Running backstay chainplate placement - SailNet Community

   Search Sailnet:

 forums  store  


Quick Menu
Forums           
Articles          
Galleries        
Boat Reviews  
Classifieds     
Search SailNet 
Boat Search (new)

Shop the
SailNet Store
Anchor Locker
Boatbuilding & Repair
Charts
Clothing
Electrical
Electronics
Engine
Hatches and Portlights
Interior And Galley
Maintenance
Marine Electronics
Navigation
Other Items
Plumbing and Pumps
Rigging
Safety
Sailing Hardware
Trailer & Watersports
Clearance Items

Advertise Here






Go Back   SailNet Community > On Board > Gear & Maintenance
 Not a Member? 
  #1  
Old 11-24-2009
downeast450's Avatar
Tundra Down
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seal Harbor, Maine
Posts: 1,228
Thanks: 25
Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts
Rep Power: 7
downeast450 is on a distinguished road
Running backstay chainplate placement

I am adding running backstays.

When I install the chainplates, what governs their placement athwart ship? I have the bulkheads half done and want to make chainplates. I assume the angle the chainplate is attached should line its running back stay up with the tangs. Since the chainplates are about 5' aft of the mast I will need to either build them with an offset plate for bolting to the bulkhead or build up the mounting surface to accept a flat plate at the appropriate angle. Since I will be building these plates I can design them to exit the deck very close to the toe rail. One thing that occurs to me is stay storage when not in use. How much stress will I create for the wire if they are stored with the lower backs? I have no experience with runningbackstays,yet, and will appreciate any insight.

George
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #2  
Old 11-24-2009
wwilson's Avatar
Chesapeake Sailor
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Herrington Harbor, MD
Posts: 579
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 15
wwilson is on a distinguished road
Runners

George,

The runners installed (by manufacturer) on my boat are on the toe rail. The tang is through bolted through the cap rail and the hull/deck joint. The athwart (transverse) placement is therefore maximized, as is the case for every other example that I am familiar with.

You do not mention boat size, but 5-ft aft of the mast sounds very close. In this picture, you can make out the tang for the runners just at the base of the stern pushpit - on the cap rail. On a 40-ft boat, that makes the distance more like 12-15-ft from the mast.



The runners are only deployed to support the mast when the inner forestay is used because it attaches well below the mast head. The universal pain in the ass with runners is, of course, that they inhibit the boom when tacking (or gybing). One must be slacked and one tightened for every change of course.

wrt stay storage; I assume you mean a "convertible" inner forestay on which the sail will be hanked when deployed. Mine is stored on the mast. It lays in a notched and radiused fitting at the base of the mast. It doubles back up the mast and then secures via its end-shackle to an eye on the mast and is tightened via its integral turnbuckle. The radiused fitting assures a reasonable bend in the wire. It has shown no damage or deformity on inspection (or very infrequent use) over the years.

Wayne

Last edited by wwilson; 11-24-2009 at 10:45 AM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #3  
Old 11-24-2009
mitiempo's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Victoria B.C. Canada
Posts: 7,073
Thanks: 0
Thanked 68 Times in 59 Posts
Rep Power: 7
mitiempo will become famous soon enough mitiempo will become famous soon enough
George
Is this on your 28' Islander? How far forward of the mast is the cutter stay and what is your thinking on addind a cutter stay? Are you plannint to sail the boat as a cutter with 2 foresails at the same time? Usually the runner is as far aft of the mast as the cutter stay is forward or close to this. The runner can be made up of higher tech line which avoids the bend doing damage in the case of stainless runners. Only the windward runner needs to be deployed when needed, usually not an issue in light air.
Depending on the reason you have for adding an inner forestay there might be an easier solution. In a lot of cases the inner stay is added to boats with furling jibs so in rough weather a smaller jib than a reefed furler can be set. If this is the case the easier solution is a solent stay. A solent stay is just aft of the forestay and parallels it. Because it is attached so close to the bow and so close to the masthead it doesn't require runners at all. Also because the stay is attached so close to the bow it doesn't require an internal tie rod to the hull in the forecabin. It is a removeable stay. It also makes sense with any removeable stay to use 7x19 wire as it is more flexible and less subject to kinking.
Brian

Last edited by mitiempo; 11-24-2009 at 12:33 PM. Reason: addition
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #4  
Old 11-24-2009
downeast450's Avatar
Tundra Down
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seal Harbor, Maine
Posts: 1,228
Thanks: 25
Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts
Rep Power: 7
downeast450 is on a distinguished road
Wayne and Brian,
Thank you for your responses. The photograph was a help. Yes, it is for my Islander 28. I am planning to sail it more offshore and want a comfortable and safe sail configuration for higher winds. It is my intention to use it only as a storm sail set up and do not intend to set two head sails at the same time. I am hoping that for my "normal" coastal sailing here I will be able to stow both the inner headstay and the runners out of the way. If I am heading across the mouth of the Bay of Fundy it would be nice to have a storm sail option that was balanced and powerful enough to make progress under adverse conditions. Here is what I am considering. I will mount a chainplate for the inner headstay just aft of the anchor locker. That will give me a thwart under the deck to attach it to. That point is 50 inches aft of the head stay's chainplate. The J measurement of this boat is 11.8 ft. If I want to run an inner headstay parallel to the headstay starting at this point it will attach 24.5 feet up the mast. That would be the location of the tangs. If I use a minimum angle of 12 degrees from the transverse plane of the mast I will be adding the chainplates for the runners about 5 feet aft of the chainplate for the upper shroud. I understand that 12 degrees is a minimum and I do have a good option for a point of attachment that is 6 feet back. I am hoping that the inner head stay can "live" along the rail near the forward lower when the weather does not require a storm set up and that the runners, too can be "stored" conveniently. Using a high strength synthetic line for the runners seems like it will lend itself to that.

What do you think?

George

Last edited by downeast450; 11-24-2009 at 04:07 PM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #5  
Old 11-24-2009
mitiempo's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Victoria B.C. Canada
Posts: 7,073
Thanks: 0
Thanked 68 Times in 59 Posts
Rep Power: 7
mitiempo will become famous soon enough mitiempo will become famous soon enough
That sounds workable. Remember that the farther aft the runners are the more they will be trying to counteract the inner forestay and the less they will be trying to compress the mast - of course this has to be balanced with ideally being able to beat to windward with one or both runners set while tacking and not having them interfere with the main.
Brian
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #6  
Old 11-24-2009
downeast450's Avatar
Tundra Down
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seal Harbor, Maine
Posts: 1,228
Thanks: 25
Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts
Rep Power: 7
downeast450 is on a distinguished road
That would suggest going with 12 degrees to keep them as far out of the way as possible. Do the chainplates for the runners require a bulkhead for their attachment. I assume they do and I can add whatever I need. I wonder how far down the hull that bulkhead needs to go?

George
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #7  
Old 11-24-2009
mitiempo's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Victoria B.C. Canada
Posts: 7,073
Thanks: 0
Thanked 68 Times in 59 Posts
Rep Power: 7
mitiempo will become famous soon enough mitiempo will become famous soon enough
While they don't require a bulkhead they do require a solid attachment point. A knee glassed in under the deck would work. but I would see if there is already a bulkhead or some other solid point near the desired point of attachment. If so it might make sense to alter the location a bit and use something already available. If not you will have to create one. I would probably make it 10" or so deep and well glassed (with epoxy) to the hull to spread the load as much as possible. Try and align it with the angle of the runner. Use multiple layers of glass (biaxial is best) and make each successive layer bigger in area than the last.
Brian

Last edited by mitiempo; 11-24-2009 at 04:48 PM. Reason: addition
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #8  
Old 11-24-2009
wwilson's Avatar
Chesapeake Sailor
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Herrington Harbor, MD
Posts: 579
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 15
wwilson is on a distinguished road
George,

I would encourage you to position the tang for your runners as far aft as you can. I have never heard of a "symmetry" applicable to distance forward & aft of the mast in this regard.

The farther back you can position the tangs the more the load on the runners will be in countering the tendency of the mast to "pump" or ultimately bend. As you seem to know - the objective is to stop a buckling of the mast. The force vectors yield more and more to tension (up & down) as the runner attachment points move closer to the mast. You need to counter a force on the mast that will be largely longitudinal - fore & aft.

As far as annoyance, or inconvenience of using runners while tacking or gybing... yes, that is the nature of the beast. Letting the tangs reside forward certainly does open up the arc in which the boom can swing, but it also reduces the protection against a pumping mast - a poor trade.

Wayne

ps as a Maine based sailor I defer to your better knowledge of Fundy. I do have to add that my one sail on it in the summer of '07 was a delight.

Last edited by wwilson; 11-24-2009 at 05:02 PM.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #9  
Old 11-24-2009
tommays's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,236
Thanks: 1
Thanked 24 Times in 24 Posts
Rep Power: 6
tommays will become famous soon enough
On the C&C 35 i sail on there about at the wheel and main sheet traveler which allows the main trimmer to tend them during tacks


Synthetic line has worked very well
__________________
1970 Cal 29 Sea Fever

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

1981 J24 Tangent 2930
Tommays
Northport NY


If a dirty bottom slows you down what do you think it does to your boat
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
  #10  
Old 11-25-2009
downeast450's Avatar
Tundra Down
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seal Harbor, Maine
Posts: 1,228
Thanks: 25
Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts
Rep Power: 7
downeast450 is on a distinguished road
All of this advice has been very helpful. Thank you.

Wayne, You are right, it would be a poor trade to compromise the whole point of having the rig to make having it more convenient.

I have one more concern, supporting the chainplate for the inner. I intend to fasten the inner headstay chainplate through the deck and to the thwart that supports the deck at that point. I have not exposed this thwart yet but expect it to be the same as the rest of the bulkheads. I intend to strengthen the thwart's bond bond to the underside of the deck and the hull with biax and epoxy and add to it if necessary. I am calling it a thwart because it does not continue down to the stem. Do I need to distribute this load that far? I can add knees and thickness to this thwart but a rod to the stem would be inconvenient.

George
Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

 
Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chain plate problems? pander1203 Pacific Seacraft 40 11-05-2009 01:22 AM
running backstay bkw Racing 8 12-09-2006 04:34 PM
Adjusting the Backstay Dan Dickison Seamanship Articles 0 08-07-2002 08:00 PM
Running Backstays Dan Dickison Gear and Maintenance Articles 0 05-14-2002 08:00 PM
converting to running backstay homer79 Gear & Maintenance 2 01-20-2002 08:14 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:34 AM.

Add to My Yahoo!         
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
(c) Marine.com LLC 2000-2012

The SailNet.com store is owned and operated by a company independent of the SailNet.com forum. You are now leaving the SailNet forum. Click OK to continue or Cancel to return to the SailNet forum.