Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 22-04-2009, 19:27   #16
Registered User
 
Jmolan's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Mexico/Alaska/Oregon
Boat: 34' Searunner Tri
Posts: 712
Your head and hands will be glad you did.....:-)
__________________

__________________
Jmolan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2009, 06:45   #17
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: where ever my anchor is
Boat: 28' Bristol Channel Cutter - Angelsea
Posts: 216
Images: 3
In the course of learning and designing my new synthetic rig I have come across some interesting observations.

It’s always fun when you get a package with new gear in the mail. Especially when it is something that will make doing the job at hand fun, informative, and a little easier. I ordered a Loos PT-3 Pro tension Gage (you can see one here) and a ATN Topclimber bosun’s chair. You can see the chair here.

Courtesy of loosnaples.com



I wanted to get the Loos Gage for not only tuning my new synthetic rig but also to measure what I had for tension in my present rig. I had tuned my rig the old fashion way. Push, pull, grunt, scratch … and guess. I do have a bit of experience doing rigging work, but I have never had it put to a quantitative test before. My final adjustments on my present rig were done under sail. Tighten to the point so the leeward shrouds were snug.



What a surprise I received when I measured the tension on my present rig. My shrouds were tensioned just about right.
  1. Lowers 1220 lbs
  2. Cap shrouds 1960 lbs
  3. Intermediates 1540 lbs
  4. Headstay (staysail stay) 1660 lbs
The BIG surprise was the forestay and backstay. My forestay was at 300 lbs and my backstay was at 250 lbs. No wonder she wasn’t sailing to weather well! She had to have had a lot of forestay sag. This really messes up the ability to point. why was I so loose? I don’t know. I have come up with a number of reasons why…maybe. I just don’t know.

On Loos’ web site they say a good starting point for forestay is 1600 lbs, shrouds at 1000 lbs. You usually want the longer shrouds (cap) set higher than the shorter shrouds (lowers) because of the stretch. This way when the load comes on the rig, your mast stays in column. Loos also points out that most people do not tension their rigs enough for fear of “breaking something”. They also point out that the America’s cup boats tighten their rigs as much as the structure of the boat will allow.

A special note on using the Loos Gage on 316 wire. The Loos Gage is designed to be used on 302/304 stainless wire. Since 302/304 is stronger size for size than 316. The concept behind the Gage is based on the strength of the wire, not the actual size. So you can use it on 316 wire. You just need to find what size wire in 302/304 is equal in breaking load to the size 316 you have. For example - on the tension chart from Loos for the Gage it has listed the tension readings for 9/32 302/304 wire. The breaking strength of that wire is 10,300 lbs. The breaking strength for 5/16 316 is rated at 10,600. So I would use the readings for 9/32 302/304 for my 5/16 316 because the strengths are about equal. For the synthetic rigging the Gage will not work as far as measuring tension because the breaking strength is so large and is off the Loos charts. So it will only give me a reference point. I emailed Loos about this and they confirmed my thoughts.
Why is all this so important to me. It has a lot to do with the way I’m going to set up my roller furling. That post comes next.
Ok, I have to go clean my dinghy. Remember that a ship is known by her boats!

A note to jfranta: I will be using a 5/1 ratio (I can read after all) with my gear from Precourt. He is working with me on setting this rig up and has been very gracious. I don't know where you are getting your info from. Please consider that you have no idea how I am going about this before you make demands and assumptions. I welcome your input. I do understand your concern about setting this new rigging up properly. But I am doing my home work with the help of a knowledgeable rigger.

Gary
ps. If you want to follow the process go to Shanti's blog.
__________________

__________________
Gary Shanti's blog
"two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts will get you back on the freeway"
seacap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2009, 10:44   #18
Marine Service Provider

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30
Synthetic Rigging

Gary, you started out your rigging project on this forum and the Samuel Morse forum by posting many bits and pieces of our data. Posting things like "Here is where you will find the most info and tech stuff" about the Colligo Marine website. Even to the extent of claiming our data was your own stating "I have put together a table with specs on wire vs Dynex" and "my chart attachment" and then posting a copyrighted chart of our creep data from our website without a credit. Then announcing you are going to use our competitors products. What are we to think?

Seeing as how you never even contacted us for a price quote I have to believe that you are clearly doing marketing for our competition and using our data to support your case. As crappy as I think this is, it is perfectly legal.

Your blog clearly shows the hardware (and dimensions of it) that you are using and it does not meet the 5/1 ratio stated. So you can see my concern as stated in the above postings.

