removing baby stay

[Red Horse]

My mast is 40 feet long no spreaders. Lower shrouds are at 20 feet. There is a baby stay at 27 feet it terminates just behind the hatch on the bow. I have been thinking I don' t need this stay. It may have been installed for a storm jib. But I think the attachment should be at the lower shrouds point. Any input is appreciated.
Thanks
Rich

[Snowpetrel]

Sounds like an interesting boat, any photos or diagrams to help visualise.almost sounds like a few bolger designs if I have what you are saying right?

Sent from my GT-P5210 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[robert sailor]

Normally a baby stay is installed on rigs without double lowers to support and stop the mast from pumping, especially going to weather in a seaway. Because you have no spreaders...mmmmm!

[barnakiel]

If it is there, it may have been placed by the designer. Keep it.

Images?

b.

[GordMay]

“Inner Forestays”, and/or “Baby Stays” are not generally sail carrying.

They are intended to stay the mid-section &/or lower-section of the mast fore-and-aft, to prevent uncontrolled mast-bend and pumping.

An “Inner forestay” is usually attached about 60% of the fore-triangle height above the deck.

The “Baby stay” is usually attached in the region of the lower spreaders.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

If it is there, it may have been placed by the designer. Keep it.
Images?
b.

Indeed.

You might check with Jeff Turner*, who runs the Cross Multihull Designs website.
Email ➥ jeff@crossmultihulls.com <jeff@crossmultihulls.com>

Website ➥ CROSS Multihull Designs

* Norm Cross passed away in the early nineties.

[SVTatia]

Originally Posted by GordMay

“Inner Forestays”, and/or “Baby Stays” are not generally sail carrying.

They are intended to stay the mid-section &/or lower-section of the mast fore-and-aft, to prevent uncontrolled mast-bend and pumping.

An “Inner forestay” is usually attached about 60% of the fore-triangle height above the deck.

The “Baby stay” is usually attached in the region of the lower spreaders.

If they are sail carrying, there needs to be fixed or running backstays to counter the forward pull at the mast attachment point. I wonder if there are running backs on the boat? The need for running backstay is dependent on whether or not they would interfere with the mainsail, so on a multihull it may not be an issue.

[Red Horse]

I just found a drawing of the sail plan. It does not show this baby stay. The reason I thought it was supposed to be for a storm jib is it has its own halyard. I also noted the drawing shows my boom to be about 3 feet too short. My boat was originally rigged as a ketch but has no mizzen now.
I might add that I pulled the mast to do an inspection as it had not been down in about 10 years. Good thing I did as the step wall weld has corroded away. The only thing holding the mast in place was the downward pressure of the rig and the bolt heads.
Rich

[JPA Cate]

Redhorse,

Your boat's baby stay may have been added after a PO saw the mast pumping and wanted to stabilize it. The halyard above it would then be the pole topping lift.

Ann

[GILow]

Originally Posted by Red Horse

My boat was originally rigged as a ketch but has no mizzen now.


Rich

So, I wonder when it went mizzing? Sorry, I just had to say it.

M


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Red Horse]

I guess I should not have been mizzing around with it.
getting back to topic. I think I will just pull the halyard and leave the baby stay for the time being. The previous owner installed the mast which came from another boat. The suggestion the halyard may be for a topping lift is probably correct. Something not necessary on a multihull.
Rich