if they're on the stern.
What is the guiding light and principle of a Bristol Channel pilot cutter.... a man and a boy. Sure, since conversion to yacht there are the addition of the runners so thats mitigated but I bet Stephen intends to sail it as a couple.

Here's a question, when they were in original form, did they even have topmast runners? I thought they mostly set up with swifters and no runners.

So I stand by my remark. Its bad practise to set a jib top without topsail and I don't really see why you would anyway.

"taken moments before the topmast collapsed".

"And it happened on more than two or three topmasts before it was replaced by an aluminum ex-fishing boat mast "

And it happened here too on Spray in february. Nothing opposing the jib top except a runner and in the same way a laced foot versus loose foot on a mainsail changes the boom scantlings required, no spreading of the load down the topmast panel by the yard attachment( Spray has a socketed marconi topmast).

This Spray,( just for your info) is a heavy cruising ketch that might interest you. canoe stern 1910 ish, Stowe and sons IIRC.
also , while I have you, Claude worths Maud is for sale here ATM too.

[Ed Burnett]

John,

I agree with much of what you say, but there are various qualifying issues in these discussions and one can not apply the same thinking to all boats.

I think the first thing to say is that clearly the topmast in question here is not happy with its lot. It is also in a big powerful boat, the handling of which requires the gear to be pretty forgiving on occasion.

I guess it is true to say that setting a main topsail would provide a degree of aft going load at the topmast head. It won't stabilise the topmast lower down as it will only be attached at the top (the leader will come in too low to be of any help to the spar). But, for the topsail to be doing this various things need to happen. For a start, the main and topsail sheets need to be in very hard - I would wager far harder than you want for good sail trim. Say you want to ease the main out for whatever reason, it would be a bit inconvenient to have the topmast fold in half every time you want to bear away.

The main thing to realise though is that the loads in the topmast heastay and jib topsail halyard are of another magnitude altogether than those in the topsail sheet. I would estimate that you would be looking at at least 1500kg (3300lbs) going in at the topmast head, which would translate to around 750kg (1650lbs) pulling directly forward. Compare that with around 200kg (440lbs) which is the sort of load you would need in the sheet to flatten off the topsail in 20 knots of breeze. When you consider that only around half of that topsail sheet load will be pulling aft at the top you start to see why you need a good runner.

Now, these numbers apply to the sort of rig proportions in question here, and I don't doubt that if the rig were a different shape the topsail may make a more worthwhile contribution. In this case though, assuming it is doing much good in opposing the jib topsail loads is I think unwise in terms of both the engineering and the boat handling aspects.

You are absolutely right to say that having runners lead a long way aft is a pain in the proverbial. But at the end of the day they have a job to do, and leading them aft a bit further (not all the way to the transom) has the potential to nearly halve the load they see. Again, this is a serious bit of estimation on my part based on measuring off the photo.

One always has this choice with runners - lead them aft and reduce the loads, or keep them forward and gain convenience. For runners on the lower mast I would say keep them forward, and give them gear that can deal with the loads. For topmast runners though, which are only needed when you set the jib topsail (and are thus likely to be used only when you can be bothered and it is a nice day), bringing them aft makes sense to me. The other thing that is worth bearing in mind is stretch, which can be considerable in so long a piece of highly loaded wire. Any appreciable stretch will allow the topmast to flex forwards and then all of a sudden you have large compression loads in a skinny little pole that is bent. Not a recipe for success.

The guiding light and principle (not to mention commercial necessity) of the original BCPC's was indeed easy handling. But not on race day! Jib topsails were not working sail on these boats. The trend was to abandon fidded topmasts altogether in the later boats and in general the working headsail sizes were very modest. The keen racers amongst them however, would practically re-rig the boats for regatta.

To answer your point:

Its bad practise to set a jib top without topsail and I don't really see why you would anyway. I would say:

1. Bad practice or not, the rig should be able to deal with it.

2. I agree it is a slightly unusual thing to do. Perhaps in this case the jib topsail eases the helm so the main topsail comes down first?

Anyway, I had better get on with some work.....

I have always rather liked the Maud. How original is she these days?

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

I think that the best way to deal with preventer backstays is to take them to Highfield levers, which also handle the runners.

