Inner forstay?

[Tony G]

I did some digging around the forum and found reference to but not any hard evidence that any of our members have added an inner forestay. Has anybody here given it some serious thought to the point of having crunched some numbers? I don't even know what numbers to crunch! Maybe there isn't any numbers to crunch...just take a shot and hope it works when called upon?

We have 5 headsails besides the new suit from Hood and I'd like to keep one for a heavier weather sail.

Can anyone throw me a bone here? :eek:

[walberts]

I was told that to convert to cutter rig, you have to move the mast step back ... but how far, and what the consequences of doing that, are I don't know. I dropped the idea. I assume the strong-back would have to be moved back too.

What other cutter rigged 26 foot boats are out there in production? Maybe you could get a mast position that way. For example, if any of the Contessa 26's are cutter rigged?

Good luck!

Bill

[bill@ariel231]

you have a removable inner forestay in mind, a couple pearson tritons have made the modification for use with a storm sail.

here is a link to Atom's conversion:

http://www.atomvoyages.com/projects/atomprojects4.htm

a couple interesting points to note:

1) there are two deck locations for his inner forestay. landing the padeye on our smaller fordecks will be a challenge. Atom's forward location lines up with our foredeck cleats and the chain locker bulkhead (that could work for our boats). His aft location would require a cable running thru the head in order to take the load from the stay.

2) he has installed running backstays for use with this system.

[ebb]

When I had calculations done for Little Gull's new bowsprit, the architect figured that even with the stays parallel (the new stay lowered on the mast so that the separation is parallel from top to deck) runners were not strictly needed to counter the new stay. The mast is strong enough and stayed well enough in theory that runners are not needed. Later EDIT: 3ft sprit from stem results approximately in the stay 6ft down the mast. This would be a permanent alteration with the solent going to the stemhead and the jib stay to the sprit end opposed by a bobstay. This is not a SOLENT stay.]

But the architect recommended that additional shrouds be added from the solent tang position to the aft lower chain plate.
To that position that is: I would add independant chain plates just aft of the original ones.
Brion Toss advised that instead of extra shrouds the solent hound could have tangs for line instead of wire and terminate in modern no stretch block and tackle somewhere near the coamings and winches.

I have seen non-parallel inner stays with the mast tang higher up the mast. You obviously could not rig two furlers - but if the inner stay is used primarily for a heavy weather storm sail, it can be hanked on. Can assume that the inner stay would not be rigged most of the time, but kept clipped in the shrouds. Also the primary forestay would have a permanent furler. The solent could be setup and the sail bundled and ready to raise when needed.

Higher up the mast there is less need for the solent stay to be backed with runners.
From a cruiser's standpoint imco any redundant stays and/or runners is a good thing. Like the look of parallel forestays and we will have a bowsprit to give L.G. a cutter look.
My inspiration was Richard Moot's Triton masthead/'scutter' conversion. Aside from weight the extra shrouds from the solent would add a significant layer of redundancy to the rig. Setting up runners during a blow would add even more protection.

[New sailplan centers did not move the sail efforts around that much. I haven't any idea how a bowsprit will change the balance of the Ariel. But I imagine the outer stay will carry lighter sails and the solent be reserved for heavy weather conditions. The sprit idea has the advantage that the original fore triangle doesn't change That much because the stay still goes to the stem - though it lowers the head of the staysail somewhat, about 6'. We'll see if the slot between main and shorter staysail has detrimentally changed the efficiency of the original rig. We'll be olaying around with different sails.

With the sloop rig the added inner stay imco would reduce the sail area to a sail that would only be useful in storm conditions.

The chain locker bulkhead is about 3.5 feet back from the stem.
Seems about right?
The original single 'mooring' cleat position. (Certainly doesn't need to be There - should have two anyway, or more!) The top of the bulkhead would be beefed up with a thick beam built imco onto wide ply backers on both sides of the bulkhead. The stay connection would go through the beam.
Depending on how serious a refit is done a rod could be added under the stay-plate that would tie into equally beefed-up ply plates in the bottom of the bulkhead. Something like that. Nothing should be able to move below the stay.
All of that may be enough to spread the forces created by the new stay.

[Tony G]

Ooo! I forgot all about Richard Moot's Triton.

The solent stay looks like a better option all around. We made a laminated beam that fits right where the bulkhead that separates the v-berth from the chain locker is. That was built to keep things(the deck) from falling down not going up! But a simple modification could make that area ready for the task.

High Carumba!!! The hardware costs are still going to leave a mark, even in the DIY mode.

Stole this one from Terry's site on s/v Vahalla

[commanderpete]

One problem with roller furling is how to rig a storm jib. The ATN "Gale Sail" gets mixed reviews.