In addition, you seem to now be assisting our competition in developing hardware to directly compete with us using all of our information. Again, pretty crappy but perfectly legal as long as no Intellectual property rights are infringed on. I need to remind Eric of our Patents and Patent Pending rights. He has ignored these in the past. We do have the resources to defend our intellectual property and will do so.

Again, we have a lot invested in marketing Dynex Dux for standing rigging applications and continue to do research on things like UV exposure, which I am sure you will be referencing in the future.

John Franta, Colligo Marine

Quote:
Originally Posted by seacap View Post

A note to jfranta: I will be using a 5/1 ratio (I can read after all) with my gear from Precourt. He is working with me on setting this rig up and has been very gracious. I don't know where you are getting your info from. Please consider that you have no idea how I am going about this before you make demands and assumptions. I welcome your input. I do understand your concern about setting this new rigging up properly. But I am doing my home work with the help of a knowledgeable rigger.

Gary
ps. If you want to follow the process go to Shanti's blog.
__________________
jfranta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-04-2009, 10:26   #19
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
part size

Mr Franta,

This affirmation is just not true and is plain bad marketing.

We offer our parts in 5 sizes/series.
Micro
Mini
small
medium
large
Big


those parts could be used with any size of line.

So if customer want to meet the 5:1 recommended ratio, they have plenty of different part to choose from.


Erik



Quote:
Originally Posted by jfranta View Post

Gary, I think you should make it clear on your blog that you are using hardware that does not meet the line manufacturers reccomendation. Dynex Dux is new technology and its misuse and subsequent reports of failure can set this technology back for all of us. In additon, Precourt should be very clear to all that their hardware does not meet this requirement.

John Franta, Colligo Marine.
__________________
EPrecourt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-04-2009, 11:19   #20
Marine Service Provider

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30
Bonjour Erik, If I am correct, it sounds like you are saying to oversize your hardware (from your previous recommendations) for the line size to meet Hampidjans requirements for Dux. Probably larger and heavier than it needs to be, but this would work. If you change your recommendations to this for Dux, and sell your Dux shroud sets with this larger hardware, I would have nothing to complain about.

John Franta, Colligo Marine

Quote:
Originally Posted by EPrecourt View Post
Mr Franta,

This affirmation is just not true and is plain bad marketing.

We offer our parts in 5 sizes/series.
Micro
Mini
small
medium
large
Big


those parts could be used with any size of line.

So if customer want to meet the 5:1 recommended ratio, they have plenty of different part to choose from.


Erik
__________________
jfranta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-04-2009, 12:16   #21
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 32
the "softie" style hank terminates in a knot, which although is fractionally less weight, is a knot which as we all know reduces line strength much more than does a splice.

The Précourt softhanx have spliced-on aluminum thimbles which, well, aren't knots and also are broader-headed than the knot termination for a bit of safety margin. I would be concerned that unless loaded, the smaller-diameter knot termination would allow release, but I admit I do not have personal experience with the knot style hank.
__________________
tami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-04-2009, 12:51   #22
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: where ever my anchor is
Boat: 28' Bristol Channel Cutter - Angelsea
Posts: 216
Images: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfranta View Post
"Gary, you started out your rigging project on this forum and the Samuel Morse forum by posting many bits and pieces of our data. Posting things like "Here is where you will find the most info and tech stuff" about the Colligo Marine website. Even to the extent of claiming our data was your own stating "I have put together a table with specs on wire vs Dynex" and "my chart attachment" and then posting a copyrighted chart of our creep data from our website without a credit. Then announcing you are going to use our competitors products. What are we to think?"

Sorry John, I didn't mean to imply that it was my own data. And your data is excellent. I have corrected that. I should have posted credit, I didn't realize I hadn't. I had also built a chart comparing pricing of wire to Dynex, and some how made the wrong reference. Must have gotten a hold of some bad Rum the night before.

"Seeing as how you never even contacted us for a price quote I have to believe that you are clearly doing marketing for our competition and using our data to support your case. As crappy as I think this is, it is perfectly legal."

Well again you are making assumptions. You don't "have" to believe anything. You only believe what you want to. I am not using your data to support any "case". I am using all the data I can find so I make sure when I go to actually put up my rig it will be correct. I started my blog and have been posting to the web so other people can follow along with all the discovery's and mistakes I make. I am not marketing for Precourt, just using his stuff. If I have any problems with his gear, I will report that too.

Your blog clearly shows the hardware (and dimensions of it) that you are using and it does not meet the 5/1 ratio stated. So you can see my concern as stated in the above postings.

