Why is my mast so thick on my "lightly built" boat?

[Snowpetrel]

That sure looks pretty wide. What's the dimensions? Maybe the extra fore and aft width is to cope with not having aft leading lower shrouds. Effectively it's like an inline masthead rig without runners or checkstays. So needs a big fore N aft mast to stop pumping, especially if it's deck stepped. Sailed a 34 footer designed to be able to lower her mast. Same big section due to in line rigging.

Sent from my HTC_0PCV2 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[HappyMdRSailor]

Holy crap man! !!

That thing is phaaaaaattt !!!!!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[SkiprJohn]

Originally Posted by VinnyVincent

Interesting. Mine is the first version. The aft lower shroud still shares the same chain plate as the upper cap shroud, though. You would think the angle would somehow affect the spreader, since it is not in a straight line and the plate is slightly aft of the mast?

I may have misspoken. I was going by the diagrams on sailboatdata (copywrite) and not by personal experience although I had a friend with one.

[VinnyVincent]

Actually now that I am here at the boat, I can see that the shrouds are in fact perpendicular to the mast- no aft shrouds. Although that seems like a silly trade off considering a larger mast is probably way more expensive than a couple additional shrouds.

[Snowpetrel]

Saves having to glass in an extra set of knees and a set of chainplates. Probably cheaper overall.

Sent from my HTC_0PCV2 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[CarlF]

I still think it started with a rig that needed a mast extrusion that was "in-between" two standard sizes. The designers went for the bigger mast since mast failures are a quick way to lose your designer job (and reputation).

Once they had decided on the bigger mast extrusion, they then realized they could save the cost of after lowers. As mentioned, by sharing the cap shroud chain plate they saved a set of knees and chain plates - these take a lot of labor hours and often need extra work inside the cabin to make it look nice at boat shows. Depending where they fall, they also can mess up a settee or berth location.

It's possible it was a net money saver.

Of course this is all conjecture as we weren't there. But this sort of thing is very common in production boat design where everything is a "trade-off".

[GrahamHO]

Originally Posted by VinnyVincent

I'm pretty sure that even though it shares a plate with the upper shroud, the plate that it attach's to sits ever so slightly aft of the mast. Possibly even somewhat perpendicular, but behind the center line of it.
I will have to confirm this. With any luck I will get out of work early enough today to swing by the boat and take a few pictures.

Likely is slightly aft of the mast to allow for some aft rake of the mast. It's also tending to oppose the forestay which is keeping things in the correct direction. Sharing a chainplate is quite normal.

[Jim Cate]

Many boats designed in that era utilized a single in-plane lower plus a baby stay. I don't think it was budgetary, for my Yankee-30, a S&S design and not a bottom of the market price point was so designed. At least some of the thinking was that the single lower allowed the main to be eased farther forward when sailing off the wind without things chafing on the aft lower shroud, and for the enthusiastic (and brawny) racer, one could induce a bit of mast bend with the baby stay. The Yankee mast was keel stepped, though...

On the Yankee, the mast was built by La Fiel, with an elliptical cross section and was genetically related to a telephone pole. I was racing in the Y-30 one design class, and one of my competitors replaced his mast with a much smaller cross section, double spreader edition. He gained significant performance with this modification. We who were burdened with the original mast viewed this with deep resentment, whilst he chortled his way to the podium!

So, Vinnie, while your mast may make your butt look fat (??), it will likely be extremely sturdy and long lived, and that ain't bad!

Jim

[HappyMdRSailor]

Originally Posted by VinnyVincent

I could get real dirty and throw in some pics of my bilge...although it may no longer be content that is safe for work at that point.

I still have some of those expired pics, but honestly they are embarrassing. I've since "enhanced" just about everything that has to do with vanity.

Yea.. maybe best not to push the post to "reporting danger"... They weren't embarrassing, I remembered 'em pretty well re-reading the purchase thread... Man... me n Growly were excited for ya...

Originally Posted by VinnyVincent

Interesting. Mine is the first version. The aft lower shroud still shares the same chain plate as the upper cap shroud, though. You would think the angle would somehow affect the spreader, since it is not in a straight line and the plate is slightly aft of the mast?

Fairly common as Jim states below...

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Many boats designed in that era utilized a single in-plane lower plus a baby stay. I don't think it was budgetary, for my Yankee-30, a S&S design and not a bottom of the market price point was so designed. At least some of the thinking was that the single lower allowed the main to be eased farther forward when sailing off the wind without things chafing on the aft lower shroud, and for the enthusiastic (and brawny) racer, one could induce a bit of mast bend with the baby stay. The Yankee mast was keel stepped, though...

On the Yankee, the mast was built by La Fiel, with an elliptical cross section and was genetically related to a telephone pole. I was racing in the Y-30 one design class, and one of my competitors replaced his mast with a much smaller cross section, double spreader edition. He gained significant performance with this modification. We who were burdened with the original mast viewed this with deep resentment, whilst he chortled his way to the podium!

Don't you just hate those budgetary constraints in a racing campaign??? I'm not a fan of Le Fiell aesthetically, but they make a decent stick for sure...