Take a look at this (pg. 104, the paragraph that begins with "Another method...)

http://books.google.com/books?id=pDpaiXWvx6MC&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=%22storm+jib%22+%22wire+luff%22&source=web&ots=quiaM4VcVw&sig=5morVOQjVMCEQhI_Up3qjQUFjfc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result

You haul up a storm jib with a wire luff instead of installing a new forestay. Hopefully you could crank it up hard enough to get sufficient luff tension

I've found that a double reefed main is too much sail going to windward in 35 kts, and I cant make good progress without a bit of headsail rolled out. Can't point very well that way either. I need a mainsail with three reef points (or a lobotomy)

[Tony G]

CPete
That was an interesting read. I had to start on page 102 at the 'Tacticle Beating' side bar:D I will give that equal thought as I am getting tapped out with self-steering gear, auto pilot and all the other stuff I haven't even thought about yet.

Ebb
This inner stay idea, for me, was just a way to fly some headsail when things piped up. Knowing that a 135% isn't going to hold much shape once you start rolling it up I thought to just put it away. A solent would fit the bill for 'heavier' weather. I never really considered using the inner stay for light wind situations. I am leaning toward an asymetrical or MPG for for light air, but if a solent can be used in conjunction with the head sail for lighter winded reaches that may add options to the arsenal.:cool:

One thing I didn't think about was a third set of reef points on the main. Gawd, don't tell me I have to ship the main back to the loft for mods before I've even had them out of the bag:eek: Oh when oh when will this thing fly?

[ebb]

I believe the solent type detachable forestay is the only way to go for a small cruiser like an Ariel sloop. They are rigged from a tang as close to the forestay as possible. The reason being that the taller a foresail the more drive it has to weather.
I'm not sure sure but believe a solent is never parallel to a forestay. It is always rigged as high as possible on the mast.

Most cruisers will have a furler on the forestay. The solent will have a hanked-on for shortening sail, a storm jib if that is the term. I think that's the main arguement for that style of inner stay. I think it will only be set up in heavy weather. It's too high up the mast to require runners. But it will fly a decently cut driving jib.

One problem rigging the solent high as possible may be the antiwrap lead for the furler halyard under the forestay attachment. Another is whether a furled genny can be left up in a bad blow. I don't think so. I can remember an unresolved discussion here on this subject as to the ability rigging a sock or some covering to insure that the sail doesn't get torn open.

I imagine these changes would occur in worsening conditions.
And that's more lines to lead aft. But you'd still have to get out on the foredeck.

Sailors please advise.....


There must be a good argument for the redundancy of TWO FORESTAYs side by side at the stem fitting. (ahhh...wing-on-wing twin staysails in the trades....) And TWIN BACKSTAYS to match. Afterall we have six shrouds, why not double the stays? No furler of course. But what the hell is wrong with hanked on plus 100s anyway?
Yeah, you gotta go forward to gather them in.

Next question, do we really have room for the solent on the Ariel deck? Extra leads, blocks. Cruisers anchor, there's all that gear that needs a place on the foredeck.

Now that I think on this: the solent is a backup forestay. Maybe it would be smart to have double backstays....(the separate ones that run from the quarters up to the masthead.)
But don't let Brion Toss find out...he gets 'steamed' about them. "They impose unnecessary loads on the mast and hull, constitute extravagant, unproductive weight, windage, and expense, just as far up as you can get it, and they complicate tuning..." He however does not have the same volume (three pages!) of invective on twin forestays. Fairleads, April 1999.

Our fin-style stem fitting might allow two forestays one behind the other.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
Aside from Toss' emotional investment in twin backstay prejudice, it may have been a childhood incident that led to his twin-backstay angst:rolleyes:.....there is the problem of rigging this important stay to the masthead crane which on most Ariels is an aluminum casting. The forestay is rigged to this piece of furniture as well. I suppose that whatever you do it is balanced: one and one, or two and two. This casting is held in place with little screws around the very top of the mast-tube. Shocking.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
This business of added weight and windage: just suppose you were rigged as a yawl like the Triton I recently had a ride on. Man, loaded with rigging, windage, and weight! But, it didn't seem to be an immediate problem on that boat.
What with enraged teenage whales that a bluewater Ariel might encounter, and globally warmed skookumchucks and maelstoms, a bit of extra wire sounds like a good thing!

[Tony G]

I can tell you precisely what is wrong with hanked on headsails, Ebb, I already purchased a furler!!:D Seriously though, we know how that debate goes 'round and 'round. Each chooses their own poison when it comes to the inherent drawbacks of either system. Looks like I may get the best of both worlds. You know, cake and eat it too. As far as I can tell the only way to avoid the negatives is catboat, junk rigged or stay home.

Regarding the stem fitting, didn't LG get a new bronze one with-what-FIVE holes drilled in it? Is this indicative of a change in your camp? Mind you, I'm not pointing any fingers as I have vasilated plenty on Dream Weaver. So much that I'm actually giving serious thought to renaming her Plan B!

Just read something yesterday about using the same tracks, cars and sheet leads for the solent stayed headsail. We'll have to draw some lines this weekend to see where certian cuts would lead to. Initially I focused on just reduced sail area in heavier weather but know I can see the usefullness in a week long reach. I imagined a heavy weather scrap would need little more than an eye on the cabin top( like the original Ariel's had )to accomodate a single block per side. Now, like so many things, the plot thickens!! And paranoia sets in...what about that aged mast head? Spreaders?

