heads up: Dyneema life lines and ISAF OSR's

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by xslim

Thank you!
BTW, I enjoyed reading your books!

What did you use on Hawk? What were your reasons?

We used wire for the vast majority of our cruising. Our lifelines got abused quite a bit - we hung large fenders from them when on rough commercial docks, and our spin/code zero sheets occasionally zinged out rubbing on them, and they very occasionally rubbed on pilings or trawler mooring wires. I would have worried more about dyneema than wire.

We found some really nice wire up in newfoundland - commercial fishing stuff - very rust/corrosion resistant - and flexible enough that I could make up my own eye ends. Not sure exactly what it was, but it lasted for 15 years and looked essentially perfect at the end of that.

I had dyneema lifelines made up and stored on the boat but only really experimented with them when we stopped full time cruising. They seemed fine, and were somewhat 'nicer', but I would have worried more about them.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by AD28

I think it also should be said that the ruled restrictions on textile lifelines do not apply to multihulls. I may stand corrected, but it is my understanding that multihulls are exempt from the ISAF legislation

hmmm . . . . multi's are certainly not exempt from ISAF (now called World Sailing BTW) rules . . . .

but you are correct that the World Sailing Offshore Safety Regulations (OSR's) specify wire only for monos (except cat 4), and wire or uhmw for multis and class 4 mono's.

I believe the reason is that they do not expect crew to be hiking on the lifelines in multi's, so they are not loaded as heavily and the consequence if they break is not as bad.

Now mono cruiser's also typically dont hike on their lifelines - so a cruiser could well take this to mean WS thinks Dyneema is just fine for their application. Not that it really matters fro cruisers (except in countries that adapt WS regs as part of the national safety requirements like NZ).

[AD28]

Yeah, and given that plenty, maybe even most these days, of racing multihulls are using textile rigging, I guess it's a hard thing to tell the multihullers that the big stick thing being held up by the same stuff as the lifelines is somehow less safe in the lifeline application...

[model 10]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

I had dyneema lifelines made up and stored on the boat but only really experimented with them when we stopped full time cruising. They seemed fine, and were somewhat 'nicer', but I would have worried more about them.

I have been using them for about 8 years and have made many repairs and changes. It's so easy to do that it's not a big deal at all. Bits of cover here and there protect wear spots.

[roverhi]

Actually don't think it's because of crew safety, otherwise able to contain the crew, but burn through for banning Dyneema/etc life lines. Racing crews have bunches of different lines lying across the lifelines and letting a sheet or guy loose to run free can create enough friction to melt through a synthetic life line. That's not a likely to happen on a cruising sailboat. Mainsheet is the only line that touches my lifelines and it never runs wildly free where it could generate much heat. See no reason not to use Dyneema/etc. for life lines on a cruising boat as long as there are no sharp edges where it runs up against something hard. Dyneema/etc lines are way more resistant to cutting by sharp surfaces than dacron lines. Not as good as wire but not something that you can slice through without a seriously sharp surface.

FWIW, used dacron for temporary life lines when on the hard. Even though it was 1/2" line it had so much stretch that I nearly went overboard when leaned against it. Switched out to some 3/16" Dyneema type line and it was way better than the vinyl coated wire life lines. Virtually no stretch and easy on the body.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by roverhi

Actually don't think it's because of crew safety,

I was formally involved in the discussions and decision . . . It was 100% about hiking crew safety. And the final straw was when two euro boats (in rapid succession just as the debate was underway) had their lifelines cut by "rough" stanchion pass thru holes (rough from prior wire grooving) and dump crew in the water.

letting a sheet or guy loose to run free can create enough friction to melt through a synthetic life line.

True in theory, but i believe we did not find a single actual real world case of this (the life line actually being burned all the way thru).

Not as good as wire but not something that you can slice through without a seriously sharp surface.

See first comment above - they can in fact be and have been cut by "rough" stanchion holes.

.........

[hugosalt]

"See first comment above - they can in fact be and have been cut by "rough" stanchion holes."

Made up Dyneema lifelines for racing friend of mine early this spring.
We were both surprised to see amount of chafe from stanchion hole.
Keeping a close eye on. Will have to smooth or change out stanchion hole.

Was thinking even on good smooth holes for additional protection to apply some Maxi jacket coating or if room some tubular webbing or cover with larger Dyneema.
Could easily inspect. Actually no room/clearance for us.
Comments? bad idea?

[david samuelson]

Hi,
For those of you who want to use dyneema, this is what I did, for what it's worth. I covered 3mm Dyneema with 5mm Dyneema. The 3mm has a break load of ±1 ton, the same as 4mm 7X7 ss wire. The cover is very chafe resistant but I also glued some thin-walled clear plastic hose into the stanchions where the line passes through to further reduce the chafe.
One end has an eye around the stanchion, which provides more than the necessary radius to give a full strength eye. The other end has a thimble inserted into an eye for the lashing.
The day I see wear on the cover I know that I still have at least the core’s 1 ton of strength left; not time to panic yet.
I used 5mm dyneema without the 3mm core on the bottom lines.

[UNCIVILIZED]

On the Burn Through thing. Back in the early 2000's, there were a couple of Open 60's which lost their spars due to such. They were sporting deck spreader supported type masts. Perhaps rotating wing spars? I can't fully recall.
But they had the misfortune of a headsail sheet unknowingly damaging the synthetic stays on one of the deck spreaders. Perhaps not fully through the line's thickness, but enough so that it failed, & a gravity storm ensued.

[AD28]

It seems to me that if chafe is the issue, why didn't ISAF just create an SOP?

::SOP to check your stanchions for roughness and polishing them, and chamfering the openings. In my case I have ferrules running thru the stanchions, which are flanged to keep them in place. I see no reason that Joe Average can't bang a piece of copper tubing thru to do the same thing, if sanding/polishing is too much trouble

::SOP to add this where sheets run across: NEW ENGLAND ROPES Dyneema Anti-Chafing Sleeves | West Marine


::SOP for the type of line - a double-braid Dyneema line made just for lifelines:
NEW ENGLAND ROPES STS-WR2 Synthetic Lifeline, Clear | West Marine

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by AD28

It seems to me that if chafe is the issue, why didn't ISAF just create an SOP? . . . . .

The bottom line was one particularity influential fellow at RORC decided that #1 life line were mandated for safety purpose, #2 dyneema had actual cut and potential burn thru issues while wire did not, #3 dyneema did not bring any other significant safety value - QED go with wire, ban dyneema, don't mess about trying to "fix" dyneema. He won the day with that argument.

I did not agree with point 3, nor with the QED . . . . But the decision making group's bottom line was "wire works and does the job we want - dyneema just increases risk".

There were also a couple quite prominent pro offshore racers (English speaking) who said they much preferred wire to dyneema offshore. I believe Comanche was launched with wire even though dyneema was still allowed then.

That is all in a mono racing/hiking on lifeline context. The cruising application is somewhat different. I personally have no issue with well designed dyneema life lines - if they are done properly. They are more sensitive to errors than wire. Thus my recommendation way above - if you are at all uncertain or uncomfortable go with wire.

The sad fact I learned from the whole discussion was that even "industry experts" had significant fundamental mis-understandings about dyneema. "Expert" guys selling lifeline hardware did not understand the key bend ratio charts, rope mfg's (including New England ropes - the wr2 mentioned above was too small because only its core is load bearing) did not understand critical requirements, installers did not understand "how smooth" it needed to be.

If anyone is going down this path -I wrote the best practice paper on dyneema life line design/installation - it is a hair out of date now - but addresses all the critical issues (http://www.ussailing.org/wp-content/...Jan%202014.pdf)

[Stumble]

Athletic e I thought this was an over reaction driven by decision makers that didn't like change, I am still pretty comfortable with this assesment. My dyneema lifelines are still going strong six years into their lifespan now, and all it took was a few minutes with a metal file to smooth out any burrs. Too me this is a lot like outlawing fin keels because some have been improperly maintained.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Stumble

Athletic e I thought this was an over reaction driven by decision makers that didn't like change,

mmmm . . . .that's probably a bit harsh and incorrect. Just for instance, the single RORC guy most against dyneema lifelines was the (or a) key project manager for for the volvo 65's - he is actually reasonably cutting edge and comfortable with 'developments'. And Stan Honey was deeply involved in all this discussion and decision - and he is no Luddite.

My personal difficulty with the decision was that it was not technically based. It might have been the right decision or the wrong one, and we don't know because there was no assessment or study done. The RORC guy was mandated by the ISAF safety committee to do a proper study, but he punted and did essentially nothing because he 'already knew the answer'. When I pointed out that he had not done the study that had been required of him, they asked me if I would do it - after some consideration I turned it down because I figured it was a no-win situation - no matter what test results I produced it would not change the RORC's guys mind and he way way outweighed me in political clout.

Too me this is a lot like outlawing fin keels because some have been improperly maintained.

Except fin keels offer significant real and measurable advantages. The decision makers here could not see that dyneema lifelines offered much benefit and did increase risk. It was telling to me that a no-barred program like Comanche went wire.

I personally am ambivalent about this whole topic. I only suggest to people that if they want to go dyneema they try to understand the best practices because it is more sensitive than wire to mis-use. I am sure you did yours very well.