# Standing Rigging Too Old?



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I have a 30 year old Cascade 36. It was a kit boat that was built by a private party.

I want to put a roller furling jib on it, and to do that I will most likely have to replace the forestay because it is way too big (by too big - I mean the gauge of the wire).

I was talking to a rigger at the Boat Show and he told me that 30 year old standing rigging was too old, and that it should be replaced. After doing some research on the internet, I found that the acceptable age for standing rigging is 10-20 years. Talking to my friends (boat owners), I hear that most 30 YO boats still have their original standing rigging.

I plan to have a couple of riggers look at the boat and estimate what it would take (if anything) to prepare it for a roller furling jib, and of course to evaluate the seaworthiness of it's standing rigging. However, I know that the rigger is going to be motivated to advise me to replace it - why shouldn't they?

The boat was "over-rigged", in that the rigging is way more heavy-duty than would normally be required. I examined the wires as far as I can reach (all nice and smooth) and the places where it joins to the deck. It all looks ok to me - no cracks or rust showing. I have not examined the wires all the way up, nor have I inspected the connections to the mast.

The boat has been up the inside passage to Alaska at least once, and it sat in a slip without being used for 15 years. That's pretty much all I know about it's history (except for my own use of the boat over the past year - which has been light-duty sailing).

I'd hate to replace perfectly good standing rigging. However, I'd also really hate to have my standing rigging fail when we are out sailing!


----------



## btrayfors (Aug 25, 2006)

I don't believe you mentioned whether the original rigging was stainless or galvanized.

Probably no matter: the rigger is right...you can't trust 30-year old standing rigging. Worse, still: you'll probably be well advised to replace all the associated hardware including, perhaps, the chainplates.

Much depends on how the boat has been sailed and where. From your comments, it would seem the boat has seen some...maybe lots of...saltwater. Also, your decision may be tempered by the type of sailing you plan to do. If it's just local cruising within a short distance of your base, that's one thing. But if you're planning to do long-distance ocean sailing, that's quite another.

I'd find a reputable rigger and get his/her recommendations. Then, bite the bullet and do what's required.

Bill


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

Before you needlessly replace good rigging, suggest to the rigger that they do a ***proof-load*** test. For example: Die penetrant inspection of the terminals, then loading the rigging to 80% of its ultimate tensile values ... then replace that which shows deformation/elongation or fails at 80%.

Dont do this yourself as the rigging should be contained so as to prevent and control the 'snap-back' WHEN the rigging member breaks. If you dont know 110% how to do this you risk serious injury; but, a knowedgeable rigger with the proper equipment can do this safely. Proof-loading doesnt give a 100% guarantee ... but will show immediately when/what to replace. 
Wholesale replacement of rigging at any age is ... silly and costly as there ARE methods to evaluate.


----------



## btrayfors (Aug 25, 2006)

Rich,

"Wholesale replacement of rigging at any age is ... silly and costly as there ARE methods to evaluate."

Maybe so. But the insurance companies and many professional riggers don't agree with this notion. Many companies simply will not insure your boat if the rigging is over a certain age, and 30 years -- especially in a saltwater environment -- is WAY beyond any reasonable age to keep old rigging. Unless you're just gonna sail 'round the buoys'.

IMHO.

Bill


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Ditto Bills comments. If the wire is OK still, the most likely failure points are the swages and other connection hardware. Here's a great exposition on what to look for:
http://www.dixielandmarine.com/yachts/DLrigprob.html

Personally, before spending my $$ on a new rig for something to be weekend sailed...I'd want to see some evidence of the deterioration from the rigger and not just an "it's old and needs to be replaced". 
Having said that, we replaced the entire rig on both of our last 2 boats in the interest of peace of mind while at sea...so I guess it kind of depends on what is found and how you intend to sail the boat. BTW...If you do replace the rig, consider the mechanical terminals rather than swages. (Like Norseman,Staylock etc.)


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Thank you all for your replies. I read this board alot and have found answers to many of my questions here.

Ouch - replace the chainplates? I couldn't examine them because they quickly disappear. I'm not sure where they go LOL - I see bolts on the inside of the boat where the chianplates are, but the chainplates must be embedded inside the fiberglass.

I did find the dixieland website - that was how I figured out what to inspect. That is an excellent description of what to look for.


----------



## btrayfors (Aug 25, 2006)

*S/S Crevice Corrosion*

The following parts were removed from my boat when she was just 17 years old. She was rigged with top-of-the line Navtec rod rigging, and spent most of her life in salt water. She was sailed hard in the Eastern Caribbean.

In December 1997 we noticed the starboard topmast shroud was making a slightly weird angle with its rigging screw. Upon inspection, the rigging screw was found to be cracked, a victim of crevice corrosion. A pic of this rigging screw appears in Bill Seifert's wonderful book on offshore sailing.

The offending shroud was replaced, and a year later all the standing rigging was replaced with 10mm British s/s 1x19 wire. All the fittings were also replaced. As a precaution, we pulled all the chainplates. These were very hefty. The bolts in the pic below broke upon removal, as did others. The chainplates failed a stress test in a local machine shop knowledgeable about sailboat rigging. All were replaced, including the stempiece.

Yes, it was costly. Yes, I was in sticker shock. Now, ten years and many thousands of ocean miles later I'm VERY VERY glad to have replaced the rigging.

See pic at: http://gallery.wdsg.com/Miscellaneous-Stuff/CreviceCorr?full=1

By the way, the item at the bottom center of the pic is the genoa clew fitting...just found and replaced last year.

Bill


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Generally, the first parts to fail are usually the lower fittings on the stays and shrouds, especially if they are swaged. These tend to collect and hold more water and are exposed to the elements more due to their orientation and location. The wire itself generally does not fail, unless it has chafed or fatigued from excessive movement in some way. 

