|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|04-29-2010 09:04 PM|
Originally Posted by dillybar View Post
|04-29-2010 07:53 PM|
The tension issue never crossed my mind. I suppose if the the original stays are designed to have a certain tension or stretch value then you could not just add one more stay on one side and not over tension/stretch the other. I suppose it all becomes moot if the back stay will safely stretch enough to allow the solent stay to fully tension? Eg. if the stays normally run 2% stretch and you then tension a solent to the point where the fore stay is unloaded completely the back stay would now be at roughly 4%.
In practice I think you would find that the actual number would be closer to 3% as the fore stay might retain 1% plus the solent at 2% to balance out 3% at the back. DISCLAIMER - I PULLED THESE NUMBERS OUT OF MY A*S AND NO CALCULATOR WAS USED IN THE MAKING OF THIS THEORY!
|04-29-2010 07:50 PM|
|mitiempo||That is how I understand it too. The lever that attaches the solent (Hyfield type) can be adjusted for the proper tension to just take the load off the outer stay.|
|04-29-2010 05:38 PM|
You make an interesting point. I have a cutter with dedicated running back stays for the forestay.
It seems that if the solent stay was a tad bit shorter, It could carry 100% of the fore load, thus keeping it balanced. That is sailing only with the solent stay sail.
When released, the jib stay would return to 100% of the load.
|04-28-2010 12:08 AM|
With all due respect to Brian Toss, his description (above) is for structural integrity of the mast, but is that its the resultant (variable) SAIL SHAPE thats THE most important consideration, regardless if the mast stay 'up' or not.
From the above quote, I'll betcha the farm that Brian Toss never sailed on a Solent rigged boat, at least not in winds over 25 knots. If he did then he never once looked at the constant varying in the SHAPE of the foresails with the 'interplay' of fore shroud tensions!!!!!! Only a sailmaker would instantly notice such.
|04-27-2010 11:39 PM|
|mitiempo||If anyone read the item I posted earlier in this thread it was from Spartalk, which is Brion Toss's forum. It was to a post by Brion Toss specifically suggesting a solent stay as they do not need runners. He is one of the most experienced riggers in the US. I'll take his word for this. Here it is again.|
|04-27-2010 11:34 PM|
Brion Toss has said on his forums:
I'd point out that Brion Toss also says:
|04-27-2010 11:11 PM|
|RXBOT||Why then does Selden who makes masts and who I suppose employs people who know about this stuff state that if the attachment point for the stay is between 3 and 6 percent of the foretriangle height below forestay attachment point running backs are not required? Maybe we need someone like Brion Toss to come on and clear this up. I certainly cannot say anything definite about the issue.|
|04-27-2010 08:37 PM|
Originally Posted by RXBOT View Post
Unless you almost totally UNLOAD the static stress on the OEM forestay, the solent will SHARE the backstay load .... and the storm sail is going to have its luff "mightly sagged off to leeward". The sail stress loads from the storm jib will cause the (unloaded) forestay to 'load up' all the while and correspondingly the solent stay UNLOADING its tension. When the solent stay unloads, the sailshape becomes 'sagged to leeward', draft aft .... and that is DANGEROUS if/when you NEED to fly a STORM jib.
|04-27-2010 05:58 PM|
RichH is right, it would give you a terrible headsail shape if you didn't really tighten the backstay down hard, or loosen the forestay. It doesn't seem completely unreasonable to simply loosen your forestay turnbuckle when flying on the solent stay. However, a solent stay is the wrong solution for the OP. There are situations where a solent stay is a viable solution, but they would probably require cutting a custom sail.
At that point a wire-luff storm jib starts seeming mighty realistic.
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|