Specific Solent Stay Question

[Southern Star]

Thanks Bob. On a fifty foot spar, 3 - 6 % would give 18 - 36 inches, which should be more than enough to ensure adequate clearance.

Brad

[bobsadler]

if you want the solent stay to run parallel to the forestay a second method of determining how far the solent stay tang can be below the forstay attachment is to take a parallel line off the forestay (broken red line on drawing) and intersect the point where the back-stay attaches to the mast crane.

where this line then cuts the forward face of the mast is the lowestmost point of attachment allowable for the solent stay (i.e. without running backstays)

on my rig the solent stay attaches to the mast 3ft (0.92m) below the forestay attachment but i could have attached it as far down as 5ft 5in (1.66m)

the 3 - 6% recommended by selden would have the solent stay attaching 1ft 8in - 3ft 4in (0.51m - 1.0m) below the attachment of the forestay (so this is a rather conservative rule of thumb)

i've attached a drawing which - i hope - will clarify what i mean

[santa clara]

Originally Posted by bobsadler

if you want the solent stay to run parallel to the forestay a second method...

Excellent stuff bob, thanks. Where does this method come from btw?


Cheers m.

[bobsadler]

a structural engineer

[cwyckham]

Bob, Thank you for this great info! It makes perfect sense. Note two on the drawing says the stay should run parallel to the forestay. Why would that be?

[jjt]

Santa Clara:

Have you checked the following thread?:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ion-14132.html

regards

[bobsadler]

the note on the drawing was a specific instruction to the riggers doing the work on my boat so no need to worry about that (though i think it looks better being parallel).

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by bobsadler

the note on the drawing was a specific instruction to the riggers doing the work on my boat so no need to worry about that (though i think it looks better being parallel).

FWIW,

At least in this part of the world, a Solent stay goes to a point just under the head or forestay and leads to a chain plate well aft of that stay. Thus, it can't really be a Solent stay AND be parallel to the forestay. Just a semantics thing...

And I agree that they look better if parallel.

None of this really matters, though! Some scheme to allow setting a stays'l on your sloop is a good thing IMO.

Cheers,

Jim

[santa clara]

Hi all,

I finally got some bits welded up and installed them!

Just a quick question. From this terrible photo does the angle of load on the lower piece look ok. I could move it lower but this would be a serious pita as I'd have to cut the bottom of the cupboard out (this photo is taken in the locker over the sleepers feet in the forepeak).

How should I join them up? If the total load I can expect on the chain plate is say 4400kg can I expect half that on the lower piece show (which is bolted to the anchor locker bulkhead).

Sorry for the poor photo.
Thanks martin

PS roll on summer !!!'

[GordMay]

What is the angle between the lower (picktured) support and the upper Solent Stay? A nearly straight run would be best.

You might use a Jawed turnbuckle to connect the deck plate to the lower anchor locker attachment.

[Matt Johnson]

Originally Posted by santa clara

Hi all,

I finally got some bits welded up and installed them!

Just a quick question. From this terrible photo does the angle of load on the lower piece look ok. I could move it lower but this would be a serious pita as I'd have to cut the bottom of the cupboard out (this photo is taken in the locker over the sleepers feet in the forepeak).

How should I join them up? If the total load I can expect on the chain plate is say 4400kg can I expect half that on the lower piece show (which is bolted to the anchor locker bulkhead).

Sorry for the poor photo.
Thanks martin

PS roll on summer !!!'

I really like the mounts you had made!

We are going with three Wichard folding padeyes... one mounted on the deck, one as the backing plate for the deck mount, and one mounted to the newly glassed in bulkhead. We are connecting these with a lashing of Amsteel. I wasn't able to easily find a long enough turnbuckle to connect these with, and lashing is easier than searching too hard for a longer turnbuckle.

What are you using for the mast tang? This is where I have been having the problem. I would like to do a wrap around tang, but haven't been able to find a commercial made one for anything larger than a dinghy. I have also been looking at the Wichard 9150 (looks like a great solution), but will be hard to mount with the stick in the air.

[santa clara]

Hi


I think the angle is about 15deg. Would straight down be best given the new stay pulls at an angle rather than straight up? I ask this in good faith as it's really not intuitive for me for some reason!

I thought about using several wichard padeyes but was worried about the countersunk holes. Also my bespoke bits were cheaper believe it or not.

As for the mask tang I bought a wichard 9150?, but the rigger didn't like it cos the hole for the clevis pin is huge. So he's going to fit a T shaped end on the wire which goes into the mast. Whilst at the riggers I noticed that he had a thing like the wichard 9150 but smaller and much more suited to my mast, but I've never seen one in a chandlers.

Any thoughts on the load the bulkhead "sees"?

How are you going to tension your amsteel? Spanish windlass ok?

Regards Martin

[Matt Johnson]

Martin,

We are going to just lash the under deck fitting tight and keep an eye on it for creep. For the stay, I'm using a Wichard backstay adjuster (with the wheel) that I picked-up used from my marina for $25 bucks. It's a bit longer than the Wichard babystay adjuster, but should work great for the cost.

If I had the mast down, I would install a backing plate and T fitting too. With the mast up in the air, I can't take the masthead off to fit a backing plate.

It sound like you got a great deal on the fittings you had made. I really need to find a fabricator!

I would guess that your fittings need to be at about the same angle as the stay. Judging by the photo... I think you are right there. You are just trying to keep the deck fitting from pulling the deck up.

[cwyckham]

Originally Posted by santa clara

Hi


I think the angle is about 15deg. Would straight down be best given the new stay pulls at an angle rather than straight up? I ask this in good faith as it's really not intuitive for me for some reason!

I thought about using several wichard padeyes but was worried about the countersunk holes. Also my bespoke bits were cheaper believe it or not.

As for the mask tang I bought a wichard 9150?, but the rigger didn't like it cos the hole for the clevis pin is huge. So he's going to fit a T shaped end on the wire which goes into the mast. Whilst at the riggers I noticed that he had a thing like the wichard 9150 but smaller and much more suited to my mast, but I've never seen one in a chandlers.

Any thoughts on the load the bulkhead "sees"?

How are you going to tension your amsteel? Spanish windlass ok?

Regards Martin

I would think about it this way. You can break the force applied to the deck into two peices, shear and lifting.

The shear part (parallel to the deck) probably isn't that big a deal given the angle of the solent stay. The deck can take a lot of shear. The lifting part is of concern since you're pulling up on an unsupported part of the deck and putting it in bending.

The lower fitting would ideally be exactly in line with the Solent. If the lower fitting was tensioned up, this would put zero stress on the deck. If the angle isn't excactly right, then it will put some shear into the deck.

If the angle is more vertical than the solent, then it will be helping the more significant lifting problem more but not helping as much with shear. If it's more horizontal than the solent, then it will be helping more with the shear and less with the vertical.

The set-up I'm planning will be almost dead vertical just due to the geometry of my boat.

[santa clara]

Hi


Food for thought. Thanks. I'm hoping to share the load between the deck and the bulkhead but like funj said I'll be keeping a close eye on things initially.


Regard
martin