The thimbles for the upper ends I will be using are 41mm for the 7mm Dynex and 57mm for the 9mm Dynex. Thats better than 5/1. For the lower ends the dimensions are 51mm for both the 7 & 9mm, again better than 5/1.

In addition, you seem to now be assisting our competition in developing hardware to directly compete with us using all of our information. Again, pretty crappy but perfectly legal as long as no Intellectual property rights are infringed on. I need to remind Eric of our Patents and Patent Pending rights. He has ignored these in the past. We do have the resources to defend our intellectual property and will do so.

LOL ... I'm asking him to make different size holes for my pins to suit my rig. I doubt that would impinge on any patents. It appears that Precourt has been making this rigging for 5 years more than you have. I can find his web site for this gear going back to September 2002. See here http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://precourt.ca

Where your product doesn't even show up until Aug.2007. See here http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://colligomarine.com

"Again, we have a lot invested in marketing Dynex Dux for standing rigging applications and continue to do research on things like UV exposure, which I am sure you will be referencing in the future."

Why not? You yourself state "Using our hardware with Dynex Dux, we can easliy now say 5 plus years in the sun uncovered and will be posting our UV study reports and subsequent recomendations for all to see on the web". But I will be giving you the link, fairs fair. I have nothing against you or your product. I also believe that competition will get us sailors the best product. If somebody were to ask me what I thought about your product, I would give it a thumbs up. I just happen to be working with Erik Precourt.

jfranta
Now I hope to get back to rigging my boat
__________________
Gary Shanti's blog
"two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts will get you back on the freeway"
seacap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-04-2009, 12:52   #23
Marine Service Provider

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30
Hi Tami, Our Softies have all been pulled to the SWL to set the knot. This also provides a nice recess in the knot/line system for the splice to set in. It also uses a splice that, as long as there is tension, will not come off. The O-rings are slid down onto the splice to help hold it on when unloaded. Many people are also using them for jib sheets on clues so they get shaken pretty well. I believe accidental separation is pretty low risk. No complaints yet.
Our small softies are made from Hampidjan 4 mm SK75 with a breaking strength of about 4400 lbs- x 2 lines is 8800 lbs. They break at over 5,000 lbs every time, about what you would expect. Similar reduction ratio in strength for the larger ones. Much more strength than a bronze hank even if it is chafed half thru.

You have to see them to really apreciate them. People luv them at the shows.

IMO, I think the Precourt hanks are fine, just a little more bulky. But don't tell Erik I said that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tami View Post
the "softie" style hank terminates in a knot, which although is fractionally less weight, is a knot which as we all know reduces line strength much more than does a splice.

The Précourt softhanx have spliced-on aluminum thimbles which, well, aren't knots and also are broader-headed than the knot termination for a bit of safety margin. I would be concerned that unless loaded, the smaller-diameter knot termination would allow release, but I admit I do not have personal experience with the knot style hank.
__________________
jfranta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2009, 07:21   #24
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: where ever my anchor is
Boat: 28' Bristol Channel Cutter - Angelsea
Posts: 216
Images: 3
data data data

One of the key elements of deciding to use this new synthetic rigging is data. It will help people decide if they want to take this route and give them something to compare to a known quantity (wire rigging).
First here is a cost comparison for cost between wire and Dynex Dux. Basically I went shopping on the web to find prices. So there may be some figures that are a Little high or low compared to what you may find. Keep in mind that this would be the equivalent of replacing your rigging wire and your turnbuckles. Although if you have your original stainless turnbuckles, it may be getting time to replace them for many of you. See pics of my turnbuckles The Adventures of the Bristol Channel Cutter Shanti. Click here to see cost comparison spreadsheet.

Second, here is a weight comparison between 3 different wire setups for the BCC and a Dynex rig. Click here to see weight comparison spreadsheet.

I will be adding more data to this post as it is found, submitted or developed. There has been a lot of discussion about the diameter of the fittings to use with Dynex Dux. The manufacturer recommends 5/1. So if you are using 9mm Dynex, your splice has to go around a fitting that is at least 45mm. Erik Precourt has obtained data from the manufacturer that gives % loss in strength for a range of diameter ratios. As soon as I have it I will post it here. This should be interesting.
More to come!
__________________
Gary Shanti's blog
"two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts will get you back on the freeway"
seacap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2009, 09:27   #25
Marine Service Provider

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30
Erik Precourt has obtained data from the manufacturer that gives % loss in strength for a range of diameter ratios. As soon as I have it I will post it here. This should be interesting.
More to come![/quote]

