Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [campernicholson] Standing rigging

Expand Messages
  • Colin Campbell-Dunlop
    Dear All, many thanks for your responses on the rigging question that I posted recently. I am still waiting for a final quote to come in but, as I am only 40
    Message 1 of 8 , Oct 24, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear All,

      many thanks for your responses on the rigging question that I posted
      recently.

      I am still waiting for a final quote to come in but, as I am only 40 and we
      have some very useful steps on the mast I may well choose to replace at
      least the lowers myself. The rigger reckons he can do the rest with the
      mast in situ.

      Kind regards

      Colin

      -----Original Message-----
      From: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:campernicholson@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of JIM TEIPEN
      Sent: 22 October 2005 19:04
      To: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [campernicholson] Standing rigging


      Colin,

      We replaced the upper and lower shrouds ourselves. We took the old ones, a
      few at a time, to a rigger who made up new ones including new turnbuckles
      (rigging screws), clevis pins, cotters etc. In the US, it's difficult to
      get the original metric diameters so we went with the fractional inch
      equivalent size.

      The back and fore stays have been replaced within the last 5 years by
      professional riggers...the fore stay was done when we had a new furler
      installed and the back stay when we had insulators installed for our SSB
      antenna.

      For all the discussion regarding the hairpin chainplates on this board, the
      weakest point of the rigging, in my opinion, are the lower clevis pins. Our
      old ones had some wear at the point where they contact the chainplate which
      wasn't that obvious without close inspection. Now we keep a better watch on
      this and will replace them appropriately.

      Jim
      S/V Alegria
      CN 35 #68






      >From: "Colin Campbell-Dunlop" <colinj@...>
      >Reply-To: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com
      >To: <campernicholson@yahoogroups.com>
      >Subject: RE: [campernicholson] Standing rigging
      >Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 07:51:46 +0100
      >
      >MessageDear Graham,
      >
      >thanks for your input on this.
      >
      >I am still following up quotes with other riggers but what you have done
      >sounds like a viable solution.
      >
      >As I say, still checking this out but there is a possibilty that the
      >fittings on the mast may not take a larger sized tang so to upgrade from
      >6mm
      >to 7mm on the lowers would, potentially, mean putting in new plates on the
      >rig which would cost a lot extra. Hence the consideration of 6mm dyform to
      >give the extra strength.
      >
      >Re the chainplates. What you say is probably very good advice. Mind you,
      >the boat has been very lightly used in 18 years (believe it or not) and
      >there are no signs of leaks or movement in that area but, that said, I am a
      >natural worrier so it probably would be a good idea to get an inspection
      >done.
      >
      >Congrats on your new boat and thanks again for the input.
      >
      >Kind regards
      >
      >Colin
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com
      >[mailto:campernicholson@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Graham Norbury
      > Sent: 18 October 2005 22:14
      > To: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [campernicholson] Standing rigging
      >
      >
      > Colin,
      >
      > We had Luna Azul's standing rigging replaced around 2000, and at that
      >time
      >the riggers upsized the fore & aft lowers to match the cap shrouds,
      >forestay
      >& backstay. The only small hiccup was obtaining swages & wire to fit the
      >metric "hooks" used on the mast. I can't recall exactly what size wire was
      >used, but 9/32" (7mm) seems to ring a bell or two. Personally I think
      >Dieform would be an unecessary expense, but it sure does look pretty.
      >
      > Presumably you will be removing & inspecting the chainplates while the
      >rig
      >is out? Arbitrarily we decided to replace ours at the same time as the
      >standing rigging. If you go that route, I recommend having new fore/aft
      >lowers upsided to 1/2" to match the cap shrouds and backstay. Earlier
      >this
      >year we had one of the aft lower (3/8") hoops fracture in very benign
      >conditions. Most disconcerting!
      >
      > Graham
      > s/v Tookish, Stevens 47
      > (formerly owners of Luna Azul, CN35 #220)
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com
      >[mailto:campernicholson@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Colin
      > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 10:58 AM
      > To: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [campernicholson] Standing rigging
      >
      >
      > Dear All,
      >
      > I am in the process of getting some quotes for replacement of the
      > standing rigging on Trutz.
      >
      > I think that as it is nearly all original and therefore nearly 20
      > years old it is about time!
      >
      > Question for you all is this. What size rigging do you have on your
      > boats?
      >
      > To me, the rigging on Trutz seems a bit feeble given the
      > displacement. The cap shrouds are 7mm and the backstay is the
      > same. Lowers are 6mm and the forestay (new in 98) is 8mm.
      >
      > A rigger here has suggested replacing with 'diform'? which is
      > apparently stronger size for size.
      >
      > Do any of you have any experience of the stuff?
      >
      > Many thanks in advance for your help.
      >
      > Rgds
      >
      > Colin
      >
      > Trutz 35/225
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      -
      > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
      >
      > a.. Visit your group "campernicholson" on the web.
      >
      > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > campernicholson-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      >Service.
      >
      >
      >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      -
      >