I think the fordeck could handle the hardware for a solent or inner stay. Just like below you make room or make do. My next question is will I have to sell a kidney to buy one of those releasing, adjusting turnbuckles? James Baldwin has what appears to be a turnbuckle with a loop or 'ear' welded on opposite sides to assist in tightening his added stay. Any thoughts on the hardware end. I know going substandard and cutting corners always costs more dearly than the money but do we really need the high end Hayne or Wichard fitting? Even the ABI piece will set me back 5 bottles of Pyrat Rum:eek:

BTW it was 9 degrees above zero this morning:(

[ebb]

ABI seems to be the only source for the inner stay release lever. Though there must be a Brit version. One for 1/4" wire will cost from $275 to $400 - so you have to shop.
With a furler on the stem fitting you're doomed to rigging the stay on the deck.
But the inner stay can be put on deck back from the stem wherever you choose. imco the further forward the better.

You must have the inner stay mast tang as high up the mast as possible to avoid the need for runners. No more than 6% - I've read somewhere. That's within 18" of the masthead.

Another interesting wrinkle is that instead of going through the rigamarole of converting the miserable chainlocker bulkhead we have in the forepeak to heroic duty, a far better way is to aim the interior tie rod at the correct and same angle as the inner stay will have under tension
to a REVERSE STEM FITTING. An eye of some sort on the inside of the stem.
I imagine a rounded plate for the outside of the fitting could be fabricated with a massive bolt coming thru that the tie rod would connect with. With the tie rod either going thru the deck OR to an equally pricey ABI deck fitting that has a socket for the tie-rod to screw into - another 65 bucks.
But I would meditate on taking that rod right thru the deck. Afterall the Ariel chainplates do it - and that tie-rod is a chainplate too, right?? Simplify. And risk leaks with the best of us.

In other words take all the tension to the stem rather than messing around with a beam and all that. That's what one smart guy did. It means you can fine tune the exact spot you really want that solent to be. I know if I was doing it I add a whole bunch of reinforcement in the stem cavity where the fitting will go. (That instead of beefing up the chain-locker bulkhead.)

The angle of the stem is pretty radical so you may have to have maybe a three bolt affair to spread the load. Maybe even have the fitting do anchor rode duty* and have a massive eye on the outside of the stem if it exits above the bootstripe.
I would lean toward a bronze fitting. Bristol or Spartan must have something. In talking with Bristol Bronze years ago I got the idea they keep every pattern they ever had, but not necessarily mentioned in the catalog - so it's worth asking them.

9degrees is too close to petrification for me!:eek:
think ba ha ma, ba haaa ma, ba haaaa ma!
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________
*With another massive eye on the stem outside (like a bobstay fitting)....some use it to take the pull of the anchor off the bow and lower it near water level with a snubber to quiet down a boat's charging and bucking.

imco all the tension of the stay from the masthead to the stem should be in a straight line, safest way to go - and easier to do.
It would also make caulking the thru-deck tie-rod that much more reliable. Have to have plates on both sides.
Working with epoxy in the forepeak is another exercise in self-petrification.

[ebb]

Hey TONY, look at this!!!
On page 109 in our Manual is a plan and profile view of the interior of a Commander....
In the upper right of the page is a small sail plan with a few notations, hard to read....

There on the sail plan for all intents and purposes is an INNER STAY drawn in dotted lines.
It may be that it represents some figuring of areas
as there is a unusual triangle of dotted lines with the notation "100% foretriangle" underneath the number 150...that supports that interpretation
and what looks like a center of effort symbol.
It appears to be figuring for the addition of a PARALLEL INNER STAY.


BUT the dotted line inner stay
because that is what it looks like,
is just where you expect a modern babystay to be on an A/C. About 3' in.
It's parallel to the forestay and closer together than what a cutter would have.
[A guy on a cruiser site thinks that instead of a 150 - which you'd have on the forestay on a furler and loose shape as you furl - be better if a yankee was the foresail and fly a staysail on the inner - both same time.
Rather than thinking of the babystay as a storm alternative.
Parallel forestays SAY double headsails. He was talking of another sloop rigged boat with an added babystay.]
A removable non-parallel solent stay is designed for temporary rigging of a smaller heavy weather sail.

Page 109 is pretty obvious not a working drawing by Alberg.
and could be notated by anyone and put there at any time before it became part of the Manual....

As a coincidence you gotta admit it is pretty wild.

Wasn't it said once that you couldn't sneak anything past Alberg as a designer?
An inner stay is not something you'd have on a small daysailor in the 60s....
And he wouldn't be figuring out the CE of a fractional rig. Right?
IT LOOKS LIKE A DOODLE FOR A DOUBLE HEADSTAY RIG ON A COMMANDER.
Yes it does!



Tony, anybody, care to venture a guess what's going on here?
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________
In the Cape Dory line of the early '80s Alberg introduced short bowsprits and doublehead rigs. The inner stay is shown in brochures with a jib on a club. The cutter rig appears on larger yachts. My impression is that the mast position was not moved. But of course the main could be placed anywhere on the Cape Dory coach roof. Larger yachts were also available as ketches.
In the Cape Dory literature there are no obvious runners rigged to offset the lower head stay....