# Solent Inner Stay



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Do you have a Solent Stay? I am looking at installing one. 

Curious as to how you tension the Solent stay when in use. When not in use my forestay would have 2,500 lbs tension. When in use what should the tension of the Solent stay be? Whould the Solent and forestay share the 2,500 lb load equally of a percentage of the load?
Regards


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Usually a highfield lever is used for that.. have you seen this??

Solent Stay


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Where are you tacking that new Solent stay?


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

bobperry said:


> Where are you tacking that new Solent stay?


Plan is to install a double pad eye (rated at least 10,000 lbs) about 3 feet towards the stern from the existing forestay. The pad eye would be secured and reinfored to the bulkhead of the chain locker with a stainless steel brace/backing plate. Brace would be through bolted into the chain locker bulkhead with a backing plate. Will reinforce deck at the pad location for good measure. Solent stay would be connected to mast abut 12 inches below mast top- still looking into the type of fitting at this location.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Faster said:


> Usually a highfield lever is used for that.. have you seen this??
> 
> Solent Stay


Yes I found that site in a search- has some good information, thanks.

What I am confused about is what tension the Solent should be. The more tension put on the Solent, the less tension the forestay will see. If you tension the Solent highly, the forestay tension could go to near zero (seems this could lead to forestay failure if the forestay has slack in it and fails due to fatigue failure). Or if the Solent is not tensioned high enough, this could lead to sail shape problems.

Plan is to only use Solent stay for the hank on storm jib, or in the case of roller furler or forestay failure. Most of the times Solent would be disconnected and stored at the mast.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

I wouldn't do it that way. I'd kleep the tack as far forward as practical and drop the head down. If you have double spreaders I'd drop the head to the upper spreader where it is well supported. If you have single spreaders maybe you're better off doing it your way and keeping the head high. If you drop the head more you may end up needing running backs. But I think of a Solent stay as a way to get area forward and low so you maintain good helm balance while reducing the heeling moment.

If you have a stout mast section I don't think you will have a problem tensioning the stay but levers can only do so much and if you are trying to beat in a gale with a solent staysail you are going to need some tension on it to keep the luff straight.

It always surprises me when people ask these questions but don't include what kind of boat it is. For some odd reason I'd think the type of boat would be an important factor in making this decision. But what the hell do I know?

Best of luck with your modification. I hope you have a good spar maker/rigger handy who can help you.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

bobperry said:


> I wouldn't do it that way. I'd kleep the tack as far forward as practical and drop the head down. If you have double spreaders I'd drop the head to the upper spreader where it is well supported. If you have single spreaders maybe you're better off doing it your way and keeping the head high. If you drop the head more you may end up needing running backs. But I think of a Solent stay as a way to get area forward and low so you maintain good helm balance while reducing the heeling moment.
> 
> If you have a stout mast section I don't think you will have a problem tensioning the stay but levers can only do so much and if you are trying to beat in a gale with a solent staysail you are going to need some tension on it to keep the luff straight.
> 
> ...


My understanding is a Solent stay means it is connected to the mast no more than about 3-6% below the top (there are some other factors I will consider, but will not go into those) so that running backstays are not needed. I do not want to install runners. It would not be prudent to install a inner forestay at the lower spreaders without additional support of runners at the point of connection- that could lead to mast failure. The lower point of connection for the Solent is a far forward as I can go- other wise I end up in the chain locker. I have a good rigger- me!

Apprently you did not read my OP question. I did not ask how to tension the Solent, I asked how much tenstion. Always surprises me how people get off the OP on sailnet.
Regards


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

No, I read your OP question. And if your new Solent stay is that close to your masthead I think you can tension it just like your headstay without fear of distorting the mast in that short section. That question I think will resolve itself when you try and get some leff tension on the staysail. Your proposed rig is very similar to my 50'er YONI although we carried the working jib on the inner stay and a larger genoa on the headstay. And no. Having the head of the staysail at the upper spreaders makes sense because that exactly where the mast is supported. 


What kind of boat are we talking about?


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

bobperry said:


> No, I read your OP question. And if your new Solent stay is that close to your masthead I think you can tension it just like your headstay without fear of distorting the mast in that short section. That question I think will resolve itself when you try and get some leff tension on the staysail. Your proposed rig is very similar to my 50'er YONI although we carried the working jib on the inner stay and a larger genoa on the headstay. And no. Having the head of the staysail at the upper spreaders makes sense because that exactly where the mast is supported.
> 
> What kind of boat are we talking about?


Boat is an S&S 34 mast head sloop. Single spreader with fore and aft lowers.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

I'd guess you have a pretty stout stick in that boat. I don't know a way of giving you a number for the load on the stay. I think you are just going to have to do it initially be feel, pretty much the way you tune any mast and then fine tune once you have sailed with it.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

casey1999 said:


> Apprently you did not read my OP question. *I did not ask how to tension the Solent,* I asked how much tenstion. Always surprises me how people get off the OP on sailnet.
> Regards


Uhhh, actually, you did...



casey1999 said:


> Do you have a Solent Stay? I am looking at installing one.
> 
> *Curious as to how you tension the Solent stay when in use.* When not in use my forestay would have 2,500 lbs tension. When in use what should the tension of the Solent stay be? Whould the Solent and forestay share the 2,500 lb load equally of a percentage of the load?
> Regards


At the risk of further straying off-topic, I'll mention that I'm not a big fan of Highfield levers - at least the sort pictured in the link posted above... IMHO, they can be a bit dangerous to fiddle with when under load, and with most I've seen have no way to adjust the tension once locked in place... I friend of a friend lost an eye about a decade ago in a very grisly accident while attempting to release a Hyfield lever under load...

I think the pelican hook adjusters like those from Wichard are definitely the way to go for a removable inner stay. I have the one that uses a wheel to tension, their other version uses a ratcheting handle... Very slick pieces of gear, more expensive than a Hyfield lever, but well worth it, IMHO...


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

JonEisberg said:


> Uhhh, actually, you did...
> 
> At the risk of further straying off-topic, I'll mention that I'm not a big fan of Highfield levers - at least the sort pictured in the link posted above... IMHO, they can be a bit dangerous to fiddle with when under load, and with most I've seen have no way to adjust the tension once locked in place... I friend of a friend lost an eye about a decade ago in a very grisly accident while attempting to release a Hyfield lever under load...
> 
> I think the pelican hook adjusters like those from Wichard are definitely the way to go for a removable inner stay. I have the one that uses a wheel to tension, their other version uses a ratcheting handle... Very slick pieces of gear, more expensive than a Hyfield lever, but well worth it, IMHO...


My OP was not asking what gear do you use to tension the solent stay. It is asking what percentage of load should be shared between the forestay and the solent stay. It is not a gear question. You take the question "how do you tenstion" out of context. Need to read the op fully.

Here it is:
"Do you have a Solent Stay? I am looking at installing one.

Curious as to how you tension the Solent stay when in use. When not in use my forestay would have 2,500 lbs tension. When in use what should the tension of the Solent stay be? Whould the Solent and forestay share the 2,500 lb load equally of a percentage of the load?
Regards"

Note the post is directed to sailors whom actually have a Solent stay. So presumeably have some experience applying tension.

Thanks though for the input on the tension device, I will plan on a wheel.
Regards


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

You sound a wee bit angry.

My designs account for more cutters than any other living designer. I know boats with two forestays. I have been sailing them for the last 38 years. But never mind. If you are the kind of sailor who tunes his rig with a tensionometer then I don't think we would get along.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

Casey,

Threads drift. Nature of the game, may not be a perfect situation but it is the situation. You see, in case you havn't quite noticed, not everybody goes back and reads entire threads. They simply react to latest posts. Frustrating perhaps but nowt can done about it. If people post something that is not to your liking the idea is to pass on over said post and go on about your business.

Ask a question re baking a duck and you are bound to end up discussing watercourses.


----------



## funjohnson (Aug 20, 2008)

casey1999 said:


> So presumeably have some experience applying tension.


(Click here) for a Wikipedia article on the guy your insulting. I think he knows a bit more about the subject than most.

I'm installing a Solent stay this spring using the Wichard backstay adjuster (same as the baby stay, but without the pelican hook), the dual padeyes on deck, a Wichard 9150 mast tang, and an Amsteel stay. I was concerned about tension on the forestay, but after talking to a few people with them like Evans Starzinger, have found out that it was more than enough.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

I did go back and read all the posts in the thread.

The OP has posted a bunch of times. He says he wants a Solent stay. He also says he plans to use it for a hand-on storm jib. I don't think that makes sense. You'd like the storm sail to have a CE low and near longitudinal center. A Solent stay keeps the sail forward. I know the OP said he doesn't want running backstays, but an inner forestay with a lower head and further aft tack along with runners makes the most sense for what the OP wants to accomplish.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

casey1999 said:


> When in use what should the tension of the Solent stay be?


