SailNet Community - Reply to Topic
Thread: Ketch Rigging Term Reply to Thread
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the SailNet Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
Please note: After entering 3 characters a list of Usernames already in use will appear and the list will disappear once a valid Username is entered.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Click here to view the posting rules you are bound to when clicking the
'Submit Reply' button below

  Topic Review (Newest First)
01-21-2007 05:56 PM
svindigo FWIW - In a discussion with Brion Toss he corrected me when I asked a question about the "triatic" stay on our ketch. He said it was a check stay as a triatic technically goes from the top of the main mast to the base of the mizzen top mast (assuming you have one which we don't) So the closest to a "true" triatic stay would be those ketches or yawls that have the stay between the masts terminating below the top of the mizzen. We and our rigger still call ours a triatic though. Greater specificity in this case does not bring greater clarity.

01-21-2007 11:35 AM
Giulietta Cool, a fight......let's call it the "war of the triatics".....

Boats with two masts SUCK period. (yours is OK T34Classic)

Triatics rymes with geriatrics!!!
01-21-2007 11:10 AM
Tartan34C Camaraderie,
I also have never seen a ketch without a backstay and consider the triatic to only be for the mizzens benefit. When you consider the triatic add this thought. What do you do if a mast goes during a storm? The triatic will hold the mast up and you need to keep it from battering the surviving mast if it didnít bring it down during the original failure. Having the two connected might just complicate sail handling and damage control after the event. Just one more thought in the almost endless list of pros and cons.

Your boat has a fine rig and nobody can say one configuration is better then the other because itís all just an opinion.
All the best,
Robert Gainer
01-21-2007 10:43 AM
camaraderie Robert...
A roof taking out the rig must be considered a rare event offshore

Right...more common would be the failure of a stay component which would be far less forceful so I think my example holds true for MY boat in morst potential mizzen failures.

Other than that you of course are correct... but lets look at the 2 possible functions of the triatic:
To provide forward tension on the mizzen OR
To provide aft tension on the mast
(With the former being most likely since I've never seen a ketch without backstays for the main)
In either case, the alternative solution involves running dual stays to additional chain plates and further cluttering up the deck of the boat.
Not a simple choice.
One might also suggest that the triatic can provide additional support for the main mast in the event that a conventional backstay fails...thereby reducing the reducing the risk of a dismasting and allowing the captain time to rig a repair.
This is why I say that there is no definitive answer even at the design stage since each method has its relative benefits and must be considered. I guess that is why we see ketches with and without triatics.
01-21-2007 10:22 AM
Tartan34C Camaraderie,
A roof taking out the rig must be considered a rare event offshore and I am sure the designer didnít consider it as a mode of failure to investigate when designing the rig. At least I know itís not a condition I ever looked at when designing a rig. I think it might be difficult to find an answer to a question like this if you fall back to discussing specific examples. You can always find plenty of good examples to support both sides. I think a more abstract view is a better way to go because the answer is an opinion and not something that can be calculated or defined.

To me itís simple; if you tie the two together you have a chance of dragging one mast down with the other. If you keep them separate then they are each unaffected by what happens to the other. Of course if you do something global to the boat both spars are on the same boat so if you sink the boat both will sink or more realistically if you roll the boat you might lose both no matter what the configuration is. But if they are separate at worst they will fail separately or at best one will survive.

You said in part, ďI'm not sure theres a definitive answer here except that the triatic wouldn't be there is the designer didn't feel it was necessary for the particular design of a specific rig.Ē and I think thatís very true. You can design a boat that needs one and you can design a very similar boat that doesnít but if it was considered necessary by the designer then you can be sure he wanted it and you should take care and think carefully before changing the design of the rig.
All the best,
Robert Gainer
01-20-2007 11:09 PM
camaraderie Why would his view on anything be invaluable?? He was down below when it happened and whether or not he had a triatic may or may not have had a bearing on the loss of his masts...he surely won't know since he didn't see it and there are any number of reasons the mast could have both come down...including the sheer force of the roll...flying dinghies and batteries etc.
01-20-2007 08:58 PM
sailingdog TDW-

There's usually a grain of truth in every common saying...
01-20-2007 07:00 PM
Originally Posted by sailingdog
Ouch... and keep the weight off of it so it can get better..
The phrase "one hand for yourself and one for the boat keeps coming to mind".
01-20-2007 08:55 AM
camaraderie Roberts response makes sense but I have had a different experience. When our mizzen came down in hurricane Ivan (hit by a flying roof!) it was the triatic that saved it from collapsing on the boat and doing far more damage. The main mast and rig was sufficiently strong to hold it up by the triatic through the rest of the storm. My guess is that if the main had bit it instead it all would have come down so I'm not sure theres a definitive answer here except that the triatic wouldn't be there is the designer didn't feel it was necessary for the particular design of a specific rig.
01-20-2007 08:34 AM
Originally Posted by Loewe
Interesting that among certain camps the Triatic is considered a potential hazard as it might bring the mizzen down if the main is lost in a blow. I have no idea what contemporary "riggers" think of this point of view. It just seems the entire rig is more secure with the triatic in place. What say you?
If the spars are independently stayed you have a better chance of one surviving the demise of the other. There are all kinds of ways to rationalize it but joining the two simply ties them together and they almost certainly have a better chance of sharing the same fate.
All the best,
Robert Gainer
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

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

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome