Dye checking rigging fittings

[RaymondR]

Hi folks, I am in the process of re-rigging for insurance purposes and was shocked by the price of the turnbuckles if I replaced them, about half of the cost of the re-rig.

Has anyone out there had any experience with dye checking rigging fittings and if so details please.

[Dulcesuenos]

Most of the policies I have seen have exclusions in addition to loss from lack of maintenance ,also have exclusions for damage or loss caused by "failed, defective,faulty, parts, hardware, electrical components etc" so even if you replaced them and one failed your not covered unless it specifically states coverage of rigging failure. So if you have the prior insurance, does it matter? I do agree it's good to replace things that are needed, but I laugh about insurance companies make a big deal about rigging every 10 years especially when their policies exclude damage or loss caused by the failure of it.

[longjonsilver]

Ya gotta just buy what you can afford to throw away. If you have to borrow money - you have to buy insurance. Insurance is a racket. Think you have better actuarial skills than that of the insurance company? They are getting rich off such foolish thinking.
jon

[rognvald]

Ray,
Dye checking is a good practice. Just replace anything which has failed. However, don't be fooled by chrome erosion/chipping over the bronze turnbuckles which you might confuse for failure/stress cracks when it's perfectly fine. Many times, the wire is fine and the cost of re-rigging is questionable. I replaced my entire rigging after 10 years in salt water and it was time. However, 15-20 years in a short season, fresh water environment might still be serviceable. There's a bit of black magic in the mix. Good luck and safe sailing.

[RaymondR]

Thank you for the replies folks.


On Insurance.


My previous boat was a steely and I only ever carried third party however marina owners and the folks who run boat yards are becoming more difficult to deal with these days and some are insisting on comprehensive before they will allow you on the premises. Since I have now reached mature age and occasionally feel the need for a restful day or two at times I decided to go comprehensive.


I did insurance investigation for oil and gas field activities and found that a lot of people did not have a clue as to what they were covered for and most had never actually read their policy until they had a claim. Insurance companies are in the business to make money and some of them go about it very aggressively however they also have to deal with some people who are not exactly honest and consequently do tend to be bits of sceptics.


On Rigging Failures.


The old steely went for 26 years before it had a rigging failure and that occurred when it free fell onto it's beam and snapped one of the lower shrouds. the failure was at the point in the roll formed end fitting. I re-rigged with Sta-lok fittings but only had them for a few years so cannot comment on their durability.


As a long term oil driller who has a lot of experience with industrial rigging I am not impressed with the ten year assumed life for rigging insurance providers appear to favour. My perception is that the athwartships rigging tends to be that which works the hardest, particularly when on the wind or reaching, and tends to have the least redundancy and should be replaced more often than the for and aft rigging where this has redundancy in the rig design.


A bit more of a ponder appears to be in order and thanks again for the replies.

[UNCIVILIZED]

Turnbuckles can be tough to inspect, simply due to how the geometry of their construction, & all of the hidden from inspecting eyes type surfaces that such produces. Let alone if/when they get coated with chrome, etc.
The other thing is that when folks lose rigs, it's fairly common to punch out all of the lower clevis pins at deck level, in order to cut loose the mast so that it doesn't hole you. Which leaves little enough for any inspectors to analyze after the incident.

Plus there certainly are enough severe forces acting on things at odd angles during a dismasting, that I'd think it tough to say what broke when, or why. At least with some of the rigging bits... apply common sense here.

As to highly stressed rigging. Headstays which have furlers on them tend to be a common weak point. Specificially, where the stay exits the furler, & meets it's upper terminal fitting. The cause being the weight of the furler, & furled sail, swaying back & forth, with that area being the only point on such a headstay which can flex much. Thus it suffers more metal fatigue than the rest of the stay. And several members here have lost their rigs due to such. As did Dame Ellen MacArthur on one of her round the world jaunts (she still set a record though).

Anyway, it's been advised that if you use your boat seriously, that this stay should be swapped out about 2x as often as everything else. AKA every 5yrs +/-
Jim, & Ann T. Cate have some wisdom on this if you perhaps need more firsthand info on it. And there are others, though their names escape me at present.

Also, you needn't pull your rig whenever you want to do a detailed inspection of your rigging wire. It's easy enough to pull the stays off one or two at a time while the rig's up, so that you can give them a good going over at sea level. Including flexing them near the terminals to check for broken strands, audibly, & via tactile means. Along with the more usual routes. And Brion Toss's shop carrys portable, pocket magnifiers that come in pretty handy. I keep mine in an old cigar tube. To be used in conjunction with regular magnifying glasses, & dye penetrant, etc.

One other trick, is to feel for cracks with your fingertips. Since it's easy to pick up even hairline cracks that way, & or by dragging fingernails across questionable parts. Which has me wondering... well, some other time


EDIT: The incident in question with Ellen MacArthur, OBE, was her primary headstay (made of rod rigging). On an Open 60, so 2+ (fixed) headstays, with other headsails on structural furlers. And it was a size larger than the riggers had specified. Which, the rigger's sizing was a size or two bigger than commonly thought necessary, or was found on the boat's plans. So it gives you an idea of what's involved with such stays, & their breaking from the cyclical loading. And this loading also transpires when the sail on said stay is flying, it's just a bit less obvious then.