Gary,

Interesting that Mr. Precourt is dong this, as he has repeatedly said on several forums that his hardware was designed for Dynex Dux. Seems like he would have researched the line requirements before he designed? We acquired all this information, thru Hampidjan, our own testing, and independent labs 3 years ago before we designed our hardware., most of this is available on our website, along with all the creep and stretch info you need for using Dynex Dux as Standing rigging, as you have noted, Gary.
I have always said, our hardware is the only hardware designed for Dynex Dux. It is nice to have some confirmaton of our results though. I think the better statement here is Precourt's hardware is adaptable to Dynex Dux, if you oversize. I can tell you that the strength drops off greatly as you get smaller than a 5/1 ratio, that is why hampidjan recomends it. Every pull test we have done with a proper bury, (72 times the diameter) the line breaks at the bend around the terminator.

Gary, I also have to bring up what you said earlier and I quote "I am not marketing for Precourt, just using his stuff."

Some full disclosure is needed, Maybe?

Since Colligo Marine has all this data already and you are trying to make it sound like you are discovering it, what am I to think?

We remain the leaders in the usage of Dynex Dux for standing rigging for one reason, we do our homework and we do it before we design our hardware.

Gary, Please be sure to credit us when showing or talking about our data.

John Franta, Colligo Marine
__________________
jfranta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2009, 16:58   #26
Marine Service Provider
 
GMac's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North of the Bridge, thankfully
Boat: R930
Posts: 1,659
Hampidjan actually recommend a 10:1 as the preferred radius, 5:1 is the minimum for Dux. Industry standard, here at least, for fibres like SK75 is 8:1. You can get away with a little less but the heat treated versions, like Dux or Dynamica, do prefer bigger than those non-heat treated like std Dynex or AmSteel.

Interesting to see the different standards used in differing places. Here, if a spliced line breaks around the termination fitting it is regarded as a fail.

Disclosure, for those that want some - We have just finished an extensive testing programme for a Government Dept. and the Forestry Industry into the use of SK75 fibre ropes for use in a situation not dissimilar to Yacht rigging. FYI - The heat treated products (from 3 differing manufacturers inc Hampidjan) didn't fair that well at all.

So now we have established it all depends on how you work the numbers can we carry on with the good and bad things about Dux as a yacht rigging wire replacement. It is an interesting subject many more are looking at.

Personally I prefer Vectran, it gets rid of, just about, the creep issue but with some small downsides like having to be more aware of UV issues, something not so critical with Spectra or Dyneema. One of the riggers we do bits with just made a set of parallel Vectran over braided shrouds for a racing Cat. Everyone is watching with great interest to see how they go.

One obvious downside of fibre rigging is drag due to it usually being bigger in physical size than wire. All a trade off against the lower weight I suppose.
__________________
GMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2009, 18:36   #27
Marine Service Provider

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30
I think you might be taliking about dynamic sheave usage where Hampidjan recommends a 10/1 ratio (unless they have changed something). Is your testing for dynamic conditions on a sheave? This would be good information because we are seeing a number of big race boats now using Dux for halyards on small sheaves and I think this is also a dangerous precedent. Most of these boats have the money to change halyards often so never see any issues but this could trickle down to others that can't afford to change them and don't expect failiures

Can you elaborate on "the heat treated products didn't fair well"? The testing we and others have done, that I have seen, showed less fatique life than non-stretched but nothing much else detrimental and the fatique is nothing you would see on a boat, on the order of 100's of thousands of cycles to high relative load. I have seen 2 extensive studies on SK-75 from the Univ of Oregon for the logging industry.

We do all of our pull testing to failure and new the line fails at over 92% of breaking strength (with a proper splice) and this comes down with UV exposure damage.

Creep is very easy to design around for (static) loads on a sailboat. Most rigs do not carry that much constant tension. Take a look at the creep tables on our website.

We size Dynex Dux for creep and stretch characteristics, this results in a very low relative static load condition, typically 15% or so of rated breaking strength. Dynamic loads typically 20-25%. This is ussually not in the range of test loads that most people are testing for in other industries.

We have used vectran for some shrouds on boats in Australia but the stretch characteristics are not as predictable as Dux.

John Franta, Colligo Marine.
__________________
jfranta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2009, 01:17   #28
Marine Service Provider
 
GMac's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North of the Bridge, thankfully
Boat: R930
Posts: 1,659
Sorry the weather was so good it seemed a shame to not go boating. Glorious day.