      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Denece Vincent
      If we could replace the rigging with the mast up, I m sure it will be no challenge for the rigger! BTW If any of you would like to cross your fingers for us,
      Message 2 of 8 , Oct 24, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        If we could replace the rigging with the mast up, I'm sure it will be no challenge for the rigger!
         
        BTW If any of you would like to cross your fingers for us, we just heard that our marina in Key West took a major hit with boats sunk, on the docks and in the mangroves. No further details and we are really hoping we aren't one of them.
         
        Keep a good thought.
         
        Denece
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: 10/24/2005 7:40:46 AM
        Subject: RE: [campernicholson] Standing rigging

        Dear All,

        many thanks for your responses on the rigging question that I posted
        recently.

        I am still waiting for a final quote to come in but, as I am only 40 and we
        have some very useful steps on the mast I may well choose to replace at
        least the lowers myself.  The rigger reckons he can do the rest with the
        mast in situ.

        Kind regards

        Colin

        -----Original Message-----
        From: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com
        [mailto:campernicholson@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of JIM TEIPEN
        Sent: 22 October 2005 19:04
        To: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [campernicholson] Standing rigging


        Colin,

        We replaced the upper and lower shrouds ourselves.  We took the old ones, a
        few at a time, to a rigger who made up new ones including new turnbuckles
        (rigging screws), clevis pins, cotters etc.  In the US, it's difficult to
        get the original metric diameters so we went with the fractional inch
        equivalent size.

        The back and fore stays have been replaced within the last 5 years by
        professional riggers...the fore stay was done when we had a new furler
        installed and the back stay when we had insulators installed for our SSB
        antenna.

        For all the discussion regarding the hairpin chainplates on this board, the
        weakest point of the rigging, in my opinion, are the lower clevis pins.  Our
        old ones had some wear at the point where they contact the chainplate which
        wasn't that obvious without close inspection.  Now we keep a better watch on
        this and will replace them appropriately.

        Jim
        S/V Alegria
        CN 35 #68






        >From: "Colin Campbell-Dunlop" <colinj@...>
        >Reply-To: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com
        >To: <campernicholson@yahoogroups.com>
        >Subject: RE: [campernicholson] Standing rigging
        >Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 07:51:46 +0100
        >
        >MessageDear Graham,
        >
        >thanks for your input on this.
        >
        >I am still following up quotes with other riggers but what you have done
        >sounds like a viable solution.
        >
        >As I say, still checking this out but there is a possibilty that the
        >fittings on the mast may not take a larger sized tang so to upgrade from
        >6mm
        >to 7mm on the lowers would, potentially, mean putting in new plates on the
        >rig which would cost a lot extra.  Hence the consideration of 6mm dyform to
        >give the extra strength.
        >
        >Re the chainplates.  What you say is probably very good advice.  Mind you,
        >the boat has been very lightly used in 18 years (believe it or not) and
        >there are no signs of leaks or movement in that area but, that said, I am a
        >natural worrier so it probably would be a good idea to get an inspection
        >done.
        >
        >Congrats on your new boat and thanks again for the input.
        >
        >Kind regards
        >
        >Colin
        >   -----Original Message-----
        >   From: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com
        >[mailto:campernicholson@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Graham Norbury
        >   Sent: 18 October 2005 22:14
        >   To: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com
        >   Subject: RE: [campernicholson] Standing rigging
        >
        >
        >   Colin,
        >
        >   We had Luna Azul's standing rigging replaced around 2000, and at that
        >time
        >the riggers upsized the fore & aft lowers to match the cap shrouds,
        >forestay
        >& backstay.  The only small hiccup was obtaining swages & wire to fit the
        >metric "hooks" used on the mast.  I can't recall exactly what size wire was
        >used, but 9/32" (7mm) seems to ring a bell or two.   Personally I think
        >Dieform would be an unecessary expense, but it sure does look pretty.
        >
        >   Presumably you will be removing & inspecting the chainplates while the
        >rig
        >is out?  Arbitrarily we decided to replace ours at the same time as the
        >standing rigging.  If you go that route, I recommend having new fore/aft
        >lowers upsided to 1/2" to match the cap shrouds and backstay.   Earlier
        >this
        >year we had one of the aft lower (3/8") hoops fracture in very benign
        >conditions.  Most disconcerting!
        >
        >   Graham
        >   s/v Tookish, Stevens 47
        >   (formerly owners of Luna Azul, CN35 #220)
        >     -----Original Message-----
        >     From: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com
        >[mailto:campernicholson@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Colin
        >     Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 10:58 AM
        >     To: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com
        >     Subject: [campernicholson] Standing rigging
        >
        >
        >     Dear All,
        >
        >     I am in the process of getting some quotes for replacement of the
        >     standing rigging on Trutz.
        >
        >     I think that as it is nearly all original and therefore nearly 20
        >     years old it is about time!
        >
        >     Question for you all is this.  What size rigging do you have on your
        >     boats?
        >
        >     To me, the rigging on Trutz seems a bit feeble given the
        >     displacement.  The cap shrouds are 7mm and the backstay is the
        >     same.  Lowers are 6mm and the forestay (new in 98) is 8mm.
        >
        >     A rigger here has suggested replacing with 'diform'? which is
        >     apparently stronger size for size.
        >
        >     Do any of you have any experience of the stuff?
        >
        >     Many thanks in advance for your help.
        >
        >     Rgds
        >
        >     Colin
        >
        >     Trutz 35/225
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        -
        >     YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
        >
        >       a..  Visit your group "campernicholson" on the web.
        >
        >       b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        >        campernicholson-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >       c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
        >Service.
        >
        >
        >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        -
        >






        Yahoo! Groups Links








      • Colin Campbell-Dunlop
        Dear Denece, Thanks for the input. Jo and I really hope that your boat is OK. We are sitting here in Gosport having had a severe gale 9 warning and now we are
        Message 3 of 8 , Oct 25, 2005
        • 0 Attachment

          Dear Denece,

           

          Thanks for the input. 

           

          Jo and I really hope that your boat is OK.  We are sitting here in Gosport having had a severe gale 9 warning and now we are feeling really quite lucky indeed.

           

          Rgds

           

          Colin

           

          -----Original Message-----
          From: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com [mailto:campernicholson@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Denece Vincent
          Sent: 24 October 2005 19:45
          To: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [campernicholson] Standing rigging

           

          If we could replace the rigging with the mast up, I'm sure it will be no challenge for the rigger!

           

          BTW If any of you would like to cross your fingers for us, we just heard that our marina in Key West took a major hit with boats sunk, on the docks and in the mangroves. No further details and we are really hoping we aren't one of them.

           

          Keep a good thought.

           

          Denece

           

           

          ----- Original Message -----

          Sent: 10/24/2005 7:40:46 AM

          Subject: RE: [campernicholson] Standing rigging

           

          Dear All,

          many thanks for your responses on the rigging question that I posted
          recently.

          I am still waiting for a final quote to come in but, as I am only 40 and we
          have some very useful steps on the mast I may well choose to replace at
          least the lowers myself.  The rigger reckons he can do the rest with the
          mast in situ.

          Kind regards

          Colin

          -----Original Message-----
          From: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com
          [mailto:campernicholson@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of JIM TEIPEN
          Sent: 22 October 2005 19:04
          To: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [campernicholson] Standing rigging


          Colin,

          We replaced the upper and lower shrouds ourselves.  We took the old ones, a
          few at a time, to a rigger who made up new ones including new turnbuckles
          (rigging screws), clevis pins, cotters etc.  In the US, it's difficult to
          get the original metric diameters so w! e went with the fractional inch
          equivalent size.

