My First Soft Shackle

[Seaworthy Lass]

Dockhead, where does the quote in your signature originate? It torments me each time I see it .

SWL

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Dockhead, where does the quote in your signature originate? It torments me each time I see it .

SWL

The Vision by Allan Ramsay: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Ramsay_(poet)

http://spenserians.cath.vt.edu/TextR...?textsid=33952

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Benz

But there's a whole world beyond diamond- and button-knot soft shackles out there: it is soft shackles with toggles.

There is a whole world of toggles and dog bones - are you the guy I tested the hard wood toggle for?

I would be quite interested in what things and applications you have found where they are preferred to, or do something stopper knots simply cannot do? Photo's would be great and I believe allowed since I have asked

My understanding of the toggle shackles is that they are essentially as strong as the 'stronger' shackle design - eg the loop/noose is the failure point in both. and are easier to work in cold and spray and with gloves on - the Volvo boats used some on the bow down in the southern ocean. But while I have made a couple I lack hands on experience with them - have never really used one full time at sea.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by StuM

The Vision by Allan Ramsay: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Ramsay_(poet)

Ah, thank you .
Torment over .

Stu, your expertise has been missed lately on knot threads. Hope all is well at your end.
I just had a few tins of nutritional yeast passed over to try, so I was thinking of you.

SWL

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by StuM

The Vision by Allan Ramsay: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Ramsay_(poet)

Allan Ramsay: The Vision.

Yes! One of my favorites.


It's about skepticism -- goes on like this:

Zour Monks ar void of Sence or Grace,
I had leur ficht for Fisch;
Zour Schule-men ar Fule-men,
Carvit out for dull Debates,
Decoying and destroying
Baith Monarchies and States.


Seems appropriate in this setting

[iyamwhatiyam]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Thankfully these items take up little room or weight on board, as they are vital equipment .




Not a joking matter .
With a love of knots and 30+ years experience tying bowlines (I swear I could do one standing on my head blindfolded) I have just found I am using the "cub scout" method and that there are much easier, more reliable ways to tie bowlines:
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...nd-167365.html

Keep an open mind .

SWL

You are so right! Nothing trivial about a bowline, especially if you've been thrown a line while in the drink and your life depends on getting it fastened about yourself! I was taught a quick method starting with a twist, but a couple weeks without practicing and it was lost.

[Benz]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

There is a whole world of toggles and dog bones - are you the guy I tested the hard wood toggle for?

I would be quite interested in what things and applications you have found where they are preferred to, or do something stopper knots simply cannot do? Photo's would be great and I believe allowed since I have asked

My understanding of the toggle shackles is that they are essentially as strong as the 'stronger' shackle design - eg the loop/noose is the failure point in both. and are easier to work in cold and spray and with gloves on - the Volvo boats used some on the bow down in the southern ocean. But while I have made a couple I lack hands on experience with them - have never really used one full time at sea.

Hi Evans,

I am the wooden toggle guy. After you were kind enough to break one for me, I had some machined out of 7075 alloy--couldn't break them at 19,000lbs, which was the strongest Dyneema that would fit on there. So I'm selling them from my website--Abednegomarine dot com
Lots more information there, some good pics, and we're updating the site frequently as new uses come my way.

In the ones I had destruction tested, the outside of the loop was always the failure point, and the line failed just above the manufacturer's stated break load.
I emailed some time back in hopes of interacting with you about them; I gather the email was not received. Nevermind, my email address is benjaminzartman at gmail.com I'd like to get some into your hands and see what you think.

[nigelmercier]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Dockhead, where does the quote in your signature originate? It torments me each time I see it .

SWL

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...-face,&f=false

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by nigelmercier

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...-face,&f=false

Thanks Nigel . Stu put a link in earlier.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Yes! One of my favorites.


It's about skepticism -- goes on like this:

Zour Monks ar void of Sence or Grace,
I had leur ficht for Fisch;
Zour Schule-men ar Fule-men,
Carvit out for dull Debates,
Decoying and destroying
Baith Monarchies and States.

Seems appropriate in this setting

If I had to pick an appropriate one for me, it would be:

"I hate a Drunkard or a Glutton,
Yet am nae Fae to Wine and Mutton."

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

. . .
If I had to pick an appropriate one for me, it would be:

"I hate a Drunkard or a Glutton,
Yet am nae Fae to Wine and Mutton."

There are a lot of jewels in there!

[cwyckham]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

...

We need to have holes that will accommodate a range of fore/aft positions (ie downward pull on the clew) for anything from a reefed yankee to a gennaker or even headsails we may decide we want in the future, such as the blade jib you are finding so useful in the Baltic. We don't need the 27 we have on the larger tracks , but once the track is there is is easy just to put lots of holes in.