Testing was for straight line pulling loads with bends in it but not around sheaves. It would be a static load.

Agree about the halyard comment. That also includes the many other places some of these ropes are now being used for but without allowing for or changing gear to suit.

Basically in oue testing we found the Dux actual break loads to be nothing like the published numbers. In a few pulls we were getting numbers as low as only 37% of published. What's more it was breaking in weird places like in the middle of no-where. A couple broke around the back of the thimble which here is a fail and regarded as a sign of too small a radius. Not one broke where expected. Similar results with the other 2 heat-set (compacted) 75's. But one was an Asian made and we heavily suspect made for the Asian made Dyneema knock-off fibre as opposed to the real McCoy.

All the non heat-set did far better and in 90% odd of the cases got better loads. The Samson Amsteel came out on top. Actually the 12mm Amsteel was getting break loads twice what the 11mm Dux was. According to the published numbers that should never happen.

All very weird really. But we heard today there is to be another run of tests so we will be changing a few things to see what happens. In the previous tests, all the tested samples were constructed in a manner as one might expect if a Joe Blow walked into a non-technical knowledgeable outfit and got them to make them. This time we are going to tweak things and go all out for maximum loads.

But saying that the previous test samples shouldn't have been that far off the mark as to get results they did. The 1st run we knew would be very low as they wanted the ropes spliced directly to a link of chain so a radius issue for sure. But when we said that was the reason for the low numbers we used thimbles (basic BS464's) but then the numbers didn't really step up as much as was expected them too.

It was interesting to note that when we forwarded the results to the assorted manufacturers 2 of them came back suggesting they had serious questions over the published loads on one of the others and had done so for a while.

2 manufactures have told us they have no intention of heat-setting their SK's as it is all just smoke and mirrors. One of these is arguably the worlds flashest/biggest rope maker.

So at the moment was have serious issues with some published numbers, which we have with many ropes but didn't include the heat-set Sk75's but now do.

Looking forward to the next run of tests in which we'll pull out the big drum to get a pure rope load only with zero interferance by terninations. I'll let you know how it goes.

The vectran shrouds being played with here are all pre-stretched before fitting and very tightly overbraided to reduce drag. All good having the low weight but we have seen a few boats in which that saving would have been negated but the extra windage. Seems to be like when you talk anchors, some think the weight saving is good but others think the increased drag is worse and very rarely do the 2 sides meet.

You done any work on the drag of these ropes? We have a local Uni with a wind tunnel that does lots of marine related stuff. It was originally set up for Team NZ in their early days. I'm trying to see if they would do some drag work for us. I know they have done some in the past on this subject but for specific outfits, like TNZ, and they don't/can't give out that info.

Had a very quick suss of your site jfranta and must get back for a deeper one. Looks to have some good info there.

At the end of the day, we also see fibre rigging as the future and wire going the way of the Dodo. It's still a bit in it's infancy but moving quite quick so hopefully the recreation yachters will get the benefits.
__________________
GMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2009, 16:28   #29
Senior Cruiser
 
Therapy's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: W Florida
Boat: The Jon boat still, plus a 2007 SeaCat.
Posts: 6,894
Images: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMac View Post

At the end of the day, we also see fibre rigging as the future and wire going the way of the Dodo. It's still a bit in it's infancy but moving quite quick so hopefully the recreation yachters will get the benefits.
With great folks like you giving us good info I will be confident when I get to the point in time that I need replacement.

Thanks.
__________________
Therapy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2009, 21:43   #30
Marine Service Provider

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30
tesing

GMac, As I posted in a previous post that somehow got deleted?, Hampidjans Dynex Dux is certified for strength by Lloyds of London. I suspect your testing methods are not correct for heat stretched line. I keep saying it is not the same material as SK-75 and shouldn't be treated the same. I await your full details on how you tested, radii, strain rates, splice types, etc. We have lots of data that is inconsistent with your results to date.
__________________

__________________
jfranta is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
rigging

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not 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 Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Any Updates on Synthetic Rigging ? Gashmore Deck hardware: Rigging, Sails & Hoisting 214 22-09-2017 08:58
Synthetic Searunner Jmolan Multihull Sailboats 79 24-01-2010 08:09
Synthetic Rigging and Electrons Jmolan Marine Electronics 39 04-01-2010 04:14
Synthetic standing rigging roblanford Deck hardware: Rigging, Sails & Hoisting 33 31-12-2008 21:11
Synthetic oil? mobetah Construction, Maintenance & Refit 7 06-01-2008 11:31



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:27.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.