Rigging that is 30-years-old may in fact be okay...depending on the maintenance and the storage and usage of the boat. I would have them inspect it rather than doing a wholesale replacement without cause. However, if more than one piece is suspect after inspection, I would do a wholesale replacement at that point. The chainplates are also definitely candidates for inspection. They are often subject to far more crevice corrosion effects than is the rest of the rigging.


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

Last May I purchased a 30 year old sailboat. Before I could take it home I had to replace the jib stay as it had a broken strand at the swagge fitting. In July the main halyard shackle let go (main goes down and halyard goes up). Then in September the port spreader end tip broke in half (looked up to see the upper shroud really really limp, what the????). Had the mast taken down and took everything off of it. Found the backstay had three broken strands where some type of fitting had previously been installed, but high enough up so as not to be seen. Under the lower shroud tangs found the start of pretty good electrolysis. Mast head looked good so just had to clean and service pulleys and clevis pins. Replaced back stay and upper shrouds. Running rigging was pitiful so replaced the halyards. Yes it was more money than I wanted to spend just then, but its really nice to sail without always worring about the mast falling down.
John


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

BTW, this is a good reason *not to tape your rigging*... Taping the rigging is a good way to cause it to fail prematurely. It is also a wise precaution to use lanocote or some other heavy anti-corrosion type paste on the threads of the rigging, as it can help prevent crevice corrosion from occuring. From the photos in the link Btrayfors posted, most of those look like either taping or crevice corrosion-related failures.


----------



## btrayfors (Aug 25, 2006)

Sailingdog is absolutely right! I learned my lesson. My rigging screws were taped, in the fashion of the day. W-R-O-N-G. DO NOT TAPE YOUR RIGGING.

However, the heavily built chainplates were fiberglassed beneath the decks. They failed, too.

Stainless steel is stainless only so long as it is CLEAN and can BREATHE. Make sure yours can!

Bill


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Btrayfors-

The chainplates had the same problem the taped rigging did... the deck and caulking acted as the tape did, and prevented the oxygen from getting to the stainless to protect it... so it failed, and I'm willing to bet that the failure point was below the surface of the deck or right at the surface... and that the part that was above the deck was fine... since it did have good oxygenation.


----------



## mrkeith (Jan 25, 2006)

what do you mean by 'taping your rigging'?


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

MrK...they mean using that stretchy white tape to cover up turnbuckles and cotter pins etc.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

It used to be a very common practice to use "rigging tape" to cover the cotter pins so that the sails and lines couldn't catch on the cotter pins. This was usually because most people are too damn lazy to trim cotter pins to the right length, and have the massively over long cotter pins sticking out a good 3/4" to catch the lines and sails... However, the rigging tape was just good enough to catch and hold salt water against the stainless steel and cause corrosion cells at those points on the rigging... which was often missed in the inspections, because the damage was hidden by the tape.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

With all due respect Bill .... youre incorrect (totally). 
Any underwriter will accept the value of proof-loading ... and whether the rigging is new or old. If they dont accept it, youre dealing with an unknowledgeable underwriter. 

Even proof-loading NEW rigging is valid and prudent.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Ok - so how do I examine my chainplates? They disappear into the fiberglass after a couple of inches.

I am especially concerned about the forestay chainplate. It is the only non-redundant stay. By this I mean that since we have 2 backstays and 3 shrouds on each side, if any of those fail - hopefully we would have time to quickly lower the sails and limp home. 

I noticed that sometime (long ago) someone had put some caulking around where the forestay chainplate enters the fiberglass. Of course, this caulking has long since separated from the chainplate, providing a perfect place for water to stand.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

To inspect your chainplates, you usually have to remove the rigging from them above decks, unbolt them below decks, remove the caulking, and then remove them from the boat. In many cases, the section that was within the deck will have corroded significantly, especially when compared to the section above the deck.


----------



## mike dryver (May 13, 2006)

stillinshock you said/wrote that you can see the chainplate bolts, and the plates are covered with glass on the inside of the hull. if this is so what does the glass look like? in this i mean does it look t shaped or just straight on the sides. if it is straight, then you can jack the pltes out with a hyd. jack and wood. you would use your pin hole as the lift, by inserting a drift into it and supporting it on the rail side with a piece of 2x4 and the jack on the deck. i did this with my boat and it worked pretty slick. the only dif. is my plates were not glassed in on the inside of the hull. the hard part will be to brake them free from the glass and the poly sulfide they arebedded in. if your plates go thru your toe rails try to cut the poly on the outside perimeter with a razor knife so when you pull up the plates most of it will come out with the plates. just so you know our boat is 28 yrs young. and the plates were still serviceable, after inspection, but they had never been angled right from the fact. and were bent, so i replaced them. all 7 the lowers remained the same 1/4" but the aft stay and the uppers were changed to 3/8 because the the wire size for these did not corrospond for their size, unless they factory messed up with the forstay. now i have piece of mind and the my slide out berths do just that again. good luck in your journey of boat ownership it really is fun if you let it be, and you don't mind the expenses. once you get her (your boat) up to snuff again it will be worth it!!!!? as for the standing rigging as said above you will usually run into trouble at the lower fittings. if you know someone with a machine shop see if they can let yopu have some metal penetrating die. you put this on the swage fittings and it will show any and all cracking if there is any. if not then you really don't have to worry to much about your standing rigging right away.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

If the chainplates are glassed over... UGH... you've got your work really cut out for you...


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

StillInShock said:


> Thank you all for your replies. I read this board alot and have found answers to many of my questions here.
> 
> Ouch - replace the chainplates? I couldn't examine them because they quickly disappear. I'm not sure where they go LOL - I see bolts on the inside of the boat where the chianplates are, but the chainplates must be embedded inside the fiberglass.
> 
> I did find the dixieland website - that was how I figured out what to inspect. That is an excellent description of what to look for.