The 'practical/technical' sailing answer is: the tension should be that whatever required to keep the curved leading edge luff shape of the sail to the designed curve (called luff hollow) that the sailmaker cut into the sail. 
A sailmaker will typically cut headsails expecting that the wire is typically at approx. 15% ultimate strength tension for sailing in winds at approx. 15kts.; this 15% tension yields a fairly predictable wire 'sag' at those conditions. If the 'sag' in the wire doesnt approximately 'match' the 'hollow' in the leading edge ... you will have worse than piss poor pointing ability and upwind sailing characteristics; downwind well below a beam reach doesnt matter. 
If the wind increases or decreases, a 'tech' sailor will change the headstay tension (via changing backstay, etc. tension) up or down so that the curve in the leading edge is restored back to 'as designed' shape ... or the boat will point like a pig, heel over aggressively, and can start aggressively skidding off to leeward.

Adding anyother additional stay in front of the mast will radically complicate matters --- "dynamic load sharing" of the 2 stays, where the stay that has a sail flying will unload into the stay that doesnt have a sail flying ... and the flying sail will be on a reduced tensioned and 'over-sagged off to leeward' stay.

How do I tension? If beating with the 'forward sail' flying, I manually unload tension in the 'inner' stay by whatever it takes and amount until I SEE that the sail flying on the headstay has the correct forward shape in those specific wind/waves/amount of heel conditions. I then adjust backstay tension and/or apply running backstay tension .... all dependent of the shape of the sail and amount of 'sag' in the wire to match that leading edge shape of the sail. Since the conditions are non-constant and 'dynamic', there isnt any 'tension number' to give you. 
For a solent rig, the above is ass backwards as normally you want the inner stay to be the pointing sail on the tightest stay and the 'outer' (more loose) stay to carry the downwind sail ... all ass backwards due to the structural geometries, rigging 'elasticity', etc. I wouldnt have a solent rigged boat for that reason, I sail a cutter rig and I can easily get that 'headstay' as tight as needed.



casey1999 said:


> Whould the Solent and forestay share the 2,500 lb load equally of a percentage of the load?


Only when sitting at a dock with the sails furled !!!!!! Otherwise in dynamic conditions those two forwards stays will be 'dynamically variable' and depending on the amount of sq. ft. of sail being flown. If both stays are sharing the original 2,500# load ... then BOTH sails will have to be recut for 15% / 2 average luff wire tension = 7.5% !!!!! ... and expect the mast top to be 'wandering' and 'swaying'.

Some distance sailors will determine (measure) the average tension in average conditions in the flown upwind sail's stay ... and then simply have a new and 'deeper' luff curve cut into the sail to match the 'average' resultant tension.

Strength of materials (service life) consideration: If you double the amount of wire in front of the mast, and dont have a means to structurally double the reaction loads by backstay (now having to operate at TWICE its design load), etc., you risk accelerated 'fatigue failure' of all wire 'aft' of the mast ... all due to that 'extra' forward stay, unless one has a safe means to UNLOAD one of the forward stays - IMO.
Hint: dont expect a single OEM design backstay to last very long when adding a 'solent stay' when youre applying high backstay loads to keep 'good' headsail shape. Stainless steel rigging has a fatigue endurance limit of only ~30,000 psi or about 30% tension, and if the loads are above this approx. value, you only get ~1 million 'load cycles' before the rig 'embrittles' and fails from 'fatigue'; .... keep the loads 'under' 30% and you get a very looooong service life out of stainless.

Static rigging loads ... only a 'starting point' for 'how much tension'. One has to remember that the forestay 'sag' (tension) is what establishes the all important SHAPE of the 'headsails' in varying wind and seastate conditions.
A better explanation of 'matching forestay sag to the leading edge curve': www.ftp.tognews.com/GoogleFiles/Matching Luff Hollow.pdf

Lastly, listen to that grumpy Bob Perry fellow; he DOES know what he's talking about ... I have one of his boats and when I back-calculate his work, I usually state out loud - 'holy ****, thats amazing'!


----------



## celenoglu (Dec 13, 2008)

Tensioning the stays is needed to keep them as stable as possible when there is a load from the wind on the sails. Therefore both stays should be tensioned 10 - 15% of their strengths or you can tension the one in use and leave the other one slack but this will require retensioning every time you plan to change sails which is not is very easy when you nedd to reef.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

RichH:
Thanks for the kind words. I was trying to be helpful. I do not think the thread strayed.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

RichH said:


> For a solent rig, the above is ass backwards as normally you want the inner stay to be the pointing sail on the tightest stay and the 'outer' (more loose) stay to carry the downwind sail ... all ass backwards due to the structural geometries, rigging 'elasticity', etc. I wouldnt have a solent rigged boat for that reason, I sail a cutter rig and I can easily get that 'headstay' as tight as needed.


Absolutely correct for an as-designed Solent rig with a 90 - 110 sail on the inner stay and a big genoa on the forward stay. The OP is talking about using the inner stay as a storm sail stay. That just doesn't make sense to me. With the "most of the time" sail forward tacking will be a bear and he won't get what he wants from a storm foresail too far forward.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

I think that is why the OP is interested in having the Solent stay be removable.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

bobperry said:


> You sound a wee bit angry.
> 
> My designs account for more cutters than any other living designer. I know boats with two forestays. I have been sailing them for the last 38 years. But never mind. If you are the kind of sailor who tunes his rig with a tensionometer then I don't think we would get along.


Bob, did not mean to offend you. I apologize that you took it that way.
Fair winds


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

bobperry said:


> I think that is why the OP is interested in having the Solent stay be removable.


Correct. Solent would only be connected for use with a storm jib, or in the case of furler failure or forestay failure.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

A bit of a nit pick, perhaps, but I suspect it's unlikely you'd have time to connect and tension your solent in the event of a 'forestay failure' per se...


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

RichH said:


> The 'practical/technical' sailing answer is: the tension should be that whatever required to keep the curved leading edge luff shape of the sail to the designed curve (called luff hollow) that the sailmaker cut into the sail.
> A sailmaker will typically cut headsails expecting that the wire is typically at approx. 15% ultimate strength tension for sailing in winds at approx. 15kts.; this 15% tension yields a fairly predictable wire 'sag' at those conditions. If the 'sag' in the wire doesnt approximately 'match' the 'hollow' in the leading edge ... you will have worse than piss poor pointing ability and upwind sailing characteristics; downwind well below a beam reach doesnt matter.
> If the wind increases or decreases, a 'tech' sailor will change the headstay tension (via changing backstay, etc. tension) up or down so that the curve in the leading edge is restored back to 'as designed' shape ... or the boat will point like a pig, heel over aggressively, and can start aggressively skidding off to leeward.
> 
> ...


Rich,
This is some very good information. That is what I was concerned about. The Solent stay was to be added to provide a safety back up in case of failure of the forestay, and also a means to attach a hanked on storm sail. But the Solent stay may actually lead to failure of the forestay or other rig parts. But apparently the Solent stays are very popular in Europe- and rigs do not seem to fail using them, so I am confused.

Do you have a S-N diagram for stainless steel? showing the 30,000 psi fatigue limit?
Regards


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Faster said:


> A bit of a nit pick, perhaps, but I suspect it's unlikely you'd have time to connect and tension your solent in the event of a 'forestay failure' per se...


That is a good question. If you loose a forestay on a mast head rig with fore and aft lowers (I also have a baby stay- too close to mast to hank on a jib however), will the mast fall down. Or do you have enough time to try to stabilize the mast with a halyard?


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

casey1999 said:


> Correct. Solent would only be connected for use with a storm jib, or in the case of furler failure or forestay failure.


You could do that with a spinnaker or secondary jib halyard made with ultra strong high tech polymer line (Amsteel, etc.), a radically 'beefed up' sheave and sheave support and beefed-up spinn halyard 'mast crane', etc. ... and have the ability to easily adjust tension with a mast mounted winch, etc. This would be similar to the old style stay tensioning systems that appeared on early IPs but ultimately failed because of fatigue, etc. failure due to wire being 'turned' (bent) over the sheave ... a high tech polymer line wouldnt have the problem in being turned around a proper sized sheeve. ... just thinking out of the box. All the components and supporting structure would have to be carefully calculated and applied with sufficient 'safety factor' (greater than 3:1 or higher).


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

casey1999 said:


> Correct. Solent would only be connected for use with a storm jib, or in the case of furler failure or forestay failure.


Too late. If you're heading offshore with the plan to rig a removable stay and hank on a storm sail when you need it you are acting way too late. Been there, done that, really sucks.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

casey1999 said:


> That is a good question. If you loose a forestay on a mast head rig with fore and aft lowers (I also have a baby stay- too close to mast to hank on a jib however), will the mast fall down. Or do you have enough time to try to stabilize the mast with a halyard?


That would depend on the point of sail, the length of unsupported spar, the mast section itself and your reaction speed to bear off and run downwind to alleviate the loads...

I've never lost a forestay, but I lost a cap shroud once and there was no time to react, the mast folding at the spreaders was my first hint that things had gone badly.

