SailNet Community banner

21 - 40 of 44 Posts

·
1964 Columbia Challenger
Joined
·
27 Posts
Discussion Starter #21
While on chain plates- I will be pulling mine this Sunday and may need some advice, after. If they are trash and I need to fabricate anew- anybody setup double lower shrouds on this boat?

Any suggestions on spreader rake for the new CF mast?

More, soon.

Huff
 

·
1964 Columbia Challenger
Joined
·
27 Posts
Discussion Starter #22
Was only able to get the port side chain plate out and either it has been replaced in the recent past or it was done right in 1964. It is is pretty durn good condition, all in all. Very stout design. I suspect I will be able to un-bend it and re-use.

Am also hammering out the last design details for the mast. I will be replacing the boom with a Dwyer section. Closet to original is the DM 275 (2.75 inch tall, 1.75 wide) and the mast fabber is suggesting DM 375 (3.75 tall 2.25 wide)- do I need that much boom? I have not had any structural problems with the smaller section and if I don't need to add the weight and, more so, the added height (boom to head) I would be happy spending a little less money, too. The upside, maybe is that there is a heavier-duty gooseneck assembly that goes with it.

Thots on boom sizing?

Thanks, Huff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,869 Posts
The challenger has end boom sheeting so there is not much load on the boom itself. change the sail to loose foot and then the load is even less, only compression loads. it worked before why won't it still work
 

·
1964 Columbia Challenger
Joined
·
27 Posts
Discussion Starter #24
Ended up with the slightly larger boom profile as the next size down was smaller than original.

Was able to extract the other chain plate- stbd side was not easy to come out as the opening thru the deck was tight and wet. Bulkhead(s) are okay and deck looks okay. A PO had reworked an FRP beam athwarthships under the mast that is doing well, from initial inspection, but I have yet to yank off the mast step. I am having a new pair of chain plates made from a local water-jet cutter (approx $150).

CF mast goes into fab next week and should be arriving in one long package 4 to 6 weeks, after.

Am thinking about bringing the spreaders/shrouds inboard a bit. Original spars are approx 38 inches long, each, including the mast mounting bracket. As the CF mast will be stiffer and need a bit less "staying" I was thinking about coming inboard maybe 3 to 6 inches each spreader. Thots? New spreaders will be airfoil type and not nearly as substantial as the factory pipes (yeesh, one could fend off Huns with one of these- I kept one to use as a cheater pipe/hammer/lever).

Will post pics, later when pieces start coming to one place.

Thanks, Huff
 

·
1964 Columbia Challenger
Joined
·
27 Posts
Discussion Starter #25
...while on spreaders- I am also thinking about 3-5 degrees aft rake, just enough to keep a bit of positive tension for and aft. Thots? Thanks, Huff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,035 Posts
Who is making the mast for you?? The mast on my Sabre has some corrosion around the base and a crack so fear it's on borrowed time. Got one preliminary quote for a Carbon stick but it was more than twice what the boat is worth. Another company gave me a quote for the bare pole and some indication of costs to get it finished that were much more affordable but still more than I'd like to spend.

Don't see an advantage in raking the spreaders, Fore and aft mast support is provided by the head and back stay. Raked spreaders, even a little bit, restrict how far you can ease out the boom before the sail hits the wires and spreader. On my boats with right angle spreaders it's been the aft lowers that hit the sail first. Would try and eliminate the aft lowers if you boat has them and leave the spreaders at right angles. You could rake the spreaders far enough to eliminate the backstay but that will really restrict how far you can let the boom out. Not a big thing on a multihull as they sail faster reaching downwind but on a mono will affect DDW performance.
 

·
1964 Columbia Challenger
Joined
·
27 Posts
Discussion Starter #27
Mast, so far, including shipping from CT to CA is approx $5K, from Forte.

I may very well shorten the spreaders some inches, tho, each, to bring inboard a bit if I don't have to "stay" as much mast weight with the shrouds.

Thanks,

Huff
 

·
1964 Columbia Challenger
Joined
·
27 Posts
Discussion Starter #28
Anyone have a good spreadsheet for figuring out dimensions of standing rigging? I can't really use the "factory" specs/data and need to start from scratch as the rig is now semi-fractional and some other sizes have changed, as well, with the new custom mast. I have gone back to reg 'ol geometry for most of this, which could well work (trapezoids, triangles) but am hoping to have a way to double-check. Thanks, Huff
 

·
1964 Columbia Challenger
Joined
·
27 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
Update: Mast is here (pic attached) and is approx 60- 65% weight of the aluminum (I haven't weighed it, yet, but just going by feel). I have taken the dimensions (is nearly same height and section/profile size as original), and am now figuring standing rigging.

New sails should be here in a week, and hope to step the mast in 2.

Will post as to progress and sea trials. Huff
 

Attachments

·
Administrator
Joined
·
9,060 Posts
Several quick points:

If you are going to a slightly fractional with your rig, you will want to go with slightly aft swept spreaders and slightly aft set uppers and lowers. If you sweep the spreader aft you can eliminate the forward lowers and the lowers do not need to be set aft as far as they will need to be if there are forward lowers.

I do want to correct the misstatement above. actually the mainsail can be eased further with swept aft spreaders because the lowers are further forward than they would be with be without fore and aft lowers.

But beyond that, in order to take advantage of the virtues of a fractional rig, simpler rigging and the ability to quickly depower the rig, you either need swept back spreaders, or running backstays.

Jeff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,869 Posts
I don't understand all the changes to the rig. new mast so you can go sailing ,I understand but it is a simple upper and lower shroud with a single spreader. there i are no forward or aft lowers. don't see what the fractional rig change is going to get you and swept spreaders would be just silly on that boat. the chainplates are attached to the bulkhead which is in line with the mast step so every change you make is going make the boat even more experimental and now even more expensive if you are wrong.
 

·
1964 Columbia Challenger
Joined
·
27 Posts
Discussion Starter #32
Not many changes. It is now a fractional rig in name only, because the fore-stay dies into the new mast 11 inches down from the top (jib/Genoa is now a bit "bottom heavy" which may be of interest as I am going with a 115 with a shorter luff vs 113 I ran with more luff- time will tell if this is functional). Did not move or add chain-plates (did replace them, though) and mast is more similar to original layout than not. Is still plumb (not raked, or able to be). Spreaders, tho, are coming inboard 6 inches each. We will see what all this does, in a month, with some luck and effort. Huff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
But nothing wrong with going with liability only with a boat of that value.
Bingo! I spent an unreasonable amount restoring and upgrading two 1970s boats (one power, one sail) and have carried only liability since then (17 years for one, 11 years for the other) and I still have them. Once you recognize it's sunk money you couldn't get back by selling it, it doesn't sound so bad.
 

·
1964 Columbia Challenger
Joined
·
27 Posts
Discussion Starter #34
Yup- I had the best coverage, pretty much, that Boatus (now Geico) offered I could buy for a boat that old, having the Carrier up the hull coverage to their max ($3500) for a bit more per year but now it is going to be liability only, from here on out, methinks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,869 Posts
Not many changes. It is now a fractional rig in name only, because the fore-stay dies into the new mast 11 inches down from the top (jib/Genoa is now a bit "bottom heavy" which may be of interest as I am going with a 115 with a shorter luff vs 113 I ran with more luff- time will tell if this is functional). Did not move or add chain-plates (did replace them, though) and mast is more similar to original layout than not. Is still plumb (not raked, or able to be). Spreaders, tho, are coming inboard 6 inches each. We will see what all this does, in a month, with some luck and effort. Huff
now I understand your plan, sounds good. I like the fact that you got a mast from Forte for 5k that is not a bad price . I installed a retractible bow sprit on my last boat and it was from Forte and it was very high quality and price was under $1500 for the complete kit which just had to be glassed into the side of the hull. My current boat the Beneteau first 30 had an option for the carbon mast with rod rigging and the up charge was 30k so i asked if the carbon mast was 30k how much do get back for not needing the stock aluminum mast and they said that was already taken into account. so they wanted 30k more then the stock mast for carbon. So we have an aluminum mast.
I like the fact that aluminum mast does not need to be painted or clear coated every 5 years. the guy across form us has a carbon mast that had clear coat and they just had the mast painted because the clear coat was falling of in sheets after only 5 years
 

·
1964 Columbia Challenger
Joined
·
27 Posts
Discussion Starter #36
First sea trial, almost 8 months later, to the day. Last minute "fixes" to shore up standing rigging (I love the swageless fittings) and cast off Sunday at 16:35, returning 5 hours later. Wind was 12-15kn, seas 3-4 outside the breakwater and in Hurricane Gulch (inside break) pulled out jib abd executed some maneuvers, successfully all the while listening intently for loud, or any, noises. Then hoisted main and went past the lighthouse into the channel. More wind and some seaway going and went hard into it, gybed (intentional) and went back into port. She handled super on all points of sail attempted and when back in the slip checked rig tune and pretty much the same as when starting.

So far, so good.

My initial impressions- considering there wasn't much loss of weight, maybe 15 lbs total, so no huge gain in reducing heel, but much of that is up high- the original spreaders are beefy enough to be a close quarters weapon and the new version is feather light (and 5.5 inches shorter, each) and the masthead is lighter. This isn't a bad thing as the initial and reserve stability is still good and not "twitchy". The new stick is much stiffer, but still flexes well enough, from early observation. First test was without battens in the main and standing rigging tensioned by feel and sighting up the mast and forestay. I will do more formal documentation in the future and will post more as time goes on.

Was it worth it? Time will tell but getting the old girl with a new dress into the wind was pretty much priceless.

More, later. Huff
 

Attachments

·
1964 Columbia Challenger
Joined
·
27 Posts
Discussion Starter #38
3rd sea trial and first single-handing of the boat since the event. Even tho the foot is sagging, new foresail is pulling well such that the optimal sheeting angle is nor agian back on the fore-deck to the original primary winches. I like this a lot and it was an unintentional byproduct that is delightful. Little more foot than I initially wanted but to go back to those old winches is a great thing (pic attached)

Other pic attached- I was so desperate for shade I used what I had hanging around- we had bought these umbrellas for camping at the beach and they did not work very well and stayed in my laundry room for a lot of years. They have a "spike" that comes thru the bottom of the handle that I just cable-tied to the stanchions. Worked great except for that window of time in the middle of the day that I would have to hide. Wow, it was hot. Even tho they did not provide a lot of shade, they did a good job and now they are probably off to the Goodwill.

Boat does have less heel but not by much and it is uncertain I am conveniently believing so. She seems consistently a wee bit faster with less weather helm such that the tiller input is easier but not mushy.

Rigging tension has eased up a bit. I have a tension gauge and started using it but need more confidence in my readings before making adjustments by other than feel. I will start a log. I do want to get into the habit of de-tensioning the standing rigging after the end of each run so to minimize racking the hull and unnecessary stretch of the wire rope.

In the one pic you can see- installed a Boomkicker and it seems to work well but have not really put it thru its paces, yet. Can say that in approx 10 knots of wind I was able to maintain 5+ pretty easily with adjusting the twist via the vang. Started playing with the cunningham cringle rove thru a flip-flop block and more on that later.

Big thing now is to get rid if the GD termites that have returned. Ugh. I will probably end up professionally gassing with something really noxious, like Vikane. I am tired of them.

Wish me luck!

Huff
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
926 Posts
Good job Huff. We have a couple of umbrellas like that but ours have nylon C clamps built into the handle. They clamp onto the pushpit rail and can be adjusted to angle in various directions. They are not great for higher wind speeds of course but we don't need protection when the wind blows. Don't be in a rush to erect a permanent tent over the cockpit, sailing in the open is far nicer.

In my opinion.
 

·
1964 Columbia Challenger
Joined
·
27 Posts
Discussion Starter #40
I agree about the "open cockpit" even though it can be a bit dangerous, exposure-wise, to the elements, but it is part of what makes the joy and charm of sailing. I also don't go for the cloth panels set into the stanchions- I very much enjoy watching the water go by! If I sailed the tropics it might be a different story. Huff
 
21 - 40 of 44 Posts
Top