This is not quite as simple as it sounds, because you still need to unhook the old and hook on the new preventer as she wends, but its a million times easier than faffing around with tackles. If using tackles, you really need to have one crew members perched on the counter to fight the preventer tackles.

One point about setting the jib topsail without the topsail - as the boat wends, there is likely to be a moment when both preventers are off - of course, the load on the jibstay is less, as the sail is not full of wind, but it is still considerable, and the dead weight of the gaff acting through the topsail sheet off-sets it to some extent.

[George.]

Originally posted by Ed Burnett:
I agree it is a slightly unusual thing to do. Perhaps in this case the jib topsail eases the helm so the main topsail comes down first?

Right. On Dalia, the first reef is to bring down the main topsail when the breeze picks up and weather helm increases. That keeps helm balance perfect between 10 and 20 knot winds. If we also bring down the jib topsail, weather helm comes back, and boat speed decreases.

But of course we have a topmast backstay leading to the main top...

[Ed Burnett]

I think I would be inclinded to let you play with the levers Andrew - in this situation I would prefer a tackle every time.

Getting this topmast to stay straight is going to take differing runner loads from time to time and a tackle (preferably lead to a winch) gives you the option of tuning it as required. It also gives you more time to get the runner on - once that jib fills with breeze on the new tack you can forget getting the lever down if you have been a bit slow.

Most of all though, the tackle allows you to control the load whereas a highly loaded lever, being an all or nothing thing, can be pretty scary to deal with.

Your point about being runnerless in stays is a good one. I doubt the topsail would be able to oppose any serious loads, but it would tend to keep things damped up there when the jib topsail is flapping around.

George - are you playing fisherman's staysails yet?

[George.]

I don't know... they set from both topmasts. After this thread, I wonder if I really want a big four-sided sail pulling my main topmast forward... :D

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

I have a big ghoster which fills the whole foretriangle. I set up a preventer with a tackle to the counter but I am very very cautious about setting it, due to loads on the masthead.

I suspect that jib topsails are far, far, harder on the topmast than maintopsails.

[Ed Burnett]

Ah, go for it George.

She'll love it.

[Stephen]

Carlotta has an additional shroud on each side placed about 3' aft of the aftermost chainplates. This gives some additional support from aft, at the expense of chafe when running the boom all the way out. At one point a rigging technician said the rig was at far above and beyond any foreseeable rig load limits.
Her topmast backstays run right to the counter. The picture above looks like they had them set up somewhere forward of this. I would be more inclined to have dropped the jib topsail before striking the gaff topsail.
I too have a 'big' ghoster. It runs from the topmast head to the end of the bowsprit, then back home to the cockpit! :eek:

[Ed Burnett]

Thanks for that Stephen,

It's always funny when a debate rages but manages to be completely behind the times, not to mention somewhere off to the side of the original topic.....

Is it perhaps the case that the runners were moved aft following the failure of the topmast in the photo?

Boats of this type are usually comfortably over rigged. Not always particularly efficiently, but then most of them have been around longer than most of us.

[John B]

Ed,I'll see if I can find a link to Maud. Bermudan now of course.
I fitted extra shrouds like swifters to our rig for bit of extra security too Stephen.Comes at a small price as you say.

off topic but Maud when I photographed her a few years ago.
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid59/pdd55eb9ed477328ce64cf2fce209f580/fc5bdd31.jpg

link to Maud F/S notice
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Trade-Me-Motors/Boats-marine/Yachts-sail-boats/Moored-boats/auction-30827598.htm

A significant vessel.

[ 07-15-2005, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: John B ]

[Don Kurylko]

Stephen, thanks for posting the photo of the yoke assembly. I can now see why you aren’t too thrilled with it.

Does anyone out there know if a one piece yoke assembly, incorporating the function of both the trestles and bolsters but not the hound’s cheeks, has ever been cast in aluminum? I’m thinking a casting with sockets for the wooden cheeks on the underside, a hole for both the main mast and top mast, and an extended forward section for the spreaders in the old style, like the smacks in the photos above. The casting would be solid where necessary, but relieved or hollowed out where practical to reduce weight. It could also be split along the centreline with cross-connecting bolts to facilitate easy removal.

It seems to me that this could be quite practical and certainly strong enough for the job, as well as chafe resistant and pretty much maintenance free. It could be painted for aesthetic reasons and, for all practical purposes, resemble the traditional wooden assembly in every way. It might be worth a try.