So, Vinnie, while your mast may make your butt look fat (??), it will likely be extremely sturdy and long lived, and that ain't bad!
Ain't that the truth??? (vin, this coming from two who have some experience with lost rigs, Jim's far more exciting)
Jim

Sooooo... besides looking simply fat... let's try and figure out if she is the original, or a replacement, and if the latter... determine if the stability curves are good enough for you... Hopefully also if replaced, there was at least some thought towards ballast compensation....

[Captain Bill 3]

Last guy almost got it. The factory in the effort to save money, used the same extrusion for the N-30 and modified it's length to fit the N-27-28'. Assuming the Newport ( Coastal Recreation) factory builds its own masts. Many similar sized boats share parts due to saving money on larger orders.

[VinnyVincent]

Originally Posted by HappyMdRSailor

Yea.. maybe best not to push the post to "reporting danger"... They weren't embarrassing, I remembered 'em pretty well re-reading the purchase thread... Man... me n Growly were excited for ya...



Fairly common as Jim states below...



Sooooo... besides looking simply fat... let's try and figure out if she is the original, or a replacement, and if the latter... determine if the stability curves are good enough for you... Hopefully also if replaced, there was at least some thought towards ballast compensation....

Yeah man I remember you and growley helped me out a lot! I like growley his boat ownership style and approach is very similar to mine lol...

Anyhow back on the subject of my huge mast...it's original from what I can tell. I saw another one just the other day and it has the same mast. I am also thinking they DID add ballast to compensate for such a large...pole.
THe reason I say that is because the boat has over 40% ballast to displacement ratio, which is kind of high for such a boat...yet it is still tender in spite of having such a "stiff"...pole

I did also walk around the marina and look at various rigs to compare mast size to the arrangement of stays they had.
It seemed that mast size in proportion to boat size was almost directly related whether or not they had fore/aft shrouds. A columbia 26, for example, also had a pretty good sized...rod and it doesn't have for, or aft shrouds.
Of all the single mast rigs in the size range I checked out, the cutter rigs seemed to have the smaller...equipment

[scgilligan]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

Maybe the extra fore and aft width is to cope with not having aft leading lower shrouds. Effectively it's like an inline masthead rig without runners or checkstays. So needs a big fore N aft mast to stop pumping, especially if it's deck stepped.

That is what crossed my mind also..I know squat about boats, but I just recently spied a smaller (26-ish) Hunter in a marina this weekend and noticed the mast was quite a bit larger than the other boats around. I do recall seeing somewhere that some of those Hunters did not have stays at the rear..I just assumed that was the reason.

[Tx J]

Originally Posted by HappyMdRSailor

I guess dimensions would help us Vinaroo... If Zee is correct, the Le Fiell section will be oval or "egg shaped"... I've never seen one with a corner to speak of...
Mine is an elliptical/oval/egg shape, no taper I've noticed, built like a utility pole.





Oh man.... Harbor City is one tough hood.... Of course right next to BY FAR the most exclusive expensive community in So Cal...
I always wondered if Palos Verdes was that expensive, don't remember ever going there; same for HC area, but from what I learned of the 'terrain' and on maps I tried to avoid the tough places.
(was only TDY, a coworker was assigned to one of those places and left his stuff in his vehicle his first day at work...yep, cleaned out (from a 'secure' parking lot too)..

OC was an awesome place to live... 30 years ago... But now??? I'm right on board with Tx J....
Yeah, and I spent most of my time living and working down in the good/high dollar OC spots (boat in the Dana Point marina), etc.

VinnyV: "From what I understand, the 28 is pretty much a scaled down 41. Both designed by C&C."
Right, and relatively low freeboard too.

I worked in Marina Del Rey too, all over the area actually (and my sis is a Santa Monica native).

[Tx J]

Originally Posted by VinnyVincent

When I replaced the two chain plates that hold the cap shrouds, I was shocked to find that the core of my deck in a large area had been reduced to the consistency of mud.
Thing is- I didn't even notice it. The upper layer of fiberglass is probably about 3/16" thick. It was pretty solid, even when I had the core hollowed out before injecting thickened epoxy.
Haven't seen any sign of core probs yet (but it was refitted pretty good by PO).
I am assuming mine is not unique since your mast is also huge



In addition to the two forward shrouds, did you notice the little attachment point next to your forestay on the deck? Apparently that is for an optional baby stay that you can attach to the center of the mast to keep that section from bending as well...but I don't think I have ever seen anyone using one of those. Seems like it would really get in the way of things.
Have a short track on foredeck, which may be for a Solent stay. I have a lot of 'extra' rigging (and been busy enough not to get into the hi-po weeds yet), a PO was a racer and added all kinds of goodies to the boat.
Major headache is still working out a decent way to secure and deploy the anchor, they were built as solid day sailors in that respect, very poor (cruising) anchoring provisions as designed.

How long have you owned yours?
Three or four years.

Sorry to be getting back to this thread so late, on my own type too, been really occupied.

[Tx J]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tx J
[FONT=Tahoma]Carl,
The Newport 28's have a lower shroud ~perpendicular to the mast, sharing a chainplate with the upper shroud

Originally Posted by VinnyVincent

I'm pretty sure that even though it shares a plate with the upper shroud, the plate that it attach's to sits ever so slightly aft of the mast. Possibly even somewhat perpendicular, but behind the center line of it.
I will have to confirm this. With any luck I will get out of work early enough today to swing by the boat and take a few pictures.

Not quite sure, hence the "~" symbol.