I have marked in red the position of the tracks with holes and also the openings at the top of the bulwark close to the tracks:



This is the end of one of the tracks:






Our main headsail "track" is inboard, but there are lots of attachment options both inboard (the staysail track) and outboard (the holes at the top of the bulwark) for secondary controls (see above).
I like the idea of two controls, varying the amount of pull on either to control in/out .

...

SWL

SWL, I fear that either I'm missing something here or you are.

Can you explain again why you need to have different attachment points? I don't think you do.

It seems like you're obviously grasping the advantage of having two twingers in a triangle formation for moving the lead inboard and outboard, but that exact same set-up will also mimic moving a car fore and aft.

I'm setting up a single twinger on my rail. My jib cars are on the rail and my shrouds go almost to the rail, so I can't in-haul at all unless I'm using a storm jib.

My standard sail is a 135 The car is almost right back at the primary winch for that sail. With my 105, the jib car is about 3 feet forward and as soon as I start rolling the 105, it goes forward from there. I think this is what you were talking about as wanting different locations for your many different headsails.

BUT, I'm only putting in a single twinger and I'll never move my jib car again (I can't because it has a small hole to go through the new lifeline netting). The twinger will be loose for the full genoa on a light wind day (until we crack off the wind, anyways), but with a rolled 105 in 35 knots of wind, I'll just pull down the twinger a bit. This will be exactly like moving the jib car up 6 feet (the angle of the sheet at the clew will move down as if I'd moved the jib car up, so the sail doesn't know if I'm using a jib car or a twinger, it just knows the angle moved).

I'll just be using a 2:1 purchase with 2 low friction rings.

The elegance of the system is pretty exciting, and I've been thinking of doing it for years. It's just the lifeline netting has now forced me to get off my butt and get it done.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by cwyckham

SWL, I fear that either I'm missing something here or you are.

Can you explain again why you need to have different attachment points? I don't think you do.

It seems like you're obviously grasping the advantage of having two twingers in a triangle formation for moving the lead inboard and outboard, but that exact same set-up will also mimic moving a car fore and aft.

I'm setting up a single twinger on my rail. My jib cars are on the rail and my shrouds go almost to the rail, so I can't in-haul at all unless I'm using a storm jib.

My standard sail is a 135 The car is almost right back at the primary winch for that sail. With my 105, the jib car is about 3 feet forward and as soon as I start rolling the 105, it goes forward from there. I think this is what you were talking about as wanting different locations for your many different headsails.

BUT, I'm only putting in a single twinger and I'll never move my jib car again (I can't because it has a small hole to go through the new lifeline netting). The twinger will be loose for the full genoa on a light wind day (until we crack off the wind, anyways), but with a rolled 105 in 35 knots of wind, I'll just pull down the twinger a bit. This will be exactly like moving the jib car up 6 feet (the angle of the sheet at the clew will move down as if I'd moved the jib car up, so the sail doesn't know if I'm using a jib car or a twinger, it just knows the angle moved).

I'll just be using a 2:1 purchase with 2 low friction rings.

The elegance of the system is pretty exciting, and I've been thinking of doing it for years. It's just the lifeline netting has now forced me to get off my butt and get it done.

I think the key to what she is saying is:

"once the track is there, it is easy just to put lots of holes in."

I think the logic here is flawless. These things are capable of a huge range of adjustment -- as a matter of geometry, it takes less motion up and down to produce the change of sheet lead angle produced by a great deal of motion fore and aft. BUT -- if you have the tracks -- why not?

I probably wouldn't bother with a track on my future metal boat, since you can easily weld on another pad-eye if you're not happy with the position. One pad-eye per sail ought to be more than enough.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

since you can easily weld on another pad-eye if you're not happy with the position.

As an aside . . . It is perhaps not as dead simple as you might think, if you have foam insulation under the deck (as you should). The foam will melt or char if you just try to weld on deck, so you have to remove and replace it, which gets somewhat involved.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

As an aside . . . It is perhaps not as dead simple as you might think, if you have foam insulation under the deck (as you should). The foam will melt or char if you just try to weld on deck, so you have to remove and replace it, which gets somewhat involved.

Good point.

OK, so lots of pad-eyes!

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by cwyckham

SWL, I fear that either I'm missing something here or you are.

Can you explain again why you need to have different attachment points? I don't think you do.

This is a new sheeting technique and little info is available. Attachment points need to be preplanned because, as Evans has pointd out, welding is a complex thing if the alu is insulated (and headlining needs to be removed before insulation can be). At the welding phase of construction it is dead easy to weld on lots of pad eyes (we will have about 40 scattered around the new boat) or tracks. Attachment points are useful for a host of things.

Rather than relying on the designer or builder to get is absolutely right, providing future flexibility is sensible.

I may be missing something very basic, but regarding the position of the low friction ring system, I can't see how one would completely cover a full range of clew movement for all headsails or their reefing alternatives or wind angles and amounts. Otherwise why would it matter where you put it?

For example, where would you put the attachment for the low friction ring to suit both these clews for all situations?