Repost: Pin rail

[Ross M]

(Recovered from internet cache, Part 1)

Posted by tirhandil (Member # 2125) on 09-28-2000, 06:02 PM:

Hallo from Turkey,

I'm seeking for the possibilities to secure the pin rails on the shrouds of my 23 ft double ender gaff cutter having a main sail of 184 sq ft.
Could I use lashing to fix rails to the shrouds and to fix pins to rails?
fair winds to all..
Posted by noquiklos (Member # 61) on 09-29-2000, 02:12 AM:

I've seen it done that way, with some success, but I don't trust it. A solution a friend of mine used when his pinrail started sliding was to shackle a turning block to one of the chainplates, where he ran his throat halyard, so the peak and throat halyards balanced the load. He had 2 headsails, so he did the same on the other shrouds.
Good luck.
Roy

Posted by NormMessinger (Member # 1207) on 09-29-2000, 08:51 AM:

In his book, "Riggers Apprentice" Brian Toss explains how to do this. THe shrouds are wormed, parceled and served for some distance above and below where the pin rail is to be attached which, he says, keeps the pin rail from slipping. If you'd like me to reread his instructions and give a better review, say so.

--Norm
Posted by Mike Field (Member # 2239) on 09-29-2000, 08:52 AM:

See Brion Toss' bulletin board, where I've posted the URL for a drawing, and Brion has added a useful idea.

[This message has been edited by Mike Field (edited 10-01-2000).]
Posted by Thad (Member # 1797) on 09-30-2000, 06:02 PM:

As Norm says, that is how Sea Harmony's are done. You do have to watch the lashing for breakage, but it is easy to replace the lashings and ours are going strong after a year. Slush or some protection for the marline would probably extend lashing life. Nice to see pinrails.

Posted by tirhandil (Member # 2125) on 10-01-2000, 04:49 PM:

Thank you all.
Thad, do you have any detailed photo of your Sea Harmony's pin rails that you may send me by e-mail?

Posted by Thad (Member # 1797) on 10-01-2000, 10:44 PM:

I can take some and send same within a few days.

Posted by tirhandil (Member # 2125) on 10-02-2000, 03:29 AM:

Thank you very much Thad. It's very kind of you. I'll be waiting...

Posted by Dave Hadfield (Member # 1583) on 10-04-2000, 07:58 AM:

I built a pin rail at the base of the mainmast of my ketch this spring. I could send you a photo, but is there enough room for one on your boat to place it there?

Posted by Ian McColgin (Member # 32) on 10-04-2000, 09:49 AM:

So, a glass of the highland's best to whomever can correctly differentiate pin rails from monkey rails from fife rails. Judgement to be concluded by arguement over at least three glasses first . . .

Posted by Dave R (Member # 957) on 10-04-2000, 10:02 AM:

Here are my guesses
PIN RAIL A rail mounted on the shrouds for belaying the riggin to.
FIFE RAIL A rail around the masts for belaying the rigging to.
MONKEY RAIL Railings constructed around the poop and sides of the main deck of a ship.

Note bothe the Pin Rail and Fife Rail would have belaying pins mounted in them. Now where's my drink?
Of course I'm not telling all you old salts anything new.
[This message has been edited by Dave R (edited 10-04-2000).]
Posted by tirhandil (Member # 2125) on 10-04-2000, 11:40 AM:

Thank you Dave Hadfield. It would be glad to see the photo of your fife (?) rail.
Let's learn which is which :-) Ian? I'm sure the highland's best tests perfect but not for me because of my non-alcoholing preferency and ignorance on the English seafearing nomanclature. What about the Dave R's unswer? correct?


Posted by Mike Field (Member # 2239) on 10-04-2000, 06:10 PM:

Yep, DaveR's correct.

Would DaveH and Thad please post their photos here as well as emailing them to Tirhandl? (Why should he have all the fun?)
And Dave, what did you do under-deck? Just bolt it to the beams/partners, or put diagonal ties to the mast, or...?
Posted by Smacksman (Member # 2103) on 10-04-2000, 06:55 PM:

Very difficult for pin rails to stay put with any great load on them. The lee rigging also goes slack so altering the halyard tension a bit. Smacks use pin rails to stow the falls and for light stuff like signal halyards. The heavy load stuff is made off to a cavil rail by the chains, (at deck level by the shrouds) either bolted through the bulwark stanchions (normal) or on spacers and bolted through the deck. Taking halyards to the sides of the boat frees up the area by the mast for ropes that need to be there like the tops'l tack downhaul and the topmast heel rope. There is a picture or two of the chains on Sallie on my smack site http://www.alberta-ck318.freeserve.co.uk (http://www.alberta-ck318.freeserve.co.uk/) on the picture page. Most smacks have masses of cleats about the place. At last count Alberta has 55 cleats at deck level for 2,300 ft. of rope not counting light stuff. Its 130 ft. just to go to the topmast and back. Much cheaper to stay with a 26 footer. HeHe.

ps. I once chartered a gullet in Marmaris and she had only 3 cleats by the mast for a gaff cutter rig! Made life difficult. She normally didn't sail much. What a fabulous country you have for sailing; Fetiye Bay (spelling) remains in my memory especially. And the Turks are some of the nicest people I've had the pleasure of meeting. [This message has been edited by Smacksman (edited 10-04-2000).]

[Ross M]

Posted by Thad (Member # 1797) on 10-04-2000, 07:01 PM:

I haven't got the pictures together yet and if I can figure out how to post them I would be glad to, always something to learn. Sea Harmony's halyard falls belay to pins on the mast band and the pinrail on the shrouds are for lighter use as the smacksman says, though I have her topping lifts so belayed and they have been fine.
Posted by Ian McColgin (Member # 32) on 10-04-2000, 07:30 PM:

As already noted, Dave was right. Which simply means he was taught as I was taught and we agree.
I never had problems with Goblin's pin rails (which, by the way were made of a mysterious substance we eventually just called 'white boat wood') suffering from slack on the leeward side since the pull on the pinrail is up, which is where the slack is. This is NOT like ignoring a flat tire since it's only flat on the bottom, but may seem so at first.
Goblin's fife rails had neat hooks on the deck below each pin so you could pass the fall under the hook and back up to the pin, thus easing the strain on the attractivly curved (and thus weakened) rail.
Goblin's pins were nice bronze units with a nice handle that had a bit of flare before the flat just above the narrower diameter cylindrical shaft that went through the hole in the rail and to the end. It was not practical to knock it out with upward blows to free a frozen line.
I made some pins on a more traditioanl pattern. The handle did not flare back out at the bottom, just tapered smoothly to where it entered the pin hole. I left a small flat to rest against the top of the hole and for inside the hole, the pin tapered just a little so it'd be nice and loose. Below the hole, the pin tapered more noticably. Even this pin was the devil to knock free if the line on it was under real strain, like a jib hallyard.
I concluded that the pins are nice for looks, nice for repeling boarders and generally encouraging the recalcitrant, but tie your lines properly as you would on a cleat so they don't get jammed.
One other thing the pins are good for is as a location for the godknot tied in the jib's lazy sheet after a few hours slogging to weather . . .
Posted by Dave Hadfield (Member # 1583) on 10-04-2000, 11:15 PM:

Ian, thanks for the gentle and polite correction: fife rail it is. I didn't use a pin rail on the shrouds because the geometry of my ketch was just wrong for it; the area was too constrained. I needed something however, because there weren't enough cleats; hence the rail. I'll post a picture as soon as I can.
As for bracing it, the obvious solution for me was to take advantage of the massive steel tabernacle the mast is stepped in. My rail is 3-sided, starting and finishing on top of the cabin roof (which is just aft of the mast). It's bolted together so that it can be removed when the mast is pivoted down. I braced it by running a metal strap from each of these corner bolts down on a diagonal to the base of the tabernacle.
It's great to use. Very solid. I can get a real heft on the halyards and lifts. Looks sharp too. I made it of ash and sealed it with house-grade Cetol. The pin-handles I turned from cherry and walnut, though I shouldn't have put large shoulders on them because, as Ian says, now I can't remove them under load. The shaft of each pin is of 1/2" aluminum, which sounds strange, but works fine because they don't bend under my moderate loads, and the whole pin floats if dropped overboard.
Posted by tirhandil (Member # 2125) on 10-05-2000, 03:43 AM:

Uh!.. lot of info to digest. I should study on my new lessons this night. Just some info on sailing in Turkey: Using sails on commercial boats (so called Blue Voyage boats) in Turkey is a new subject, infact. And gaff rige is getting famous by the time, though no one know well how are the details and proper technics to handle them. There is a wooden boat race in October in Bodrum performed for some years and encouriging the use of canvas with a success since its establisment. I have worked in two tirhandils (kayiki you called) 14m and 12m both have the halyards of the sails belayed on pinrails on their shrouds with no difficulty. Ofcourse this cannot be given as an example against your experinces. Our boat is a tirhandil (kayiki) as well used for sponge fishery previously. Now we use it for our research & PEA for the endangered Mediterranean monk seal.
Posted by Mike Field (Member # 2239) on 10-05-2000, 08:58 AM:

I've just posted a sketch and some comments about pin withdrawability in response to a similar thread on Brion Toss' site, http://www.briontoss.com/ (http://www.briontoss.com/) (Too lazy to repeat it all here, I'm fraid.)
Posted by tirhandil (Member # 2125) on 10-05-2000, 04:53 PM:

Thanks Mike, no problem. My pins are in the shape that you have suggested which are originally produced to fix the oars in small boats. But in a conic shape (tapered to end).
Though you have advocated to easy withdrawing of the pins in an emergency; I'd first asked if it was possible to fix the pins to the rail by lashing.
By the way, thank you Smacksman for your compliaments and your web-page. There is no much source for gaff.
Posted by Dave R (Member # 957) on 10-05-2000, 05:03 PM:

I was right? Wow,and I could use a drink. Hmm.. So, Ian, where will I meet you for a glass of the Highland's finest?
[This message has been edited by Dave R (edited 10-05-2000).]
Posted by Smacksman (Member # 2103) on 10-05-2000, 05:18 PM:

Just a wee point but if you cleat a halyard by the mast there is no difference in tension when the mast bends from tack to tack. If you cleat by the rail then the halyard tensions on one tack and eases on the other. This is on traditional standing rigging with lanyards and deadeyes ie some stretch. I notice it a bit on the sag of the jib luff and the peak halyard. Proberbly makes all of 0.001 knots difference!

[Ross M]

Posted by Thad (Member # 1797) on 10-09-2000, 07:13 AM:

Reply:
*HTML is OFF
*UBB Code is ON
Here's a picture of Sea Harmony's pinrail, lashed to the shroud. I attach a picture of the lady herself too.
Options

Posted by Thad (Member # 1797) on 10-09-2000, 07:21 AM:

Sorry, I thought I had figured it out, but NO!
Posted by Thad (Member # 1797) on 10-13-2000, 06:47 AM:

Here, after studying John R Smith's instructions, is another effort at imaging.
code
_____________________________________________ http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1262048&a=9344837&p=30529028 (http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1262048&a=9344837&p=30529028)
_____________________________________________
Posted by abe (Member # 118) on 10-13-2000, 07:33 AM:


Open forum, go to topic, login.
Go to photo in photopoint, click on photo a couple times so that it is the only item on screen,highlight address, Edit, Copy, minimize window.
In "your reply", Paste address of photo, enter at beginning and at end. no spaces.
[This message has been edited by abe (edited 10-13-2000).]
Posted by tirhandil (Member # 2125) on 10-13-2000, 07:56 AM:

Thank you Thad. How this pinrail is fixed to the shrouds and the pins to the rail?
Would be nice to see the photo of the "Sea Harmony" as well.
Posted by Dave R (Member # 957) on 10-13-2000, 09:12 AM:


If this picture comes through, It's a photo of a pinrail on S/V Swan, a 100 year old Fifie from the Shetlands. I saw it while in Bergen, Norway in July. A nice fellow even invited me on board for a look.
p.s. Sorry 'bout the size.
[This message has been edited by Dave R (edited 10-13-2000).]
Posted by tirhandil (Member # 2125) on 10-13-2000, 04:15 PM:

Thank you Dave. I was planning to do someting like Thad's
Our boat's photo is this. Before the mast stapped.
By the way, thank you abe for the istruction how to send photos to here.

[This message has been edited by tirhandil (edited 10-13-2000).]
Posted by Ian McColgin (Member # 32) on 10-13-2000, 04:45 PM:

Lovely.
Posted by Thad (Member # 1797) on 10-13-2000, 06:51 PM:

Thank you Abe. The pinrail is something like 1 1/4 inches thick, maybe 3.5 cm., and is drilled through for 1/2 inch (12 mm)pins. The lacing is run through pairs of 1/4 inch holes centered on the shrouds. The shrouds and parceled and served. I had another picture of the front of the rail but it is now lost. I will try to add a SEA HARMONY picture.
copy
_____________________________________________
[img]http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1262048&a=9336436&p=30601016[img/]
_____________________________________________
Posted by Todd Schliemann (Member # 36) on 10-13-2000, 07:36 PM:

Thad, I think you put the doohickey that slopes aft (/) in front of the last IMG. That ought to do it. Nice boat.
Posted by Thad (Member # 1797) on 10-13-2000, 08:15 PM:


Posted by Thad (Member # 1797) on 10-13-2000, 08:21 PM:

That was not the picture I expected (previous post). It was blowing close to forty late last fall and we were flying with the main reefed. Will I get the right one this time? Nearly calm with the topsail. I have recently got the topsail recut but haven't flown it yet.
Posted by Thad (Member # 1797) on 10-13-2000, 08:26 PM:

I may have the hang of it. Thanks. The pinrails, by the way, are about three inches high of some heavy wood well painted. One beautiful bronze pin came with the boat so I turned four of oak.
Posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett (Member # 506) on 10-14-2000, 05:08 AM:

Just to add to the fun, Mirelle is a yacht cousin of Smacksman's Alberta so far as her rigging goes, but because her rails are low she has fife rails (which I call pin rails) where the cavil rails would go. The pin rails in the rigging are her sheerpoles, and they are used for hanging the falls of halyards belayed on the pinrails, and for the topping lift and flag halyards.
The throat halyard, topsail halyard and topsail sheet belay on the mast, under way. The peak is double ended with one end on each pin rail so rigging slack makes no difference.
Posted by Smacksman (Member # 2103) on 10-14-2000, 08:53 AM:

Does Mirelle have a hardener on one fall of the peak. It is one of the easiest and most powerfull peak arrangements going. Some people use the same arrangement on mainsheets and I sailed on Arabella (a Robert Clark flyer) who has it but I found it a bit clumsy when used on a mainsheet and a lot more rope in the cockpit. The other beauty of double ended halyards is that the rope lasts much longer as the nip in the rope round sheaves, when in use, is in a different place each hoist so spreading the wear. Downside is another fall of rope from the top (cost and windage) Great pics above!

[Ross M]

Posted by ACB (Member # 1213) on 10-17-2000, 04:24 AM:

Yes, hardener to starboard so as to be handy for setting the peak up again after reefing.
Jib halyard double ended with hardener to port, staysail halyard double ended without hardener, throat halyard single ended and belayed on mast, topsail gear belays to mast on port side since it's less important. All others go to the cavil rails, except topping lift to starboard sheerpole/pinrail.
Some of the halyards are over 20 years old, the newest are 10 or more, mainly because the nip is always shifted.
Posted by Smacksman (Member # 2103) on 10-18-2000, 03:42 PM:

Funny isn't it, ACB, all the talk on rigging gaff this way and that on these pages and your arrangement is as near as d...n the same as on working boats 100+ years ago. Why? Because it works!
Posted by ACB (Member # 1213) on 10-18-2000, 11:27 PM:

Well, she was designed by William Maxwell Blake, who was commended by Howard Chappelle for his work on recording the lines, construction and details of English working sailing craft, espescially those of eastern England!
There is not likely to be a way of "improving" on what has been worked out by thousands of men working with it every day for a hundred years or so.
My heretical move was shifting the topsail gear to the port side; classically it should be to starboard, so as to hoist and lower the sail to windward of the mainsail on starboard tack, but with topsail halyard sheet and downhaul to belay along with the throat on inadequate pins I felt life was getting crowded and shifted them over. I will shift them back to the correct side next year, when I fit the rather posh new gooseneck that Classic Marine have just finished making (pic on their website!) which has decent pins on it.
Philosophically, I suggest that at anchor all halyards should go to the pinrails or cavil rails, not to the mast, so as to avoid chafe. When under way, single ends should go to the mast, while double ends should go to the cavil rails. Taking a single end to the mast confines the compression load to the spar, keeping the hull free of it, and the length of the halyard, and hence the set of the sail, will not alter when you tack.
Taking double ends to the cavil rails stops any funny business with the deck such as you get with fife rails, reduces chafe, and evens the sailing loads between windward and leeward sides somewhat.
Any other theories?
Posted by Smacksman (Member # 2103) on 10-19-2000, 05:04 PM:

I agree. Using tops'l lines to starboard gives you 'right of way' tack when hoisting and your mind is on the sail and not so much on lookout. If it is blowing I prefer to strike the topsl to leeward on port tack as the wind blows the sail clear of the peak tackle and not into it, especially as Alberta has a club on the tops'l clew. If you don't watch it, the club flips over the gaff and jambs the sheet and you have to hoist the sail again. The club is a real pain and not worth the extra few sq.ft. gained. If size was a problem I would go for a taller topmast instead of a club.
Taking the falls to the sides makes for a quieter night below although mast hoops tend to control the frapping on the mast a bit. Keeping halyards out of the gaff jaws is another reason for going to side cavil rails. As the jaws sweep from gybe to gybe I have seen on some gaffers how the gaff jaws pick up a bar taught halyard and wind it round the front of the mast, often accompianied by the parrell strop parting and parrell beads tinkling down to bounce over the side. (they're £1 a ball now if you don't make them!) The cavil rail by the mast is traditional but they also had a fish hold bulkhead below by the mast and could use that to tie the forces on the deck beam down to the hull timbers. Without that tie-down facility that todays open-plan layout below has designed out, the full up-force is taken by the deck beam which is already under considerable compressive force from the chains. So maybe taking the loads out to the sides might be kinder on the hull today even if the haly'ds slacken to looward. I don't know the exact figures but I reckon that the extra tension required on a jib haly'd (set flying, like on a smack) to straighten up the luff 10% requires an extra 200% force. ie you will never get a straight luff so live with it and don't fold up the hull like Young America. I have read that some of the old boys used to slacken off the shroud lanyards a bit cos they went faster. I reckon that was said in earshot of the opposition and has now gone down in history 'set in stone'. You've got to live amongst these old guys to realise the dry sense of humour they have. They pull your leg with a dead straight, serious face!
Posted by Mike Field (Member # 2239) on 10-19-2000, 08:05 PM:

Regarding that last bit, Smacksman, I know that some of the old guys didn't like their standing rigging set up too tight because they thought that the mast itself should take the initial strain. They treated shrouds and stays rather as preventers, to stop the mast having to take more strain than they felt it was capable of. (And I must say I think they were right.)
Doing this relieves the hull from a lot of unnecessary upward strain due to overtight rigging, too. As distinct from the old-timers' deadeyes and lanyards, rigging screws, while nice and simple, have a tendency to encourage unnecessary strain through unknowing over-tightening.
[This message has been edited by Mike Field (edited 10-19-2000).]
Posted by John B (Member # 2113) on 10-20-2000, 12:32 AM:

what a great point about the starboard right of way/topsail set.Never did think of that and of course when I was flipping the coin I ended up with all my topsail gear to port.
The other great regret I have is not having that double ended halyard (with hardener)you've all been describing.
It's a bit inconvenient discovering the forum 3 months After a major project.....
Dang
Posted by ACB (Member # 1213) on 10-20-2000, 03:32 AM:

The book of words on the finer points if anyone does not know it is Michael Frost's "Half a Gale". ISBN 0-85937-263-4. Kenneth Mason, 1981. If you wonder who's got the remaindered copies at five pounds or so each, Chris Briggs has. 11, Trinity Street, Colchester, Esex, England, tel UK 1206 572 751, alas he is not e-enabled.
I quote:-
"...he lectured me about the virtues of lanyards as opposed to bottle screws which in his opinion were inventions of the Devil. The only thing anyone needed to know about rigging was what let you down and why; the weak link was the forestay splice and the whole of a smack's rigging was designed around that. It began with the mast wedges which let the mast use its own resilience instead of rolling as a dead weight, and the lanyards were meant to have enough give to let the mast bend slightly. The jib halyard stopped the mast snatching when the smack was being driven. Bottle screws increased the strains on the hull where they did the most harm. A smack should not hog, she should not spew her seams, and she should not dismast.....
....I set up the standing rigging but did not insert the wedges....(twenty minutes later)....once glance showed that the mast had stretched the lanyards and was now snatching badly at the end of each roll...I hurried on board and slipped one wedge in each side of the now wildly rolling mast. The effect was astonishing. The mast was tamed instantly and the smack picked up he usual easy roll. The Flushing fishermen had told us that in the rough water off their coast rigging simply tore a boat to pieces and I could take their point..."
And that's just page 10...
Posted by tirhandil (Member # 2125) on 10-20-2000, 05:45 PM:

Has Chris Briggs got a fax number?

Posted by ACB (Member # 1213) on 10-21-2000, 02:30 AM:

I believe that UK 1473 823 341 might work!
Otherwise I'll mail you a copy in three weeks time, when I will be back in England and will see him.

Posted by Smacksman (Member # 2103) on 10-21-2000, 05:43 AM:

The problem of these discussions, Mike F, is I don't have the skills to express myself like Mike Frost!
The arguments on rigging tension are also clouded by the transition from hemp to wire shrouds and from deadeyes and lanyards to bottle screws.
IMHO (I've just worked out that it means the creepy saying "in my humble opinion"; almost as bad as "with all due respect" which is an invitation to a slander charge IMHO) a lot of statements in books can be taken out of context. In a deadeye and lanyard tensioned, wire shroud rigging there is so much stretch in the lanyards compared to bottlescrews that the mast will always take the strain first. The proof of this is the slack seen in the leeward rigging. That is also why most smacks have dispensed with bowsprit shrouds as a waste of rations. The angle is too narrow and because you have a tackle to get the slack to remove the fid to run in the sticky_out_bit the stretch in the tackle makes the shrouds stay nothing.
IMHO the forestay does nothing but hold the mast up at anchor or when changing stays'ls. When the stays'l is up, the forestay is slack.
IMHO the business about mast chocks doesn't hold up as there should be no difference in shroud tension between a mast stepped on deck or on the keel. If the talk is of strain on the hull then mast chocks must add to it. Imagine the leverage of 40' of mast and sail on 6' from deck to keelson.
ps. my comment on the old boys slackening the rigging was because they were trying to indicate that it made the boat go faster. Now I have to add here that I am talking gaff cutter rig, wooden boat, solid treetrunk spars, no crosstrees for the mainmast, traditional type gaff rig on a smack. I accept the argument is different in parts on other rigs/construction. And hey, I've just read these words and it seems a bit boorish, it's not meant to be. I'm quite a softie really.

[Ross M]

Posted by tirhandil (Member # 2125) on 10-21-2000, 11:21 AM:

Thak you ACB it's very kind of you. I'll try the fax number. I've checked the "amazon.com" for the book because it's much easier to pay. It's indicated it's out of stock and no info on the price.
Hey smacsman, because of my English is not so much adequate, I could not understand if you were criticizing yourself or just joking. I've learned a lot from your web page and your messages posted here & the spar talk, if you accept a novice gaffer's compliaments.
Posted by Smacksman (Member # 2103) on 10-21-2000, 05:28 PM:

That's mighty decent of you tirhandil but isn't this forum idea a wonderful way to share information and learn. I have put two pictures of the gullets we chartered in Turkey on Emma's site. The way you described your tirhandil as double enders then these 12m LOD wooden boats might not be true gullets as we were told. What do you think they are?
Pics on http://emma.datablocks.net/wb/wb.htm (http://emma.datablocks.net/wb/wb.htm)
Posted by Thad (Member # 1797) on 10-21-2000, 08:34 PM:

I was glad to note now the second page of discussion, and to see the Emma pictures. Mike Burns of SHEILA wrote a piece for the Albert Strange Association 1999 Yearbook on Topsails, which I used in setting SEA HARMONY's up, and which I use in setting the sail. As I read it Mike says to hoist the topsail on the lee side. After working the yard and club under the topping lift, the hoist proceeds free of the main halyards. So, I hoist on the starboard tack working on the port side. Lowering, we are on the port tack and the sail slides down the mainsail into the lazyjacks. I have been stowing the sail in a cloth tube on the cabin top running out to the foredeck; I might have to shorten the spars to the boom's length to stow the topsail along the boom, but it is an interesting idea.
I was glad to see the picture of EMMA's leg! Thanks.
Posted by Mike Field (Member # 2239) on 10-21-2000, 08:44 PM:

Smacksman, I'm not clear what you mean about this --
"If the talk is of strain on the hull then mast chocks must add to it."
Do you mean localised, or in total?
That's why you have good strong partners. Then the sideways thrust on the wedges is taken horizontally into the hull structure. If you build the partners properly, and wedge the mast properly, then you turn the mast into a built-in beam, effectively shorter (by the length between step and partners) than its true length. Then stresses in rigging put less load on the mast itself, leaving it to be taken by the partners. So yes, the wedges add stresses to the structure at the partners, but they've removed it from another place (the chainplates) accordingly. And because the mast whips around less due to its effectively shorter length, less snatching is experienced at the end of the roll.
(IMHO, the meaning of which, like you, I've only just discovered. But I had to ask on Scuttlebutt to find out.)
And we know you're a big softie, Smacksman, you don't have to apologise. Speaking for myself, I'm delighted to have the benefit of your comments. There seems to be a lot of waffle on some sites posted by people who don't really know very much at all but want to air their views. So it's great to hear from those who do know and are happy to share it with the rest of us.
Mike F.
Posted by Smacksman (Member # 2103) on 10-22-2000, 08:16 AM:

Thad, Mike Burns is a great guy and really handles Sheila well. She was a nice boat before her re-fit but a floating Stienway after. I worked alongside a shipwright who laid her decks and he had nothing but good to say about her. It's rare to work for a client who desires, but is prepared to pay for, perfection.
At classic festivals it is pleasent to see skills in a crowded setting( and I mean CROWDED! The marina moved a couple of dozen residents up one end and fitted in 200 visitors rafting up 6/8 deep!) The sight of Mike and Sheila (singlehanded and engineless) quietly short-tacking her out through the throng will remain with me; a roll in of jib here, a tweak of mizzen there, that's when you see the class and balance of an Albert Strange yawl to perfection.
By the bye, I've just worked out how to read the previous postings and still write this. Simple - open another window with Ctrl n, go into 'submit a reply' then re-size the window smaller so that you can see the posts behind. I know, I know; I'm an old DOS man and slow on the uptake!
Mike, I thought my comments on mast chocks might cause some response. My heretical theory is that with the amount of stretch inherent in a deadeye and lanyard set-up the top of the mast can never be supported enough to consider the mast as a beam when chocked at deck level. In my view it is a cantilever with the shrouds attempting to limit the travel. I agree that the deck and mast partners form a very strong fulcrum. My concern is that the foot of the mast is levering the mast step and keelson side to side, tack on tack, and putting strain on the garboard seams.
If the mast is stepped on deck, as many are through choice or necessity, almost all of the loads are vertical, transmitted down to the keelson with a post under deck and the mast moves about as it will, restrained by the shrouds and acting as a column or maybe a sort of vertical beam, I'm not too sure of the correct terminology.
If the mast is stepped on the keel with no chocks at deck level, a decent size hole in the deck for movement and sufficient shroud tension to prevent the mast slopping about then the mast is again a column with vertical loads that the mast step can better handle.
Some of the old information on shroud tension was in the days of hemp when it was crucial to allow some dry slack to cope with the shrinkage when wet.
Ref. the comment about Mike Frost chocking the mast posted above;- As I remember it Mike had not long launched his smack Boadicea CK213 (built 1808 at Maldon, just down the road from me) and he had not taken up the stretch in his lanyards yet and it was easier to tame the mast by knocking in chocks. [I've a tip for owners new to lanyards; don't bother to make a show job of finishing off your lanyards with smart whippings when first set up as it will all have to come off for re-tensioning after the first few sails and certainly after the first good blow.]
And as for Flushing or Vlissingham (?spelling) I worked on the conversion of the Het Arsenal there to an aquarium theme park and used to have my 'piece' at lucheon on the sea wall. Fishermen must have been desperate to work out of there; 99% lee shore, 7 knot tides over sand bars and along with the Roompot, the steepest seas I've ever seen. I'm amazed any boat stays in one piece on those waters. I take my hat off to the Dutch for their seamanship.
I chip in my sixpenneth here (well about five bob this time) when I think it might help or be of interest but my main reason for thanking my lucky stars that I found this forum the other month was that I can read all the posts and learn so much from others.
ps. Feeling really chuffed right now. Rescued a blackbird tangled up in the berberis thorns by cotton thread snarled about it's feet. Cleaned it up, too exhausted to fly so fed it worms (the back garden looks like Verdun 1914 now)kept him in the conservatory overnight, a hearty worm breakfast this morning and he's off, off and away. Too often the end result is another customer for the graveyard at the top of the garden.
Posted by Mike Field (Member # 2239) on 10-22-2000, 09:50 AM:

OK Smacksman, I've already bitten, so I'll bite a bit more --
1. I agree with your cantilever description, provided the mast wedges are tight. Otherwise you've got a longer, pinned-end beam with a suspect support at the top. I also agree with your conclusion about resultant strain on the garboards in that latter case. (Possibly a good reason in itself for using wedges.)
2. A mast stepped on deck is the same, structurally, as a through-deck mast without wedges; but it's shorter, so moments are less. It's a pin-ended column (ie the lower end can rotate, unlike the properly wedged through-deck mast, which is encastre,) and therefore it's more prone to buckling in the presence of eccentric loads from sails or rigging.
3. A though-deck mast, without wedges, is the same sort of structure as a mast stepped on deck, but it's longer. So it's more prone to buckling under the same loads (the slenderness ratio is greater.) (Is that what I just said?) The only way around this, short of increasing the mast diameter to bring the slenderness ratio back to where it was, is to do what Michael Frost did, and put the wedges back.
4. So I think you're right about everything, except that you might have overlooked the altered slenderness ratio (height/cross-section) of the through-deck mast without wedges, and therefore its greater susceptibility to buckling.

[This message has been edited by Mike Field (edited 10-22-2000).]

[Ross M]

Posted by ACB (Member # 1213) on 10-23-2000, 04:51 AM:

Gosh, this is all getting rather good!
Now, where I come from, the bit of the boat that is usually called "the main beam" is called "the sailing beam"; an expression which conveys quite a clear idea, to me, of what work these beams, of heavier than normal scantling, tied off at the ends with lodging knees into the shelf and clamp, and tied together in the middle by the partners, are doing. Ideally as Smacksman says and as Larry Pardey in his excellent books says, they should be further supported by a structural bulkhead in way of the sailing beam.
If I think about my keel stepped, wedged, mast, which being a pole mast has a half hearted set of cross trees, but does not really need them (no pole masted smacks, but there always were pole masted Bristol Channel Pilot Cutters) then it seems to me that
1. The mast, as a whole, is pretty floppy. When you pick it up, off trestles, by the head, it will bend a long way rather than be picked up rigidly, like a chopstick or a scaffold pole.
2. I reckon that the shrouds, swifters and forestay (when at rest) are supporting the masthead. By masthed I meat the bit where all thge business goes on - the shrounds, swifters, forestay, throat and peak halyards, jib halyards, and the runner pendants go there, but it is not necessarily the actual top of the mast. With a pole mast it is not.
3. The cap shrouds and outer forestay support the top of the mast above the masthead.
4. With all this lot up there, the masthead is well triangulated and reasonably steady, but,lower down,the mast is floppy,because it is unsupported. That is where the mast partners and wedges come in - they control the lower half of the mast, which is subject to the thrust of the boom, the pull of the mainsail leech, and various other off forces.
I think I can cite Larry Pardey in support of this idea.
5. The business of the forestay and runners, at sea, is to deal with the snatching loads brought about by the boat pitching. The inertia of the mast, gaff, mainsail and the rest of the rig acting,through the masthead, is pretty big.
6. The main use of thebowsprit shrouds is to allow the crew to walk to the end of the bowsprit! Similarly the main use of the runners is as a handhold going forward.
But, without them the spars flex more than I like!
Posted by tirhandil (Member # 2125) on 10-23-2000, 11:31 AM:

Uh!!.. am I following a doctorate program on gaffership!? Who has invented this WoodenBoat Forum idea? He should be a holly man.
Smacsman, the boats that you have posted their photos in Emma's are tirhandils. But not properly built and rigged. I beleive those are examples of them built after 1980 just for blue voyage. Now people do not prefer them because of "inadequate" interior space for more custemers. Nowadays if one orders a tirhandil in general it's rigged as a sailing boat, marconi or gaff. Gulet is another classical design which is used as trawler currently. In previous times tirhandil and gulet are used for trawling, fishing, as cargo and passanger carriers. Their rigging were lateen and a version of it. Unfortunately there is no any living example from those days. Tirhandil is olmost unique to Bodrum area in Turkey. Today gulets are used for blue voyage and trawling and tirhandil is just for leisure and blue voyage. Both of them are not constructed frequently in the last years.
Yalcin
PS. By the way, what is a "swifter"?
[This message has been edited by tirhandil (edited 10-23-2000).]
[This message has been edited by tirhandil (edited 10-23-2000).]
Posted by Smacksman (Member # 2103) on 10-23-2000, 06:45 PM:

I had pc crashing problems in my reply yesterday but managed to save my post to Wordpad so here it is below but it is out of sync with ACB and Yalcin.
Hi Mike,
1. Most smacks today don't follow my theories and are keel stepped and wedged and caulked
watertight at deck level so the wedges are really tight.
2. The smacks that are deck stepped are fixed in a tabernackle and don't rotate. Not that it would make any difference structurally as smack masts are solid poles. I agree with your buckling comments if the mast was a tear-drop, hollow job with spreaders, cap shrouds, lowers, diamonds and all the other wire to keep a skinny ally/hollow wood mast up. Smacks have just two or three shrouds each side from the hounds to the chains. Crosstrees are fitted along with a topmast and spread the topmast shroud.
3. Boadicea's mast wasn't bowing or buckling. The top of the mast was moving several inches port and stb. as she rolled due to slack rigging as the lanyards had stretched.
Buckling is not a problem on a smack's mast. Alberta's is 10" dia tapering to 7" dia at the cap by 44' long and weighs a third of a ton! I can just about lift a 40' grp ketch's approx. 8" x 5" x 48' ally mast by myself.
Smacks masts break when they rot by water being trapped at tressletrees, the table and the step. They very rarely break otherwise. The racing boys need a good supply of topmasts and bowsprits though!
I know my ideas fly in the face of the written word but they seem to work for me.
Now Hi ACB,
I quite agree with you if the mast is as floppy as you indicate. Believe me, Alberta's mast does not whip. When it was delivered the lorry had a great hi-ab on the back which picked all 1/3 ton of pole up by the end, reached up and over and placed it on my tressles as you would lay down a snooker que. Most impressive.
There are no running backstays to the main mast, only the topmast although some of the keen racing types are fitting them not to hold the mast up but to get more tension in the jib luff. Immediatly you 'move the goalposts' of the argument and take out the requirement for columnar support for the mast (ie the requirement to stop it buckling or over bending)simply due to the massive nature of the mast, then the mind moves on into areas not covered by the books of today. I come back to my original point; if the mast is massive enough to take the loads freestanding as it were (like a Freedom rig), then mast chocks will act as a fulcrum and try to lever the keelson sideways. Therefore, better to leave some slack a deck level for the inevitable movement of the top of the mast due to slack rigging caused by stretch. Come on guys, hit me with a crushing argument that will flatten my theory!
Hi Yalcin, Thank you for the education. So they were tirhandils after all. Good seaboats they were even though the fittings were bad. I saw quite a few being built in the back yards of farms nearby. Almost a cottage industry.
I have no idea what a 'swifter' is either. Come on ACB, educate us.
Posted by John B (Member # 2113) on 10-23-2000, 09:40 PM:

Is a swifter a cross between a shroud and a backstay ? If so, I fitted them when I re rigged Waione last year. I call them aft intermediates because I didn't know what else I could call them. The other name is "security blankets" and I like em.
Posted by ACB (Member # 1213) on 10-23-2000, 09:54 PM:

Yes, John B - that's what I mean by a "swifter" - the aft-most shroud, whose chain plate is about two feet aft of the mast, and which is placed on the mast last. It serves as a combined shroud and backstay. Jolly useful bit of kit. Only drawback is that it stops you squaring the boom off as far as you otherwise might. But that is a small price to pay.
Smacksman - I cautiously differ. I have seen masts break at the masthead. I think that the masthead is a critical area, and as Claud Worth says it ought to be kept short.
Maybe I have a particularly floppy mast? It's built up from solid glued Sitka spruce, and it tapers from 7.5" to 5" at the hounds and to 3.5" at the cap. But she is a smaller boat than ALBERTA. Anyway I think that the wedges are not there to control the top of the mast - the stays do that - but to control the lower to middle bit.
Tirhandl - tell us more about traditional Turkish craft - we have been calling them all "gulets" for too long, just as, before we knew better, we called all Dutch boats "botters".
Posted by John B (Member # 2113) on 10-23-2000, 11:48 PM:

I noticed an interesting thing to do with the bowsprit shrouds the other day as well.
I decided to bowse down the bowsprit a few inches( prebend, har har) and found that the shrouds went slack.
Of course looking at it with open eyes that's to be expected as they are working the same way for the sprit as an aft lower shroud works for a mast. both for longitudinal and latitudinal support.
I can't really imagine doing without them, but it sounds as if my spars are all lighter by comparison to the smacks(especially) and Mirelle?.
I printed out your drawing Smacksman for the halyard bend and of course, agree with your drawing of the stresses on the gaff rig. I would add another dynamic though, and thats the thrust of the gaff at the saddle, trying to push the mast forward. I was quite concerned about that and copied the little jumper struts you see sometimes.
I'm fascinated to see the difference in approaches being voiced here.
Smacksman with the unstressed, no mast wedges kind of approach...... compared to the way I've done it which has a bit of wire for every eventuality.
Maybe it's a horses for courses thing.
For myself , I think maybe I've got a greater safety margin than I thought...!! just great to see these views based on experience.
Tirhandil, We loved Turkey as well but then, all Kiwi's do. John

[Ross M]

Posted by ACB (Member # 1213) on 10-24-2000, 01:17 AM:

The thrust of the gaff....I had an sharp illustration of this. Mirelle's mast is glued up from two pieces (well, four, couning scarphs) and the glue is getting tired. Seam opened at the heel six years ago - glued it up. Two years ago seam opened in way of the position of the gaff jaws in the close reefed position. I really must split it all along and reglue it this winter..... but it shows how much the gaff thrusts into the mast - and of course how much lateral load comes on the heel and the mast step, as Smacksman says.
Posted by John B (Member # 2113) on 10-24-2000, 01:40 AM:

Andrew,
for me ,the thing I noticed about the gaff was that in the full rig configuration there was more thrust against the mast than in reefed configuration. This is going to vary with different top panel/ peak attachment points, boat to boat, but I can't tell you how happy I was earlier this year to go out in a 35/40 knotter (that Waione helicopter shot)with 2 reefs and find that the saddle was just floating ....the peak halyard taking the strain, and the mast staying beautifully in column.no thrust at all.made me feel quite comfortable.
Posted by Mike Field (Member # 2239) on 10-24-2000, 09:13 AM:

Hello again, Smacksman,
My point about a mast (any mast) buckling is not that it does, necessarily, but that it tends to, under any but purely axial loading. That is, any mast will tend to buckle under the loads met in practice. The buckling may be so small as to be invisible, of course. On the other hand, you can often see it quite clearly if you lie at the foot of a mast and sight up it. that's why masts are stayed -- to control the buckling. (By the way, I'm not distinguishing here between buckling and bending, which I should be doing, strictly speaking.)
The whole thing is a balancing act -- gravity, wind pressure, boom and gaff thrust, masthoop, lacing, or track thrust, spreader compression, tension from shrouds, forestay, and runnners, restraining forces at partners and step, inherent stiffness of the mast itself, etc etc -- the resultant of all of which should be to keep the mast in its right station in life.
Whether one's mast is stepped on deck or on the keel, and if the latter, whether wedges are used or not, only affects the size of the various terms in the equation. The balance must still occur, or your mast goes overboard.
If wedges are used with a keel-stepped mast, then restraining forces at the partners and step are increased, as you say. These may be large enough that you'd prefer your hull didn't have to take them. The trade-off for accepting them is that forces in the shrouds are reduced proportionately. By omitting the wedges to relieve the forces at the partners and step, you place more tension in the shrouds.
If you had no shrouds, or ones that were too weak (which is going to amount to the same thing when they break,) then the mast simply falls over sideways, until it's checked by the partners. Then you're back where you were when you had wedges, but your mast is leaning over at a drunken angle instead of being vertical.
So mast wedges, if omitted, will reduce the stresses introduced to the hull through the partners (unless the mast has fallen over.) And they will increase stresses introduced through the chainplates. The total force to be absorbed by the total hull from the total rigging remains unchanged (except for snatch loadings like those referred to in Andrew's quote, the possibility of inducing which, in my opinion -- sorry, IMHO -- is an excellent reason for using wedges.) So the only question is, which part of the hull is better able to handle the strains likely to be placed on it?
If I were a bit leery about my deck beams, or the hull structure down around the mast step, then I'd probably do what you do, and leave out the wedges. But I'd consider reinforcing my chainplates at the same time.
To come back to the realms of the pragmatic, the more you increase the shroud tension, the more you tend to drive the mast through the keel, and the more your topsides tend to hog. I think very many timber masts have great inherent strength, and I'm inclined to think that many would be quite satisfactory without shrouds or stays at all. (Aileen Louisa's mast is unstayed (15' dinghy) and perfectly sound, despite splitting her mast-thwart partners once.) So I think the old-timers view that the mast should be allowed to take the inital strain is the right one. And yo-ho-ho for the deadeyes and lanyards.
I suppose I really should have sat down and written a little essay on this first before I posted it, but I hope I've succeeded in making thinmgs clearer rather than murkier. (If anyone's interested in seeing some loading/deflection diagrams, I might be able to produce some. But I'm pretty rusty at this, so perhaps someone else might like to volunteer instead?)
[This message has been edited by Mike Field (edited 10-24-2000).]
Posted by Smacksman (Member # 2103) on 10-24-2000, 04:25 PM:

ACB Is your hollow mast solid in way of the gaff jaws with a full main?
And where else is it solid? I've never used a hollow mast for gaff rig.
Oh, and earlier you commented on pole masts, Class III (36'-38') smacks were
nearly all rigged with pole masts. Class II (40'+) and bigger usually
had housing topmasts. My guess is something to do with the availability
of big enough trees.
JohnB (I always hum the song 'the sloop JohnB'when I read your posts!)
Is your bowsprit fixed or do you run it in? I use the lizard as a
footrope till my feet get to the bobstay and then walk up that. Bit wet
if there is a sea running. (smack definition: lizard - rope attached to part
way up bobstay chain and used to pull in the bobstay for a quiet night's
sleep at anchor or when the bowsprit is run in). Smacks always bowse
down the bowsprit equal to its diameter to form a firm base for the jib.
Windlass is used to haul on the bostay tackle to achieve the bend in an
8" dia. bowsprit. Mike Interesting food for thought. Talking of forces made me think of
what pushes a gaff rig boat along and what forces are different to a
bermudan. One that springs to mind is the lack of kicking strap or vang
which imposes huge forces on the bermudan's goose neck.
Close hauled:
There is not much thrust on Alberta's boom jaws in a normal wind; you can
grab the jaws and lift the boom up. Same with the mast hoops. There is a
lot of force on the sheets, (main, stays'l and jib). Fair load on the gaff
jaws with a full main. Weather shrouds taught to a middle C. No backstays,
fixed or running. Mast must take a fair bit of thrust and transfer it to
deck chocks (or in my case, keel)
Off the wind:
I expect the mast and fore stays take more of the share now and the
sheets less. The weather after shroud is really grunting now and the
boom jaws lock solid.
What do the experts say?

[Ross M]

Posted by John B (Member # 2113) on 10-24-2000, 05:33 PM:

Smacksman, bowsprit is fixed, mortise and tenon into the samson post on the Waione.(much as I'd like to be able to house it, I'm governed by the way it is /was/ should be for this boat.)
I was surprised to see just how little strain there is on the hoops . I even added a couple in from original plans but they just have a light amount of tension on them..... overridden by the luff tension i suppose.
LFH in the common sense of yacht design commented about not needing the backstays on the wind because of the forestay to peak to mainsheet circle. I interpreted that to mean , off the wind is where you need em. certainly thats my impression and my hat is off to you if you are going without them.
It comes down to that mast type/strength . my light hollow stick compared to your solid and obviously heavier section.
great fun. I wish I had discovered this forum last year.
Posted by ACB (Member # 1213) on 10-25-2000, 12:35 AM:

ah, there is a progression here, which I can now make out.
Alberta, Colchester smack, built 1880's, has a grown solid mast, a running bowsprit and no backstays or bowsprit shrouds. She has a fidded topmast.
Waione, New Zealand racing yacht, built just a few years later, has a hollow mast, a very fixed bowsprit, and backstays. She has a pole mast.
Mirelle, built in 1930's, comes between the two, taking some elements from each. She has a pole mast.
I need to define a term here. By "pole mast" I mean a mast which extends above the upper peak halyard block (the top of the mast head, normally) by quite a distance, almost to the place where the head of a topmast, if carried, would be,with a small pair of cross trees, so that a yard topsail can be set on it. This type of mast came in around 1900 or so. I don't mean a mast without cross trees on which a topsail cannot be set.
Mirelle has gone from pole mast and topsail yard, to separate, fidded, topmast, and back again, and she may well go back to separate topmast once more soon! The advantage of the pole mast is less weight and clutter aloft. The disadvanatge is that the very long topsail yard (21ft) is a brute to handle. Waione clearly has another such - hats off to you, John for setting it so well!
[This message has been edited by ACB (edited 10-25-2000).]
Posted by John B (Member # 2113) on 10-25-2000, 04:16 PM:

Andrew,
I would point out that the originally designed rig was solid in the Waione.
I chose to make it out my existing mast because that was what I could do on my budget at the time . Thats how I ended up with hollow.
As for the topsail, I was worried about that , and I have some fine tuning to do, but the idea for its handling came directly from Wooden Boat / curlew some years back.
Here's my interpretation of their system, where the fall of the halyard forms a jackstay to captivate the heel of the yard.

the whole thing lives on chocks on the side of the boom like a dinghy spinnaker pole.( inside the lazy jacks)
Posted by tirhandil (Member # 2125) on 10-25-2000, 06:13 PM:

Thanks JohnB. What a war.. so blody but at the end bring three nations (Aust, NZ, TR) so close to each other.
Honestly to say I beleive tirhandil and gulet were developed out of Turkey somewhere in the Med. Tirhandil in Greece, but I do not have any idea on gulet. France may be??? But the tirhandils produced in TR and GR are a bit different. and on the black sea coast we have (almost extinct out of some nice examples kept on the shore)"thakha" and still used "chekthyrme" (I've tried to write how the are pronounced). all the original turkish saling wooden work boats ended up their destinies in stoves I beleive. It is just like a tale for me to read you have boats which were build in 19th century!!! There is no even a single boat like that in Turkey unfortunately. Just photos showing the Bosphorus and the Golden Horn in Istanbul and Izmir Harbour full of single, two or three masted sail boats with disappeared strange riggings. Like a wood by the sea.
I've just come back from a two days visit to Datca and tomorrow at least 17 Hrs of driving is awaiting me to south coast to install some camera staff in a seal cave. When I turned back in the next week I'll try to send you some photos of the wooden classical boats in TR if you are interested so much. And this incredably interesting (IMHO) discusion on the masts was just coninsided with my willing to send some questions about my mast problems. I've learned many things I think, about mast balance and I'd like to brief what I learned and what happened on my boat during trying to fix her mast.
Till then, fair winds to all.. and we say here "God may give you safety..." or just "by safety..."
Posted by TonyH (Member # 2285) on 10-25-2000, 06:43 PM:

I've been following this thread with interest. The discussion on masts certainly is interesting - a real eye-opener and worth publishing IMHO.
On Turkish craft, it's interesting what you say, Yalcin, about their origins. Sounds like they grew out of that whole diverse and unique assemblage of "Mediterranean Craft" of the 18th-19th century. Does anyone know of a good book on them - tartans, settees etc etc? Having read about them in O'Brian novels etc it would be interesting to know more.
And yes, the good will between Australia, NZ and Turkey that grew out of Gallipoli and exists to this day is a wondrous thing.
Posted by Smacksman (Member # 2103) on 10-25-2000, 07:11 PM:

Sorry chaps, this is out of sync. again. I started this message, stopped for supper then posted it. In the meantime more messages and pics! I use a similar method on Emma's tops'l yard and it works a treat, John. I made the bitter end of the tops'l halyard off to the heel of the yard so it can be used as a downhaul. (saves rope).
Happy caveing Yalcin. Do you swim with your seals? They really are poetry in motion. We have a resident grey seal in Brightlingsea harbour. I'm not suprised that wooden boats die in Turkey - the dry heat must dessicate them. Now, as I was saying previously ....
JohnB - Now I know why Waione ( lovely musical name; what does it
mean/where does it come from? ) has bowsprit shrouds. As the bowsprit is
fixed the shrouds and bobstay can be set up really firmly and so give
some decent support. When a 44' smack crammed into a harbour to off-load
her catch, a 20' bowsprit sticking out the front is a real liability.
But if the bowsprit has to come in and go out twice a day, every day,
then the gear must be simple and easy to slack off to get the fid out
and so let the spar in. The extreme angle of the shrouds (less than 9
degrees) coupled with stretch in the shroud tackles make the shrouds
useless. Much easier to increase the diameter of the bowsprit to cope
with the sideways forces on it. In fact, a similar attitude to the mast
forces/slenderness ratio problem - just keep making it bigger till it
doesn't break!
On hoops, it seem to be the top mast hoop that breaks because of the tricky
geometry of the throat. I've drawn it up on CAD and as the gaff is
peaked up from the horizontal the head is stretched by 2"+.
On both Emma and Alberta I re-built the gaff jaws area to cope
with the forces. (Gosh, thinking about it, the gaff jaws/hounds area
is a books-worth on it's own!)
ps. You ducked my question about where your hollow mast isn't! Does the
hollow start where the gaff jaws are positioned on say the second reef?
ACB, if your pole mast carries well above the top peak tackle block does
your jib still come from around that area and maintain the triangle of
forces or does it come from the cap? If it does, presumably you have
runners set up all the time? Alberta's topmast is really only to set the
tops'l on a regular basis and runners are still not needed although the
topmast has topmast shrouds with spreaders (12 foot wide!).
It's only when a jib top'sl is set that the runners earn their keep and that sail
comes down over a F3.
Is your boom long enough to lay your tops'l yard
along it? A bit unconventional but it works well on Emma and the tops'l,
halyard, sheet and downhaul remain bent on for a quick hoist.
[This message has been edited by Smacksman (edited 10-25-2000).]
Posted by ACB (Member # 1213) on 10-25-2000, 11:25 PM:

When my father and I re-rigged the little Mytica in 1976 that's exactly what we did - re-used the bermudian (deck stepped!) mast.
That is a very cunning topsail - I am used to threading the halyard through a thimble at the foot of the yard as a leader, but I never thought of using a rigid bullseye on the mast! Adaptation is imminent!
I can't stow the brute along the boom, as many do, because we have Appledore (roller) reefing - which I like, having messed about in pilot cutters when I was younger. So the topsail and its yards are frapped round with the downhaul and stowed up a shroud, as one does with a boathook.
The jib halyards go to the usual place - the masthead, properly so called, not to the top of the mast. All the upper extension of the mast does is to carry the topsail yard - which is why it has cap shrouds and an outer forestay but no backstays.
Yalcin - thanks for the history. I think that there is a very good book to be written on the sailing craft of Turkey.

[Ross M]

Posted by John B (Member # 2113) on 10-26-2000, 12:54 AM:

Smacksman,
the mast is all hollow apart from the head and the foot. Time will tell I suppose.
I don't quite understand the variation on the halyard you're talking about....?
that yard is 22 ft long from memory , hollow ( ex dinghy mast) with a luff groove routed into it and weighs 8 kg about 17/18 lds.
Its good but the problem I have is that there is more weight above the halyard point than below so it can be a bit of a trial to send up.
the trick for us is to get it vertical and send it aloft on the sheet and halyard simultaneously.
This is caused by the same problem I had when cutting the old mast down.
replay.....
Mark mast at designed point, get saw poised above mark, cut mast 1 foot longer than mark indicates, because of rush of blood to the head. similar concept when setting up halyard points on yard for topsail.
Ah well whats another 50 sq ft or so between friends.
Posted by Smacksman (Member # 2103) on 10-26-2000, 04:08 PM:

Me again (Oh no, do I hear) I'm finding this thread educational.
ACB - I saw a neat stowage for a yard tops'l up a shroud once. It was a
canvas sock that slipped over the lot, yard, tops'l and club just
quickly bundled up first. Canvas pocket sewn on outside for rope falls.
Top of encased bundle poked through a hoop lashed to the shrouds and
bottom lashed with a line permenantly tied to the shroud (can't loose
the lashing when tops'l in use). Even blowing a hooly the tops'l gear
didn't frap, the sun was kept off the sail and chafe on the stowed sail
was reduced.
JohnB - When the tops'l is hoisted the halyard is at it's shortest and
you have a bundle of fall in your hands.
You need a downhaul from the bottom of the yard to control it and
that needs to be longest when the tops'l is up. So I tie the 'fall' end of the
halyard to the bottom of the yard to make a continuous downhaul/halyard.
You cleat off the halyard as usual when the tops'l is up and the fall is
stowed up the mast as a downhaul.
I hoist a yard tops'l initialy by it's sheet and to windward so that it
slides up the main with no flapping about. The yard acts as a pendulum
and if the balance point is not quite right the yard can be controlled
by light tension on the yard halyard or downhaul. Once the sheet is
almost in, cleat it. (I'm describing this as though the operation was
singlehanded) Then steadying the downhaul, haul hard on the halyard and
rotate it 90 degrees and up into position. Cleat halyard, trim sheet, job done.
I did a very rough sketch of this on Emma's temp. site http://emma.datablocks.net/wb/wb.htm (http://emma.datablocks.net/wb/wb.htm) for someone else who asked. As you
have gathered, this is on my Emma, not the smack.
On your pic above of your tops'l yard, where do your peak tackle blocks
attach to the mast? On Emma I put the equivalent of your fixed halyard-bullseye
on the stb. side of the gaff jaws and the halyard cheek block on the
stb. side of the mast so that the yard was off-set to stb. clear of the
peak tackle.
I sympathise with you ref trimming the mast. The number of times I have
carefully marked a job ready to cut, gone to answer the phone or have a
yarn, then come back and cut it beautifully on another mark!
Posted by Thad (Member # 1797) on 10-26-2000, 07:44 PM:

Yesterday I took this picture that might show the location and scale of the Sea Harmony pinrails. Still a good discussion!
Posted by ACB (Member # 1213) on 10-26-2000, 10:01 PM:

Thad - what a lovely boat!
But may I tease you for a moment - the light boards should be black inside, not green and red. IRPCS, 1972, amended 1987 and 1993, Annex 1, section 5...
"The sidelight screens of vessels of 20 metres or more in length shall be fitted with inboard screens painted matt black, and meeting the requirements of section 9 of this Annex. On vessels of less than 20 metres in length the sidelinghts, if necessary to meet the requirements of Section 9 of this Annex, shall be fitted with inboard matt black screens....."
Sorry if this sounds too nerdish to be true but better from one of us than from an unduly zealous CG officer!
We could have a really academic discussion about what colour the inboard and aft sides should be painted - like you, I favour red and green!
Smacksman - that's exactly how I stow my topsail - I got the idea from my sister - and it works very well. Father always used the halyard as the downhaul, as you describe, and since he started sailing, on trawlers as well as yachts, in 1919, I reckon that's good historical authority for the practice!
Posted by John B (Member # 2113) on 10-26-2000, 11:41 PM:

Well , don't you just learn something every day. thanks for the halyard / down haul idea.
1 cubic foot less rope for John to deal with.
bliss.
Peak halyards are at the masthead and the topsail hal's are through a sheave ( slightly offset)it all snugs in pretty tight.
you need to know that the mast cutting thing wasn't a mistake .It was more one of those heart v head things.
Sea Harmony looks beautiful.... how about a whole boat shot ? Do I detect a man with digital camera?
( I bought one recently for "work")
Andrew ,I think you might need one for your work too, because we're all waiting for some shots of "mirelle".
Waione goes in tommorrow after 2 months or so on the hard.
and then we'll be sailing.
Posted by ACB (Member # 1213) on 10-27-2000, 02:45 AM:

Pictures in 3 weeks, when I am at home in front of my scanner and have re-read John R. Smith's directions! Promise! There is a black and white shot from a friend's book on the Cruising World website general discussion forum "denizens board".
Posted by Thad (Member # 1797) on 10-27-2000, 07:10 AM:

John B, how do you get a picture like that? Time to be sailing! Smacksman, the matt black background must be so a spotlight would not pick up the color from astern (maybe). Thanks, I just put them up as they came to me because I like them and they have their lanterns too. Now I have to paint them black inside. We do carry electric lights. Yes, and the little digital camera works pretty well. Unfortunately I have some software conflict that keeps stopping my scanner from working so I have to do some work before I can post a new picture. I have posted a couple of Sea Harmony pictures earlier. I would like to have one like the above, but it is hard to get a picture of yourself sailing.
Posted by Thad (Member # 1797) on 10-27-2000, 01:01 PM:

I got the scanner working so here goes.
Posted by Thad (Member # 1797) on 10-27-2000, 01:04 PM:

Sorry, again --
Posted by Smacksman (Member # 2103) on 10-27-2000, 07:05 PM:

Thad, It wasn't me that told on you about black lightboards - honest.
Mine are painted green and red too. Helps the crew with the buoyage system coming home! My fishing number on the bulwarks is supposed to be crossed out with a red line too so that the CG doesn't confuse my 1885 smack with a modern trawler that might have the same number now. Now I wonder how they could be confused? Great pics chaps. It's super to hear of someone going in for the beginning of their season as we are laying up. Fair winds to you all.

[Ross M]

Posted by Thad (Member # 1797) on 10-27-2000, 07:45 PM:

Sorry ACB, who I see is in Beijing, and Smacksman. A month ago Sea Harmony was out for paint and is now back in for Fall sailing(which has been beautiful) and Winter (when I get out when I can). I was sure talk of Waione going over for the season was somewhere downunder, NZ I see. It is wonderful to have this kind of discussion with it's range of opinions, insight, and locale.
Posted by John B (Member # 2113) on 10-29-2000, 04:17 PM:

Thad, your yacht reminds me very much of Sheila 2 in those shots , I think you have a counter stern though, as opposed to the canoe stern on Sheila. Great to see.
re my photo's, I came into a bundle of professionally taken shots a month or so ago. I know what you all mean about how difficult it is to get photos of your own boat sailing. Changing the boat to that most unusual of things.... a gaff rig.... has suddenly made us interesting!!
Boat is in the water finally. yahoo.
Posted by Smacksman (Member # 2103) on 10-30-2000, 07:20 PM:

I'll try and post a pic of my old Emma

with her gaff spi up; rare event!
[This message has been edited by Smacksman (edited 10-30-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Smacksman (edited 10-30-2000).]
Posted by ACB (Member # 1213) on 10-30-2000, 09:30 PM:

Ye Gods....!
I'm VERY impressed...
Posted by John B (Member # 2113) on 10-30-2000, 11:01 PM:

I've seen that one before and I'm STILL very impressed.
you wouldn't want the death rolls with that lot up.
Posted by Mike Field (Member # 2239) on 10-31-2000, 02:52 AM:

And I'm just as impressed, Smacksman (particularly if you're not using mast wedges....)
Posted by Thad (Member # 1797) on 10-31-2000, 07:04 AM:

Great stuff! The topsail seems to set very well considering how far the yard extends above the masthead.
Posted by Smacksman (Member # 2103) on 10-31-2000, 01:42 PM:

Sorry, pic has nothing to do with pin rails or mast chocks.
Sort of a sub/sub/thread above about never seeing your own boat sailing.
As a 'fleet owner' :-), I authorise myself to pontificate on all things sailing
especially:-
(i) 24' centerboard New York Oyster Sloops circa 1870 (i think) like Emma
(ii) 44' Colchester smacks like Alberta
(iii) tape and glue ply tenders (for Emma)
(iv) polypropelene hulled Topper dinghy
(v) how to keep them all sailing with no money and most important
(vi) staying married to a lovely, long suffering wife who sails under sufference
and thinks that 'roughing it' is a 2 star hotel! The 'bucket 'n chuckit' heads on Emma are NOT appreciated.
Posted by tirhandil (Member # 2125) on 10-31-2000, 01:52 PM:

Hi again all... after 1800km of driving in three days I've turned bact to Foca and to MERHABA, my tirhandil.
this "pin rail" becames a special club within the Forum I think!? I'll ready to order the sails. I'd like to give him every detail if you can help me. Should I post this as a seperate topic in the forum or shell we continue to discuss in the "Club"? I'll post the drawings of classical Turkish boats soon before leaving Foca for another camera installing expedition in another cave in another region.
smacksman; sometimes we had chances to swim with some seals. Most specimens are extremely shy in most of the cases. And sometimes we have meet them within the caves. In general they prefered to swim away.
[This message has been edited by tirhandil (edited 01-09-2001).]
Posted by Smacksman (Member # 2103) on 10-31-2000, 02:34 PM:

I've replied twice and it is not posted. Is this thread closed? I am confused. (easily done!)
Posted by tirhandil (Member # 2125) on 10-31-2000, 05:06 PM:

let's see...
so it's going... may be a temporary problem in the site or in the server.
[This message has been edited by tirhandil (edited 10-31-2000).]
[This message has been edited by tirhandil (edited 10-31-2000).]
Posted by Ian McColgin (Member # 32) on 10-31-2000, 05:30 PM:

Show some pix of how the seams run on sails your guy has made. That'll tell us pretty quickly whether he can make the transition.
Posted by tirhandil (Member # 2125) on 10-31-2000, 05:35 PM:

well.. anyway.. let me ask about the sails...
the dimentions of the main is as follows, as I have measured: Luff: 3700mm, foot: 4700mm,
diagonal: 5550 mm, gaff: 3000mm, gaff x luff angle: 35 degree, leech: 6219 mm, S: 16,92 sq. m. these sound something?
there is a software in my computer called "sailcut 4.0" for gaff sails and for designing a sail it asks "luff rounds (mm), luff round position (%), gaff round (mm), leech round (mm), leech round position (%), foot round (mm). any suggestions, masters? I like to have a work boat main with vertical cut and loosed foot.
Posted by tirhandil (Member # 2125) on 10-31-2000, 05:47 PM:

sorry Ian McColgin, I could not understand what you mean by "transition". From marconi to gaff? or you mean someting else? they use computers for designing and cutting the sails. not in a traditional way except the details. and as far as I know there are just 3 well known sail makers in Turkey. Dolphin Sails ("my guy"), North Sails and a successor of an old sail maker. his sername even means "sailcutter". I am not sure if he knows about gaff design well, but we cannot afford him. as far as I know he doesn't use computers.
Posted by Smacksman (Member # 2103) on 10-31-2000, 05:53 PM:

Welcome back Yalcin. Your club has grown! We were just keeping it warm for you. Those % round seem to be to get the fullness or aerofoil section of the sail. Sorry, notwithstanding what I said above, this is one subject on which I have limited knowledge.
There is a sailmaker we used in Marmaris on the edge of the river just down from the bridge over to the marina. Mended our mainsail over night in the road outside his shop. Great character.
Maybe to get the experts onto your problem you would be better starting a new thread?
Posted by tirhandil (Member # 2125) on 10-31-2000, 07:14 PM:

well, honestly to say, I'm greatful for all of you. Then I'll repost my sail design question as a new topic. But, the suggestions from the honorable club members in here are welcomed as well :-)).
[This message has been edited by tirhandil (edited 01-09-2001).]