Split Back-stay tension-er on a Ketch

Stillraining · #1 (**permalink**) 07-22-2010

I would like a way to adjust my back-stay tension on the main mast of my Ketch .

Is this accomplished the same way as a split back-stay on a sloop?...with some sort of car and block and tackle?

I dont see how this would not be a real mess to contain, as the split in my back-stay is at least 1/3 to half way up the leach of my Main sail...it has to be to clear the mizzen shrouds.

CapTim · #2 (**permalink**) 07-23-2010

Yeah.. that sounds like a mess... what about running a line from the top of the mizzen to the main masthead? If you ran that through a block at the mizzen and down to the deck, you could tighten it, effectively adding a backstay of sorts to the main. Of course, this would require beefing up the backstay on the mizzen.. or adding runners, maybe?

I don't know.. just thinking out loud. And I'm not very familiar with the Irwin 41. Post some pictures, it sounds like a fun project to talk about

WanderingStar · #3 (**permalink**) 07-23-2010

My ketch has a spring stay (between the mast heads) and back runners on the mizzen. It works. Maybe you should consult a rigger, or books on rigging.

RichH · #4 (**permalink**) 07-23-2010

Why simply not install running backstays to the foremast... and have the runners 'share the load' of the backstay system?

Or as Wandering Star has posted (triatic stay) attach the runners to the mizzen mast and control with runners through the mizzen/triatic? You'd probably need to 'beef up' the triatic stay and its connections to do this.

Stillraining · #5 (**permalink**) 07-23-2010

Not a fan of triadic stays...all I see with them is if one goes they both go..I suppose the opposite is true and one will help the other stay put...but that's my reason for staying away from that route.

I have runners for both the mizzen and the main already..however the mains are intermediate for the inner forestay...don't really want another set to deal with.

I guess twin hydraulics one on each aft chain plate is the answer then..

I Have been thinking on this awhile and hoped Id get an answer I hadn't thought of yet....I Wanted to keep it as simple, clean looking and cheap as possible is all...still being robust of course.

Thanks for the input.

Stillraining · #6 (**permalink**) 07-23-2010

Problem solved!

Submitted by a poster on CF...So simple I couldn't see it.

Anchor points remain the same...very little reconfiguration..probably the cheapest option as well...I will consult a rigger for the appropriate block to use for my loads.

WanderingStar · #7 (**permalink**) 07-24-2010

Looks good. I considered it briefly, but I've never seen one like it. Let us know how it works.