          The back and fore stays have been replaced within the last 5 years by
          professional riggers...the fore stay was done when we had a new furler
          installed and the back stay when we had insulators installed for our SSB
          antenna.

          For all the discussion regarding the hairpin chainplates on this board, the
          weakest point of the rigging, in my opinion, are the lower clevis pins.  Our
          old ones had some wear at the point where they contact the chainplate which
          wasn't that obvious without close inspection.  Now we keep a better watch on
          this and will replace them appropriately.

          Jim
          S/V Alegria
          CN 35 #68






          >From: "Colin Campbell-Dunlop" <colinj@...>
          >Reply-To: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com
          >To: <campernicholson@yahoogroups.com>
          >Subject: RE: [campernicholson] Standing rigging
          >Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 0! 7:51:46 +0100
          >
          >MessageDear Graham,
          >
          >thanks for your input on this.
          >
          >I am still following up quotes with other riggers but what you have done
          >sounds like a viable solution.
          >
          >As I say, still checking this out but there is a possibilty that the
          >fittings on the mast may not take a larger sized tang so to upgrade from
          >6mm
          >to 7mm on the lowers would, potentially, mean putting in new plates on the
          >rig which would cost a lot extra.  Hence the consideration of 6mm dyform to
          >give the extra strength.
          >
          >Re the chainplates.  What you say is probably very good advice.  Mind you,
          >the boat has been very lightly used in 18 years (believe it or not) and
          >there are no signs of leaks or movement in that area but, that said, I am a
          >natural worrier so it probably would be a good idea to get an inspection
          >done.
          >
          >Congrats on your new boat and thanks again for the input.
          >
          >Kind regards
          &g! t;
          >Colin
          >   -----Original Message-----
          >   From: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com
          >[mailto:campernicholson@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Graham Norbury
          >   Sent: 18 October 2005 22:14
          >   To: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com
          >   Subject: RE: [campernicholson] Standing rigging
          >
          >
          >   Colin,
          >
          >   We had Luna Azul's standing rigging replaced around 2000, and at that
          >time
          >the riggers upsized the fore & aft lowers to match the cap shrouds,
          >forestay
          >& backstay.  The only small hiccup was obtaining swages & wire to fit the
          >metric "hooks" used on the mast.  I can't recall exactly what size wire was
          >used, but 9/32" (7mm) seems to ring a bell or two.   Personally I think
          >Dieform would be an unecessary expense, but it sure does look pretty.
          >
          > &nb! sp; Presumably you will be removing & inspecting the chainplates w hile the
          >rig
          >is out?  Arbitrarily we decided to replace ours at the same time as the
          >standing rigging.  If you go that route, I recommend having new fore/aft
          >lowers upsided to 1/2" to match the cap shrouds and backstay.   Earlier
          >this
          >year we had one of the aft lower (3/8") hoops fracture in very benign
          >conditions.  Most disconcerting!
          >
          >   Graham
          >   s/v Tookish, Stevens 47
          >   (formerly owners of Luna Azul, CN35 #220)
          >     -----Original Message-----
          >     From: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com
          >[mailto:campernicholson@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Colin
          >     Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 10:58 AM
          >     To: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com
          >     Subject: [campernicholson] Standing rigging
          >
          >
          >!      Dear All,
          >
          >     I am in the process of getting some quotes for replacement of the
          >     standing rigging on Trutz.
          >
          >     I think that as it is nearly all original and therefore nearly 20
          >     years old it is about time!
          >
          >     Question for you all is this.  What size rigging do you have on your
          >     boats?
          >
          >     To me, the rigging on Trutz seems a bit feeble given the
          >     displacement.  The cap shrouds are 7mm and the backstay is the
          >     same.  Lowers are 6mm and the forestay (new in 98) is 8mm.
          >
          >     A rigger here has suggested replacing with 'diform'? which is
          >     apparently stronger size for size.
          >!
          >     Do any of you have any experience of the stuff?
          >
          >     Many thanks in advance for your help.
          >
          >     Rgds
          >
          >     Colin
          >
          >     Trutz 35/225
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          -
          >     YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
          >
          >       a..  Visit your group "campernicholson" on the web.
          >
          >       b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          >        campernicholson-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >       c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
          >Service.
          >
          >
          >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          -
          >


          !



          Yahoo! Groups Links







           

        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.