Winter Storage & Shroud Tension

Next year I will be wintering with Solsken's mast up (It freezes in this part of the world). What are the pros and cons of loosening the tension on the fixed rigging?

On one hand I have heard it said that the shrouds should be loosened because of contraction as it gets cold. But to counter that, the aluminum mast contracts more than the stainless rigging as it gets cold so that should create some slack.

Another point of view is that they should be left tight so they don't hum or vibrate as that will work the chainplates loose. Since the hull is on a rigid stand in the winter, with no give as it has when in the water, all vibration/jerking of the spar is taken up totally by the chainplates. Less slack means less vibration and spar movement.

Some people say you should never leave the spar up over winter as that stresses the boat as it shouldn't be stressed.

Does someone have some insight or should I compromise and take the middle of the road by doing all three options this winter?

I don't know about insight but I have observed that during the winters when I left my mast up, the chainplates leaked more. The winters when I took the mast down, the interior stayed dry or at least drier. My intuition tells me that if the boat can give to wind pressure a little in the water the stress on the rig and the chainplates might be less or at least less abrupt. Sitting on stands, the effect of the wind would seem to be harsher on all the attachments and therefore I suspect the chainplates get moved more.

Fortunately for me our DIY yard has a DIY crane and many willing hands with Ariel/Commander experience. Now I just assume if the boat is coming out of the water the mast is coming down. I feel better being able to check everything on my old boat's rig all the way to the top. Thanks to the manual and this board I'm pretty confident about how I've got the rig tuned also.

From previous messages on this board I have some idea how much yards charge to pull a mast. Given those prices I must admit I'd be giving that decision some hard thought leaks and all.

Consistent with the issue you raised, my rationale is cost saving as well. By the time you pay for dropping the mast, raising it, and storing the mast, it all adds up. I can see dropping the mast every five years or so (three, four, whatever) to check on pins et al. but over five years, I can save a couple thousand bills. That buys a lot of gas for the outboard not to mention beer at the local watering hole.

Also, I will be covering the boat in the winter with a new cover I am having made. I assume the cover will help maintain the brightwork and help keep the boat cleaner - making spring prep easier and less time consuming.

As for the leaks in the chain plates, I have that problem also with the mast down. Perhaps the problem is that water freezes around the chainplates, and the ice cracks the caulking. Hopefully, the winter cover will prevent water/snow/ice from accumulating around the chainplates (windows and other fittings) and help those issues as well.

Brion Toss would be a goodun to ask. Maybe it's archived on his forum pages.
Once read there about taking measurements of rigging when the rope was off the boat. Evidently the stuff relaxes back once the tension is off. So it is a good question: whether to release the strain on the rigging when the boat is not being used.
My guess is that you mark the buckles in the trim condition and back off to ease the strain. There certainly seems to be enough rig on an Ariel to brace the mast when loosened.
SkipperJer's point about there being no give to the rig when on the hard and the extra strain on the chainplates is very convincing and reason enough to ease off the rigging.
Sure heard of skippers easing off on the backstay whenever they're parked in the marina.

If your plates come up thru the deck, you have to realize that they are bolted to wood, 3/4" exterior AC fir plywood. So there is guaranteed to be give and movement with that kind of attachment. I'd wager that if the plates, especially the uppers were lengthened substantially and more bolts used they would hold their caulk a lot better.
Sometimes guys will put a separate metal plate on the other side of the bulkhead that all the bolts go thru (in an attempt) to make the chainplate more rigid. That plate can be substantially wider with more fastenings of its own.
If you have the original 8" long chainplates, there are only two bolts holding them on. Imco not enough to immobilize them going thru the deck. The plates on 338 were installed straight up - rather than lined up with the angle of the shrouds. (If they had been done that way they'd be further inboard.)

Some caulk like polyurethane will harden up after awhile loosing its elastic and crack or separate. If something has to give it probably will be the caulk. Mark Twain said that.

On 338 the plywood gussets (knees) that the forward and aft chainplates were attached to were pretty much a joke. the forwards actually were just shelf dividers. They may themslves not be rigid enough for a seal thru the deck.

None of these chainplate attachments on 338, bulkhead or gussets, were attached to the deck overhead. This may also imco create an unsealable hole in the deck.

I don't think its the strain on the chainplates from a fully tuned rig that is the problem. It's the banging back and forth in the wind when the boat is on stands and can't give way in the water to dissapate the stress. All the stress from the wind goes right to the hard points. My intuition (not always the best judge) is that the plates get jarred and jerked much more on land than in the water. If that is true, loosening the rig might be worse.

Theis,
If it's costing thousands to pull the mast, I'd be leaving it up too. You're making me realize how lucky I am to be in a moderately priced DIY yard.

As for costing thousands, that is figured the way the government does their budgeting - calculating the cost or benefits over the next millenium. It is currently running an alleged $250 per year extra - but it does seem like the annual bills are more than that. But regardless, that is over a ten thousand dollars, figuring it over the next fifty years.

But it is also the time and effort setting up those two pipes and all the wires and ropes- whatever they are called.

One other consideration is that the Ariel/Commander mast is deck stepped, and not keel mounted. There is give with the Ariel/Commander deck step because there is give in the cabin top, a feature the keel mounted masts don't have. But there is also more opportunity for a mast banging back and forth with a deck stepped mast and its more flexible mast step, I would think.

Commanders have a compression post. Doesn't give much if any. It can be a bit annoying when down below but solid as a rock.

I usually don't have to store for long periods but when I do I back the rigging screws off a few turns (about 4 on each) to take the really big part of the load off. I then tie all the shrods togeather to stop them banging around.

This takes the nasty tension off when the boat is not in it's usual configeration i.e. floating.

I don't know if it does a lot but it makes sense to me and makes me feel happy.

Unless someone else has great words of wisdom having the all encompassing solution (which is what I expect from this group), my gut is to do the same as you suggest, but loosen only the forestay and sidestays on one side, and put a strong bunge cord across the upper side shrouds about six feet up to keep them from humming or jerking violently. But that is really only a "feel good" solution - not the elegant answer, radiating the technological expertise as I fathomed would eminate from our austere group.