SailNet Community - Reply to Topic
Thread: Solent Stay? 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)
04-29-2010 08:04 PM
Originally Posted by dillybar View Post
Glad you don't have one of those up there!
04-29-2010 06:53 PM
dillybar 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 06:50 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 04:38 PM
EO32 Rich,

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.
04-27-2010 11:08 PM
RichH Ummmmm
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 10:39 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 10:34 PM
sailingdog Brion Toss has said on his forums:

One other option I'd consider would be a Solent stay, which doesn't need runners at all, and which also allows for a hank-on drifter. So you can bracket both sides of the Genoa's range on the Solent.
Fair leads,
Brion Toss
This combined with the information from Selden Spars, which states:

"(if) the cutter stay is located 3 - 6% of the height of the foretriangle below the existing forestay ... (then) ... running back-stays are not required"
Based on these two statements, I'd say that if the solent stay is attached to the mast within 3-6% of the foretriangle height, then running backs are not needed.

I'd point out that Brion Toss also says:

There is no reason not to install a Solent on your rig, so long as wire size and tune are done correctly. The only faint alarm here is that fractional rigs are harder to tune well than masthead ones, and adding a Solent could compound a bad tune. The aft-swept caps will indeed provide the majority of the aft staying, but the backstay also has a significant effect, which will vary according to mast stiffness and how close to the top the stays come.
Therefore be sure to run your numbers on scantlings, and be very sure of your tune. As with a masthead rig, the relative tune of the two stays is crucial.
Fair leads,
Brion Toss
regarding the installation of a solent stay on a FRACTIONAL rig.
04-27-2010 10:11 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 07:37 PM
Originally Posted by RXBOT View Post
you only rig the solent stay when you use storm jib, if it is not rigged when 100% jib or genoa is being used how is it going to affect anything?
How it will affect EVERYTHING:
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 04:58 PM
tager 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.

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