|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|01-21-2007 05:56 PM|
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|
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|
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,
|01-21-2007 10:43 AM|
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|
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,
|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|
There's usually a grain of truth in every common saying...
|01-20-2007 07:00 PM|
Originally Posted by sailingdog
|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
All the best,
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|