Regarding the jib topsail and topmast staying issue, could it be possible that the topmast shrouds were not set up tightly enough? On traditional cutters these shrouds were always made up with tackles so that they could be adjusted as required. If they were too slack, they could have easily contributed to the topmast collapsing.

As a contemporary example, a local fellow lost his aluminum mast on a Catalina 23 a few weeks back when one of the lower aft turnbuckles failed. Most of us thought that this was highly unusual, but it turned out that he was a novice and had set up the rigging very slack. So, when the turnbuckle let go, there wasn’t enough tension in the forward lower and upper main shrouds to carry the load. The spreader on that side tried to hold things up, but it broke too and the whole rig went the side.

In the photo in question of Carlotta beating to windward, it looks almost like the jib topsail luff is panting as she slams into the waves. This would certainly add greatly to the load on the rig and, if the shrouds were just a wee bit slack, at some point that load was going to exceed the bending moment of the spar and bang! It’s a possibility.

This also makes for a compelling argument in favour of a separate top mast, housing or not, over a tall, pole masted rig. Think of the damage and the expense of repairing an integral pole mast compared to that of a separate, independent topmast. Makes sense to me.

Cheers,
Don

[PeterSibley]

I've been reading this thread with interest .Were you to rig a boat of this type from new....would you use a pole mast or fiddled topmast?
The pole mast would be much easier to rig but from some of the observations above it seems the fiddled topmast has advantages.
The boat in mind is a 34' ten ton gaff cutter , proposed use is blue water cruising.

[ 07-17-2005, 03:52 AM: Message edited by: PeterSibley ]

[Don Kurylko]

My vote is for a fidded topmast rig with a large, yardless topsail that can also be set over a single reefed main
http://www.dhkurylko-yachtdesign.com/images/cutter34.jpg
Apologies for the poor quality of the image: 34’ LOD, 8 ton cutter; main 396 sq ft; main topsail 112 sq ft; total working sail area 818 sq ft (not including jib topsail).

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Well, I have the pole mast with yard for the topsail.

Mirelle is about that size (37ft but 3ft is thin counter!) and during her life has gone from pole mast and yard to fidded topmast to pole mast with no topsail to pole mast and yard - and her owner despite Ed's very sensible advice is thinking of a fidded topmast again.

To put the issue in a nutshell, with a yard topsail one is less likely to set it because there is more work to do, getting it out of its bag, hoisted correctly, etc.

A thimble headed topsail is so easy to set and strike that one uses it all the time. However, there is the issue of the extra weight and windage that one is carrying around (mind you, look at the windage of the bagged yard topsail, stowed up a shroud because it is too long to stow on deck...)

In my case a longer pole mast would achieve the result of setting a thimble headed topsail, and this is what ed sensibly recommends, pointing out that 30-odd footers are really too small for topmasts, but ("excuses! excuses!" I hear... ;) ) the mast would then be too long for the mast rack at either of the local yards in winter, whereas a fidded topmast would actually shorten the lowermast slightly.

I've got as far as buying the wood for either a fidded topmast or an extension to the pole mast, and will decide when we lay up...

[Ed Burnett]

As some of you may have noticed, I am not the biggest fan of fidded topmasts. There are advantages, but I do question the practical utilty of these in boats of the size that we are now discussing.

In cruising boats of up to around 40 ft, I tend to favour a pole mast that is unstayed above the jib / peak halyards. In a boat of this size, there is a real need to keep gear and sails (stowed below) to a minimum, and I think jib topsails tend to be more trouble than they are worth. Knowing one is not going set a jib top, one can set the proportions of the rest of the rig to make up the difference in terms of area etc. Given that the only thing one is then setting from the topmast head is the topsail, there isn't really a need to stay it, and that avoids any amount of clutter and complication aloft.

The above argument applies to "modest" crusing yachts, that will be handled by small crews. If one wants to go racing, or play with more sails on occasion, a fully stayed pole mast would be the next step up. One can then set serious jackyard topsails, jib topsails and masthead spinnakers.

I would tend to reserve fidded topmasts for larger boats, and then the proportions of the entire rig need to be appropriate. I appreciate all the arguments about easy replacement, and the ability to send it down in winter etc. But, is the extra gear aloft really worth it (ie. would you truly notice the difference if you couldn't send the topmast down?). As for the easy replacement, I really would rather not have the thing break in the first place.

With that said, I think the most important thing to note is that all boats are different. I make the above comments as a designer in a position to make fundamental decisions on hull and rig proportions at the start of a design process. Right at the start, a boat will be conceived with a certain set of priorities and these will have an effect on all areas. Working with the rig in an old boat one does not have this luxury and must work with the existing componants and proprotions. For that reason, there is no "right" or "wrong" answer and all the various arguments apply in varying measure to each boat.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Another point in favour of Ed Burnett's pole mast is that you need to find a home, these days, for the masthead tri-colour light. With a pole mast that is easy - it goes on the masthead!

But with a fidded topmast one has a problem, due to the need to accomodate the wiring when the topmast is struck.

This is steering me towards Ed's recommendation of an unstayed masthead - it is really not at all likely that I will want to set a jib topsail, and (a point never to be overlooked, by those of us who have rather more boat than our budgets will readily admit to!) I would not need any new rigging beyond a new topmast forestay and a new pair of cap shrouds (the soft eyes, being made to fit the shoulder at the cap, are of course too small!)

And, let's face it, if the people who sailed Bristol Channel Pilot Cutters to earn their livings chose the pole mast, they must have had good reason to do so.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Old thread, with much good advice from Ed on this subject, here (http://www.woodenboat-ubb.com/cgi-bin/UBB/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=003229&p=)

[Hwyl]

Andrew, if you wanted to set a jib tops'l on your pole mast, or even a code zero/ghoster. You could steal and reverse the small boat practice and lead the halyard aft to the counter. It would have to spectra and it would have to be to windward of the topsail, so tacking would be unmöglich, I would not like to see it used in any more than 6 or 7 knots, but that's the average wind speed anyway. It could be done, as a precedent Brilliant carried two fishermen staysails and has the new one ready to hoist as she tacks.

[PeterSibley]

Andrew ,thanks for the link.

I have a lot to learn on this subject...well most subjects smile.gif The pole mast option is attractive,it would be pleasant to do something the simple way occasionally !The fiddled topmast would however make transporting the mast considerably easier,being a little shorter and I have a pine in my woodlot that would serve nicely.Decision,decisions smile.gif

[ 07-19-2005, 03:28 AM: Message edited by: PeterSibley ]

[PeterSibley]

Andrew this cut and paste from your post on the galvanised wire thread is very much to the point,

Mirelle's windward performance is disappointing, subjectively, as compared with her predecsssor Mytica, which I re-rigged thirty years ago "a la mode de Laurent Giles", with a high peak halyard upper block so the peak halyard led UP from the gaff, and a correspondingly high jib halyard upper block ,

it would appear to be the most persuasive argument for a pole mast.I would end up with a longer and more vertical jib luff....that can only be good.More drawings !

Thank you to Andrew and Ed Burnett for the discussion above and on the wire thread ,the sharing of knowlege is very much appreciated.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

I think that the lead of the peak halyard is also important.

I think that the best way to reduce excessive twist in a gaff mainsail is to have the peak halyards leading up off the gaff, not down, as in older boats with very short mastheads. If the peak halyard leads down from the gaff spans to the masthead, it is very difficult to set the mainsail well and the load on the peak halyard is excessive.

The only advantage of this system is that the first reef can be taken withoutb touching the peak halyard.

[John B]

A big advantage I find with the high peak block arrangement that Andrew refers to is one I didn't expect. When we put a reef in ,that upward pull aspect compounds and more load goes on the gaff span relative to the throat. So the thrust load of the gaff saddle is lessened.

So we'll put 1 or 2 reefs in and sail hard on the wind and I notice that there is little load on the saddle and it actually floats gently off the mast. This means that the mast stays nicely in column and to my mind is relatively unstressed even as the breeze increases. One of those feelgood things when the wind is blowing hard.
Excessive twist is not a problem either, as Andrew says. Windward performance is good.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Very good point, John. Mirelle on the other hand perpetrated a glue line failure on the mast just where the gaff jaws go when close reefed, a few years ago, so the side loadings on the mast, shoving it out of column, must be quite large.