I have 1/4" 7 x 19 stays and shrouds that are 33 years old and are fine.

But I am in Toronto in the middle of fresh water. I inspect all tangs and connections yearly, but have yet to see ANY snags or obvious deformations.

I know the open, chromed bronzed Merriman turnbuckles I have are sound. I service them yearly.

But I am considering a complete redo "just because" they are getting on even for fresh water usage. For salt, I would hesitate to approach even half that age.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Another point is the usage of the rigging... how is the boat sailed... is she raced, is she sailed in heavy weather on blue water passages, is she lightly used on pleasant Sunday afternoon sails... is she on fresh water or salt... all of these will affect how quickly the rigging "ages". 

A heavily raced tropical saltwater boat will have to have rigging far sooner than the identical boat that was a Great Lakes weekend daysailer.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

This boat is on salt water, ie puget sound. From the looks of the boat, I would doubt it has been raced, definitly a cruiser. Center cockpit style boat with a fore and aft cabin. Aluminum mast, wood boom. 

I first saw this boat when she brought it into the marina, looked horrible! now she is looking pretty nice overall, if I may say so myself. The OP and her newlywed husband are doing a nice job fixing this boat up! A very nice fellow I might add, met him at the marina the other day.

Hope some of this helps here. Some of this info will be good for my 22 yr old boat with original rigging too.

Marty


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Thanks to you guys I now have a plan.

Thanks for the compliment Marty. The boat beautification project is going way more slowly than I had hoped, but all I have to do is look at the pictures from last spring and I can see how far she has come.

But - hey - how am I supposed to get the brightwork done and the deck painted when we have go sailing on every nice day?


----------



## sailingSavali (Jul 20, 2011)

*proof-load details*



RichH said:


> Before you needlessly replace good rigging, suggest to the rigger that they do a ***proof-load*** test. For example: Die penetrant inspection of the terminals, then loading the rigging to 80% of its ultimate tensile values ... then replace that which shows deformation/elongation or fails at 80%.
> 
> Dont do this yourself as the rigging should be contained so as to prevent and control the 'snap-back' WHEN the rigging member breaks. If you dont know 110% how to do this you risk serious injury; but, a knowedgeable rigger with the proper equipment can do this safely. Proof-loading doesnt give a 100% guarantee ... but will show immediately when/what to replace.
> Wholesale replacement of rigging at any age is ... silly and costly as there ARE methods to evaluate.


Hi Rich,
I was hoping you could share more details or references of a proof-load test (or pull test as they seem to be referred to here.) I understand fully the limitations of such a test but want to proceed to see that my worst looking piece of rigging will not come apart as is. The future is never guaranteed anyway. I am now on my third rigging shop and this ones seems to be finally able to perform the test. The one hitch is that they want me to specify the load. You mention 80% of ultimate tensile strength.

I have 1x19 1/4" 304 stainless which has a BLL (breaking load limit?) of 8700lbs and a WLL (working load limit?) of 1740lbs (which gives a safety factor of 5 from the working load to the breaking load.) If I am correctly translating your ultimate tensile value as the breaking limit then 80% of 8700lbs would mean a test at 6960lbs. That would cycle the assembly through one of its fatigue cycles. I asked a local rigger and he said not to take it outside of the working load but that way I don't test any of the safety factor. I asked a mechanical engineer friend and he said I would probably want to test to the 6960lbs to prove that I still have some safety factor. The shop I'm using sacrifices product during their tests and just loads components till they break.

Also I have not found any information on weather swages and mechanical terminations (Noresman in my case) reduce the limits below those of the cable itself.

Thanks for any help you can offer,
Greg


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

Greg

How old is your rigging?


----------



## sailingSavali (Jul 20, 2011)

*Proof Load Details*

Hi Brian,

I am not sure how old the rig is. It may be original but even if it is not I don't know how hard the previous owner sailed the boat. If it is original it would be roughly 18 years old. She was cruised in salt water till this year and I know the previous owner took great care of her. He did say the chain plates have never been taken out so now I'm thinking I need to take at least a few of those out for an inspection.

My plan is to replace the standing rigging before I go cruising. Right now I just want enough of confidence to put the rig up for a couple of years at most. Starting to wonder if I will manage to get the sticks up in the air this season.

Thanks,
Greg


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

I tried to look up information proof-loading but did not find anything. Is this a service a rigging shop typically offers?


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

I guess it depends on the boat size BUT the Cal 29 standing was only about 1100 dollars and i dont think your going to get to much testing done without going through a good bit of that 

The Cal got 9 NEW open body bronze turnbuckles and all 316 wire and to me it was a no brainier as the old stuff had closed body SS turnbuckles and i just had no faith in it despite looking fine


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

With all the problems with stainless steel (crevice corrosion), why is bronze not used for all standing rigging including bronze wire? The bronze could be chrome plated (like some fittings are now) if the look is important.


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

sailingdog said:


> BTW, this is a good reason *not to tape your rigging*... Taping the rigging is a good way to cause it to fail prematurely. It is also a wise precaution to use lanocote or some other heavy anti-corrosion type paste on the threads of the rigging, as it can help prevent crevice corrosion from occurring. From the photos in the link Btrayfors posted, most of those look like either taping or crevice corrosion-related failures.


I was taping my turnbuckles and using a fairly snug plastic tube on my shrouds to prevent chafing the jib sheets. The tubes are sold in chandleries for this purpose. The lack of oxygen issue always concerned me with both items. In addition, the tube would sometime become dislodged by the sheets, which would push the shroud through the slot in the tube. 
I bought some black 1-1/2 ID PVC pipe and cut a slot down the length of it. so I can slip it over the shrouds. It covers the turnbuckles and the shroud, prevents chafing, yet allows ventilation. Not the most elegant solution, but it doesn't really look bad. But then, I'm a function over form kind of guy. White pipe looks better but it is more obvious that it is PVC pipe. I got the Idea from an yacht I crew on that has the same thing (though, it doesn't cover the turnbuckles) done with an wooden tube (it's a lovely wooden boat, and plastic would be sacrilegious!). I thought it was Bamboo when I first saw it, but it is Oak. Seems like bamboo would be the obvious choice. Anyway, for now, it's PVC for me. Works well so far. Does anyone have a source for crevice corrosion dye test kits? Has anyone used them? If so, how well did they work?


----------



## sailingSavali (Jul 20, 2011)

Hi Casey,
At one point I tried to look up some numbers for you but despite some luck gave up. I'm not a metallurgist but I believe there are a number of reasons for using stainless steel instead of bronze. Stainless steel is stronger and cheaper for a given strength. In effect by rigging a boat completely with bronze you would be spending a great deal more money and would have to use much thicker wire which would greatly increase the weight and windage aloft. I also suspect that the ability of stainless to take shock loads with no permanent deformation is much higher that that of bronze.
It would probably be cheaper to go with spectra which has the added benefit of reducing weight and windage aloft and doesn't rust.
Cheers,
Greg


----------



## sailingSavali (Jul 20, 2011)

*Proof test report*

Just in case anyone is interested here is my report after my proof test:
I didn't think my rig looked too bad, it was just showing some very superficial surface rust. A local rigger told me I needed to replace it all and quoted me $3000 reusing my Norsemen fittings and turnbuckles.
Not feeling it was necessary or that I had the spare cash right now I went down the path of having a proof test done.
I took my most suspect looking piece of my rig and had it tested. If you want any confidence in the entire rig you would need to have each piece tested and as Tommays pointed out that would probably end up being more expensive that it is worth.
It cost me $100 to have this piece of the rig tested by a local shop. They machined a special fitting to hold the swaged ball fitting on one end and pulled on the Norsemen on the other end. This meant the wire and both end terminations were tested.
I specified the test load of 4250lbs which equals 50% of the breaking load of the wire. This is well above the normal working load so the test ran up into the safety factor range of the wire. The 4250lbs was applied at a rate of 1000lbs per minute (in other words slowly with no shock.) It was held at that load for one minute.
Before the test both ends of the wire were marked at the fittings so they could be observed during the test. Neither fitting slid down the wire as a result of the test.
After the test I got my piece of rigging back along with a report of the test. This report describes the testing procedure used along with photos before during and after the test as well as certificates of calibration for each of the pieces of machinery used to perform the test.
Happy trails,
Greg


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

Bronze is about the same strength as stainless, at least Skenes states that bronze chainplates are the same strength as stainless and the sizing is the same. But bronze is softer and I doubt bronze cable is very common - if you can find it probably expensive as well. And then everybody's rigging would be green.

Dynex Dux is an alternative to wire that is offered but it isn't that common yet. It prices like stainless, not being an exotic from the racing world but an industrial product from the fishing and logging industry.


----------



## sailingSavali (Jul 20, 2011)

Hey Brian,
You are right the strength is similar. I thought before I was finding numbers that suggested stainless steel is stronger but here is a chart that shows tensile strength:
http://www.american-marsh.com/epg/products/pdf/engineering/materialschart/materials.pdf
304 stainless steel (the most common for rigging) is 65000psi
nickel aluminum bronze is 100000psi which would make it harder
It does say it is ductile so it could be that it stretches more than steel but I cant find a chart showing a ductility comparison.
Green rigging doesn't sound too bad but it would probably leave marks all over the sails so we would all have to use green sails too.
Cheers,
Greg


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

One of the best local rigging companies in this area uses only 316 stainless now - he likes 304 and considers if fine, especially in our local conditions - cold water and a lot of rain that washes the salt off regularly. But he has stopped carrying 304 because nobody wants it.


----------



## celenoglu (Dec 13, 2008)

The records indicate that rig failures are very common in the first year and decrease for the next 10 years. Rig failures start to increase after 10 years. The figure resembles a bathtub. Since the probability ofrig failure increase after 10 years it is a good idea to check the rigging every year (maybe twice).


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

celenoglu said:


> The records indicate that rig failures are very common in the first year and decrease for the next 10 years. Rig failures start to increase after 10 years. The figure resembles a bathtub. Since the probability ofrig failure increase after 10 years it is a good idea to check the rigging every year (maybe twice).


Why would they be common the first year? Maybe defects in materials or manufacturing?


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

sailingSavali said:


> Hey Brian,
> You are right the strength is similar. I thought before I was finding numbers that suggested stainless steel is stronger but here is a chart that shows tensile strength:
> http://www.american-marsh.com/epg/products/pdf/engineering/materialschart/materials.pdf
> 304 stainless steel (the most common for rigging) is 65000psi
> ...


I did talk to a rigging shop in the pacific northwest and asked why bronze wire is not used. Their answer was that bronze was not as strong as Stainless wire. As previously posted, this is not the case. Maybe they met it streched more, which I could understand. One would not want their rigging wire constanly getting loose as this could cause other problems. The shop did say they provide bronze wire rigging to one boat. It was a classic wood boat that the owner wanted the green look to go along with the classic look of the boat.

It seems most riggers now recommend titanium for the chain plates insteand of stainless, as it does not crevice corrode.


----------



## L124C (Oct 4, 2007)

sailingSavali said:


> Just in case anyone is interested here is my report after my proof test:........After the test I got my piece of rigging back along with a report of the test. This report describes the testing procedure used along with photos before during and after the test as well as certificates of calibration for each of the pieces of machinery used to perform the test.
> Happy trails,
> Greg


Thanks for the follow up Greg. As I understood your previous post, the shop was going to destroy the rigging you choose to test. This post indicates it was returned and was still serviceable after the test. Why the change in method (besides the obvious advantage of not needing to replace it!)?
Why did you decide on 50%, rather than 80%?
I'm amazed they did all that for $100! Don't know where you live, but I doubt anyone around here would touch it for that.
Thanks,
Bill


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

Most? I don't think anybody is taking the recommendation. I have never seen titanium chainplates.

Stainless is fine as long as you know its limitations. Keep leaks at bay and check condition every few years. I recently pulled my stainless chainplates and they looked perfect - even the section that was buried in the deck for 35 years. And there were leaks. I am replacing them but not because of corrosion, but because I am changing the design a bit and the new ones are longer as well. I am using 316 stainless. It is likely the originals were 304 but it is near impossible to tell.


----------



## sailingSavali (Jul 20, 2011)

*Proof Test Report and Titanium Chainplates*

Hi Bill,
Sorry the confusion was from my bad explanation. The shop I used manufactures rigging assemblies and they do destructive testing to validate their assemblies will hold the loads they claim. Since I was only testing 50% of my breaking strength I got to take my intact stay back to the boat after a passing grade. My intent for the proof test was never to get destructive with it.

The decision to go with %50 was a bit of a shot in the dark. I'll reiterate I'm not a metallurgist or an engineer, more of a bodger really. Without any professional confirmation that %80 was the number to test to, it seemed too high. At some point before the wire breaks you cross over from testing under the elastic limit into the area of yield. While you are below the elastic limit the wire might elongate under load but will still return to its original length after the test. After you cross the elastic limit or yield strength, the wire will permanently deform. I didn't want to stretch the wire at all and my suspicion was that pulling to %80 of the breaking strength would cause that to happen.
Another reason for going with a lower number was I did not want to cause any unnecessary fatigue to the wire. It will wear out and break from repeatedly being stressed during its lifetime. The greater the applied stress the greater damage that is caused. I wanted to test above the working limit and prove that I still had some safety factor but at the same time minimize any unnecessary damage.
Roughly the working load for my wire is 1700lbs.
The test was at 4250lbs (which works out to the working load plus an additional safety factor of 1.5 perhaps not enough now that I did the math.)
The breaking strength of the wire is 8500lbs (the working load plus a safety factor of 4.)

I'm on Lake Erie. I think I'm going to take the rig back down for the winter since we get some vicious storms through here and there is no need to put the rig through that. It might be a good time to pull all those chain plates
and get a good look at them. I like the sound of replacing them with titanium and will report back if I manage to get some relative costs. The previous owner/builder said they have not been pulled out of the deck since they were installed 19 years ago. Thankfully they are not buried in glass, just through bolted.

Selenoglu, Thanks for the information on rig failures. Could you share where you got that from? I would love to read more about the study. Before your words I had just been passing the rule of replacing the standing rigging after 10 years as just an uninformed rule of thumb with no empirical research to back it up.

Thanks,
Greg


----------



## JimsCAL (May 23, 2007)

sailingSavali said:


> Hey Brian,
> You are right the strength is similar. I thought before I was finding numbers that suggested stainless steel is stronger but here is a chart that shows tensile strength:
> http://www.american-marsh.com/epg/products/pdf/engineering/materialschart/materials.pdf
> 304 stainless steel (the most common for rigging) is 65000psi
> ...


While it depends on the alloy, bronze has about half the modulus of elasticity of stainless steel. To you non-engineers, that means it stretches twice as much at the same load.


----------



## Harborless (Nov 10, 2010)

What if you have a boat that was bought for less than 3K? I am getting my rigging checked but I wonder what my mindset should be if I am told there is detoioration or corrosion. I mean, I only plan on having the boat 3-4 more years but I do plan on sailing it a good deal. Yet to replace standing rigging is 3-4X more than the boat costs and would be worth. Obviously if something was on the point of breaking or was cracked it is definently going to get replaced.. But what of the smaller things? The cracks or rust stains? One crack and I replace a $1000 part? That is 1/3 the costs of the boat!
I know the importance of standing rigging which is why I feel a bit silly asking this but money is money. I do not want to have to live at the dock because I am waiting on perfection.
My boat is still being refurbished.. I look to start sailing her in a month or two. Anyway, I am sure you all do not have perfect rigs so how concerned do I need to be about the little stuff?
I am getting a survey done but I also would like to hear from some of the community here. 
Please realize I also have engine, electrical, and plumbing as well as outfitting the boat with a Bimini and six new portholes. I do not want to put 15K into a 3K boat =(
I want to go sailing and not have my mast fall down.. Is that too much to ask?
Great link above.. I know some things to look for myself now..


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

Harborless
I am not sure how large your boat is but on a 30' boat the rigging can be replaced for 1000 to 1500. If it is suspect it is on the important end of the list with seacocks/through hulls.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

mitiempo said:


> Most? I don't think anybody is taking the recommendation. I have never seen titanium chainplates.
> 
> Stainless is fine as long as you know its limitations. Keep leaks at bay and check condition every few years. I recently pulled my stainless chainplates and they looked perfect - even the section that was buried in the deck for 35 years. And there were leaks. I am replacing them but not because of corrosion, but because I am changing the design a bit and the new ones are longer as well. I am using 316 stainless. It is likely the originals were 304 but it is near impossible to tell.


I should not have said most. It seems at least a few riggers are now going to titanium chain plates, and more a switching each day, might also be based on questionable quality of some imported Stainless these days. Rigger I spoke with is Yacht masters in seattle (206-285-3460). From what I hear cost of material is about the same. Not having to worry about crevice corrosion (especially for someone always in the tropics would be priceless). I have not heard of any drawbacks to titanium.

Concerning rigging, would you know what the static loads should be on the wire (shrouds, stays)? I thought it should be 10% of breaking, but another rigger said no, it all depends on the tuning of the rig. 
Regards


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

JimsCAL said:


> While it depends on the alloy, bronze has about half the modulus of elasticity of stainless steel. To you non-engineers, that means it stretches twice as much at the same load.


Thanks for the info. That would make sense as to why bronze is not a good material for standing rigging.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

I have never actually seen bronze wire suitable for rigging, and with the stretch factor I doubt I will. The newish synthetics (Dynex Dux) hold a lot more promise.

I have no idea of the price of titanium, but would bet it will be more expensive than stainless of any grade. I am replacing my main chainplates and 316 stainless, 1/4" x 2" was only $15 per foot for the raw stock.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

mitiempo said:


> I have never actually seen bronze wire suitable for rigging, and with the stretch factor I doubt I will. The newish synthetics (Dynex Dux) hold a lot more promise.
> 
> I have no idea of the price of titanium, but would bet it will be more expensive than stainless of any grade. I am replacing my main chainplates and 316 stainless, 1/4" x 2" was only $15 per foot for the raw stock.


It was Yacht masters in seattle who told be they made some bronze wire rigging for a boat whom wanted the green look. My thoughts on the titanium, even if it cost 3x as much (or more), for someone in a corrosive location in may be worth while (especially if you pay someone to replace your plates as labor cost is probably many times the material cost). For stainless I should probably replace the chain plates every 7 years- that is a lot of work, I would gladly pay $1,000 additional not to have to do this for say 30 years or more.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

Well

For one example the extension legs on my Profurl R25 are titanium 

The issue i have seen is there is a HUGE list of things you can do wrong when you machine titanium and it really found its way into sports gear because the defense contractors had to find a new income stream when a lot of the projects got slow


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

When I pulled my original chainplates they were 34 years old - and looked perfect. I am only replacing them because I have changed them in design. The old chainplates are being used as backing plates for the new ones.

I don't think they would need replacing every 7 years. Inspected - yes, but not replaced.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

tommays said:


> Well
> 
> For one example the extension legs on my Profurl R25 are titanium
> 
> The issue i have seen is there is a HUGE list of things you can do wrong when you machine titanium and it really found its way into sports gear because the defense contractors had to find a new income stream when a lot of the projects got slow


Titanium is also considered as better in many things - like watches. But not for many real good reasons I don't think.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

tommays said:


> Well
> 
> For one example the extension legs on my Profurl R25 are titanium
> 
> The issue i have seen is there is a HUGE list of things you can do wrong when you machine titanium and it really found its way into sports gear because the defense contractors had to find a new income stream when a lot of the projects got slow


Would you recommend against titanium chainplates then? What are the machining problems?


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

Titanium has a more or less forever fatigue life BUT you have to be smart enough from the beginning to make the part the correct size as it will NOT be a copy of the existing part 

On big down side is its HARD to machine and work-hardens if you give it a funny look at which point you have junk 

On bicycles for example it requires more wall thickness than Steel tubing to achieve the same overall frame stiffness and yet it will weight less than steel


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

mitiempo said:


> When I pulled my original chainplates they were 34 years old - and looked perfect. I am only replacing them because I have changed them in design. The old chainplates are being used as backing plates for the new ones.
> 
> I don't think they would need replacing every 7 years. Inspected - yes, but not replaced.


My environment means the boat gets covered with salt everyday (from breaking wave spray) even when setting at dock.  The place where my chain plate will fail, is where it is in the deck. A small area but one I cannot see. I can see the chain plate in the boat. In order to see the probable failure location, I need to remove the chain plate. If I am going to do all this work, I would just install a new one, as I would not trust an inspection (I could miss somthing) and new stainless chain plates for my entire boat would only cost say $300. Paying $300 every 7 years would be to me worth the piece of mind.

I could see in your area where you probably do not have the salt residue and you boat gets washed frequently by rain, corrosion not so much of a problem.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

tommays said:


> Titanium has a more or less forever fatigue life BUT you have to be smart enough from the beginning to make the part the correct size as it will NOT be a copy of the existing part
> 
> On big down side is its HARD to machine and work-hardens if you give it a funny look at which point you have junk
> 
> On bicycles for example it requires more wall thickness than Steel tubing to achieve the same overall frame stiffness and yet it will weight less than steel


So your saying the titanium chain plate will be thicker than equivalent stainless. My plates are simple bar stock with some holes, so I would think a titanium plate would not be difficult to make- just drill the holes in the right spot.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

Casey

The section of the plate in the deck will not corrode unless it gets wet - just keep it dry.

That is what I am in the process of doing now. Mine leaked before but the water didn't sit in the deck, which was dry. It passed right through.


----------



## sailingSavali (Jul 20, 2011)

If anyone runs across reference information about researched rig failure statistics I would be interested in further reading. In post #37 Celenoglu referenced research about rig failure rates related to rig age but I have not managed to dig anything up on my own.
Thanks.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is electropolishing of stainless hardware. I read up on it and then talked to a local shop that does it. After that I had my chainplates, keel fastenings, lifeline stanchions etc. all electropolished.

The process uses electric current in a nitric acid bath - a little bit like the electroplating process in that regard. The process removes all the free iron molecules from the surface of the metal down to .001" - 0015". This leaves a pure surface of chromium, nickel or whatever alloy is used with the steel to make it stainless.

By removing the free iron molecules, there is no "path" for oxidation to gain entry to the metal, hence no place for crevice corrosion to get a foothold.

Obviously this surface must be maintained free of deep scratches and so forth or it must be re-done afterwards but it has worked very well for me so far - out in the salt air and weather for several years and still looks the the day I installed it - not a hint of discolouration or brown staining.

I can't recall for sure how much it cost but it wasn't much - something like $175 for all the rigging along with the keel fasteners and backers IIRC. 

I highly recommend it.


----------



## WanderingStar (Nov 12, 2008)

Good information, thanks.


----------



## Slayer (Jul 28, 2006)

I know this is four years after the fact, but that was a nice link Camaraderie


----------



## overbored (Oct 8, 2010)

SloopJonB said:


> One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is electropolishing of stainless hardware. I read up on it and then talked to a local shop that does it. After that I had my chainplates, keel fastenings, lifeline stanchions etc. all electropolished.
> 
> The process uses electric current in a nitric acid bath - a little bit like the electroplating process in that regard. The process removes all the free iron molecules from the surface of the metal down to .001" - 0015". This leaves a pure surface of chromium, nickel or whatever alloy is used with the steel to make it stainless.
> 
> ...


electropolishing in it self does not prevevt the corrosion of the iron. the follow up process to the electropolishing called passivation is the process of using nitric or citrus acid to remove the free iron from the surface. electropolishing removes a layer of all the metals in the stainless alloy the same as cutting, grinding or machining and so the iron expossed to the surface will oxidize if it is not passivated before being expossed to moisture. stainless does not have to be electropolished before passivation and the passivation process can be done by it self at much less cost.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

overbored said:


> electropolishing in it self does not prevevt the corrosion of the iron. the follow up process to the electropolishing called passivation is the process of using nitric or citrus acid to remove the free iron from the surface. electropolishing removes a layer of all the metals in the stainless alloy the same as cutting, grinding or machining and so the iron expossed to the surface will oxidize if it is not passivated before being expossed to moisture. stainless does not have to be electropolished before passivation and the passivation process can be done by it self at much less cost.


Everything I read as well as what I was told by the people in the shop that did it says that electropolishing and passivation are basically the same thing - electropolishing is the process, passivation is the result.

If, as you say, they are different processes, how is electropolishing performed?


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

As far as I know electropolishing and passivation are the same, as SloopJonB posted.

Here's a link explaining the process.
ELECTROPOLISHING PROCESS


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

You can do passivation in place after a repiar that would cause problems BUT the acid is life and death stuff 

The spotless stainless is the consumer grade passivation 

And when it is all said and done i still see crevice issues happen over time in the welds of UV chambers that were done to very high standards and had nothing inside but really pure water


----------



## halatencio (May 23, 2011)

I just bought a 1975 Ericson. I have no idea when the rigging was last replaced. But since I only sail in a lake I thought I could just wait and see. The boat in the next slip owned by a friend is a 1976. I think it is a hunter. It's owner had the port shrouds shortened as they had streatched over the years. A week later, in a race, the upper shroud snapped. I helped him replace both port shrounds with new cable. It cost $67 for both cables and the swagging. I went up in a climbing harness tied to the main halyard and replaced first the broken shroud and then after securing that cable, the lower shroud. I thought he should replace the starboard side at the same time, but since they had not been shortened he chose to pass. The cost was not very high. It is making me think about replacing at least my shrouds and fore and aft stays.


----------



## overbored (Oct 8, 2010)

mitiempo said:


> As far as I know electropolishing and passivation are the same, as SloopJonB posted.
> 
> Here's a link explaining the process.
> ELECTROPOLISHING PROCESS


that looks like their interpretation of what electropolishing is and it is close but not entirely correct. there are many specific specs for electropolishing of stainless. the most common is where the material is cleaned in a solvent, electropolished and then passivated. electropolishing and passivation are not the same thing. here are the guys I send parts to every week Processes at Alloy Tech Electropolishing 
the parts that ! manufacture are mostly Type 316L and 304 finished to a 15RA surface roughness and they always do a passivation after electropolishing


----------



## overbored (Oct 8, 2010)

tommays said:


> You can do passivation in place after a repiar that would cause problems BUT the acid is life and death stuff
> 
> The spotless stainless is the consumer grade passivation
> 
> And when it is all said and done i still see crevice issues happen over time in the welds of UV chambers that were done to very high standards and had nothing inside but really pure water


clean pure H2O is very corrosive and will corrode stainless much faster then tap water. When water is purified all the minerals are removed and this make the water chemicaly more active and will draw minerals from the stainless components in which it is contained. you will see the corrosion start right next to the welds in what is called the heat effected zone. it is where the metal has become heated to around 1500 degree f. which change the grain structure and makes it corrode faster.

Spotless stainless is made up of nitric and citrus acid.. they are the same acids that the pros use but in less concentration. so they need to left on the surface longer but will do the same job if the metal is clean so the aicd can get to the surface and dissolve the free iron


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

SloopJonB said:


> One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is electropolishing of stainless hardware. I read up on it and then talked to a local shop that does it. After that I had my chainplates, keel fastenings, lifeline stanchions etc. all electropolished.
> 
> The process uses electric current in a nitric acid bath - a little bit like the electroplating process in that regard. The process removes all the free iron molecules from the surface of the metal down to .001" - 0015". This leaves a pure surface of chromium, nickel or whatever alloy is used with the steel to make it stainless.
> 
> ...


Is this somthing that you did to new or old stainless hardware? Would somthing like spotless stainless work just as well?


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

casey1999 said:


> Is this somthing that you did to new or old stainless hardware? Would somthing like spotless stainless work just as well?


Both. I have no knowledge of Spotless Stainless - this thread is the first I have heard of it.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

overbored said:


> that looks like their interpretation of what electropolishing is and it is close but not entirely correct. there are many specific specs for electropolishing of stainless. the most common is where the material is cleaned in a solvent, electropolished and then passivated. electropolishing and passivation are not the same thing. here are the guys I send parts to every week Processes at Alloy Tech Electropolishing
> the parts that ! manufacture are mostly Type 316L and 304 finished to a 15RA surface roughness and they always do a passivation after electropolishing


Interesting, thanks.


----------



## overbored (Oct 8, 2010)

casey1999 said:


> Is this somthing that you did to new or old stainless hardware? Would somthing like spotless stainless work just as well?


Spotless stainless is a cleaning and passivation acid gel. it does work but it must be left on and keep wet for at least 30 minutes and not allowed to dry out. electro polish will clean the part faster but of cource you can't do that without removing the part. I also use a hand held electric spot electropolisher to remove the color from welding. it is an copper electrode covered by a fiberglass cloth as an insulator that you soak with a liquid acid solution and rub over the oxide to remove it. it is a very low power unit and does not remove much more then the oxide on the surface and then the part needs to be passivated to remove the free iron, rinsed and then allowed to air dry to form the chromium oxide back on the surface which help protect the stainless from corroding in the future.


----------



## dillybar (Nov 10, 2009)

sailingSavali said:


> Hi Bill,
> Sorry the confusion was from my bad explanation. The shop I used manufactures rigging assemblies and they do destructive testing to validate their assemblies will hold the loads they claim. Since I was only testing 50% of my breaking strength I got to take my intact stay back to the boat after a passing grade. My intent for the proof test was never to get destructive with it.
> 
> The decision to go with %50 was a bit of a shot in the dark. I'll reiterate I'm not a metallurgist or an engineer, more of a bodger really. Without any professional confirmation that %80 was the number to test to, it seemed too high. At some point before the wire breaks you cross over from testing under the elastic limit into the area of yield. While you are below the elastic limit the wire might elongate under load but will still return to its original length after the test. After you cross the elastic limit or yield strength, the wire will permanently deform. I didn't want to stretch the wire at all and my suspicion was that pulling to %80 of the breaking strength would cause that to happen.
> ...


When discussing the strength of metals it is critical to specify what mode of failure we are testing for. The most common being Tensile (when the material will break), Yeild (when the material is first stressed to the point of permanent deformation) or Toughness (resistance to impact).

For rigging all that really practically matters in the real world is the yeild as once that lower number is crossed your rig is garbage.

The SPREAD between the tensile and yeild numbers does however factor to a degree on rigging because if it does fail you would like to see a gradual fail (stretch) as opposed to a catastrophic one (snap). The larger the spread the more gradually it will fail.

The number 80% seems a reasonable test based on the yeild but 80% of the tensile would have almost certainly scrapped your piece.


----------



## sailingSavali (Jul 20, 2011)

dillybar said:


> The number 80% seems a reasonable test based on the yeild but 80% of the tensile would have almost certainly scrapped your piece.


Thanks Dillybar, I knew sooner or later someone would be able to answer that question. I was trying to figure it out before the test and am glad I went only with %50 of the tensile.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

sailingSavali said:


> Thanks Dillybar, I knew sooner or later someone would be able to answer that question. I was trying to figure it out before the test and am glad I went only with %50 of the tensile.


Actually, from the figures I have seen, if you went to 50% of tensile you have exceeded the yield and have probably suffered some permanent stretch or deformation.

The figures I have show yield of 40K PSI and tensile of 85K PSI for S/S - a yield of 47% of tensile.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

Harborless said:


> What if you have a boat that was bought for less than 3K? I am getting my rigging checked but I wonder what my mindset should be if I am told there is detoioration or corrosion. I mean, I only plan on having the boat 3-4 more years but I do plan on sailing it a good deal.
> 
> I am getting a survey done but I also would like to hear from some of the community here.
> Please realize I also have engine, electrical, and plumbing as well as outfitting the boat with a Bimini and six new portholes. I do not want to put 15K into a 3K boat =(
> ...


It has nothing to do with what your boat costs. How much is your life worth? When rigs fall people can die or be left permanently disabled...

"Jeez I paid 300.00 for my car and brakes cost 600.00 I think I'll just use my feet like Fred Flintstone."


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

SloopJonB said:


> Actually, from the figures I have seen, if you went to 50% of tensile you have exceeded the yield and have probably suffered some permanent stretch or deformation.
> 
> The figures I have show yield of 40K PSI and tensile of 85K PSI for S/S - a yield of 47% of tensile.


Are you saying he has ruined his rigging?


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

davidpm said:


> Are you saying he has ruined his rigging?


It looks like a very close run thing at best, to me. As I said, according to the strength figures I have, his stated testing has exceeded the yield strength of his rigging by about 3%. I'm not a metallurgist or a materials engineer so I can't say if it's been ruined, weakened or it's not enough to matter.

If it was mine, I'd consult a professional before reinstalling it.


----------



## dillybar (Nov 10, 2009)

SloopJonB said:


> Actually, from the figures I have seen, if you went to 50% of tensile you have exceeded the yield and have probably suffered some permanent stretch or deformation.
> 
> The figures I have show yield of 40K PSI and tensile of 85K PSI for S/S - a yield of 47% of tensile.


The supplier I use shows values for their 316L range from 30k yield / 75K ultimate tensile for annealed, to 75k yield / 95k ultimate tensile for strain hardened.

Drawn wire rope is strain hardened and would be near the upper range but only the mill cert. would show the exact value.

Unless his test shroud is foot longer now he should be OK


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Concerning the use of Titanium for chain plates and Chinese fabrication, you might be interested in this article:
Is Titanium an Everyman Metal? - Practical Sailor Article


----------