I lost a lower diagonal on a double spreader rig but we managed to tack before any damage was done.. though the mast had a nasty S in it until we addressed the imbalance.

Sailing someone else's boat one day I was lucky enough to notice a chainplate slowly pulling out of the deck immediately after a tack, we were able to tack back quickly enough to save the rig.. the chain plate had pulled about 1 1/2 " out of the deck (mushy bulkhead) in a few seconds....


----------



## funjohnson (Aug 20, 2008)

casey1999 said:


> Rich,
> This is some very good information. That is what I was concerned about. The Solent stay was to be added to provide a safety back up in case of failure of the forestay, and also a means to attach a hanked on storm sail. But the Solent stay may actually lead to failure of the forestay or other rig parts. But apparently the Solent stays are very popular in Europe- and rigs do not seem to fail using them, so I am confused.
> 
> Do you have a S-N diagram for stainless steel? showing the 30,000 psi fatigue limit?
> Regards


Brion Toss' site has a lot of good information about the solent stay. Also, you can contact your spar manufacturer for their recommendation. Our boat is rigged with Hall Spar's mast and besides going with different brands than what they offer (due to cost), our solent will be rigged like their suggestion.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

funjohnson said:


> Brion Toss' site has a lot of good information about the solent stay. Also, you can contact your spar manufacturer for their recommendation. Our boat is rigged with Hall Spar's mast and besides going with different brands than what they offer (due to cost), our solent will be rigged like their suggestion.


Interesting you mention this. I have been going through Brian Toss' site and they have a lot of good rigging (including Solent Stay) information. I sent Brian an e-mail yesterday and got this reply:
Create Date:
3/8/2012 2:28:59 PM
Question:
Sailboat Rigging & Hardware Experts:,

I plan to fit an inner forestay on my S&S34 masthead sloop. If the existing forestay is tensioned to 2,500 lbs what should the tension be on the new inner forestay? I plan to attach the inner forestay about 1 foot below the top of the mast such that I would not need running backstays. If the new inner forestay is added, what effect would it have on the tension of the existing backstay that now has a tension of 2,000 lbs? Regards

Casey

Answer:
Casey,

It sounds as though you have installed a Solent Stay, a specific type of forestay. A great wire, when done right, but a bit of a tuning challenge. Basically, both wires are opposed by the backstay. When the loaded wire, whichever that is, pulls, the backstay stretches a bit, and the unloaded wire shrinks, and releases much of its load. so the backstay opposes one or the other. If the forward wires are too tight, they overload the backstay. If one is too loose, it can never load the backstay. It wants to be just right. Is there a furler on both wires, or just the outer one? If the latter, try starting with 2,000 on the jibstay, and 1,500 on the Solent. Go play. Watch the luff. That's the short form. Fair leads, Brion Toss

Sailboat Rigging & Hardware Experts:


----------



## funjohnson (Aug 20, 2008)

casey1999 said:


> :
> Casey,
> 
> It sounds as though you have installed a Solent Stay, a specific type of forestay. A great wire, when done right, but a bit of a tuning challenge. Basically, both wires are opposed by the backstay. When the loaded wire, whichever that is, pulls, the backstay stretches a bit, and the unloaded wire shrinks, and releases much of its load. so the backstay opposes one or the other. If the forward wires are too tight, they overload the backstay. If one is too loose, it can never load the backstay. It wants to be just right. Is there a furler on both wires, or just the outer one? If the latter, try starting with 2,000 on the jibstay, and 1,500 on the Solent. Go play. Watch the luff. That's the short form. Fair leads, Brion Toss
> ...


Man, he's a good guy! 

What are you planning on using for the mast tang?


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

funjohnson said:


> Man, he's a good guy!
> 
> What are you planning on using for the mast tang?


First this project is probably about a year off, as I got some more pressing task to take care of.

Second, I am still on the fence if I should install the Solent Stay. RichH had some good points. I could see if the Solent were not installed well, or not tensioned well, it could lead to a rig failure that one was trying to prevent (or at least have a back-up plan for in case of rig failure). So I am still somewhat uncertain.

I probably will go ahead and rig it, at least I will have a strong deck fitting to use as a spare stay point or halyard point if needed.

As far as the mast tang, Wichard has one, but I do not really want to cut a long slot in the mast.

Wichard Stainless Steel Backstay Tang

I may fabricate up a fitting that would wrap around say 1/2 the mast and one I would put a bunch of rivets to hold it. That way the rivets would be in shear- the strongest point, Could even through bolt at the mast- still need to work on the design...


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

999:
You are going to have to try a lot harder to offend me.

We are all sailers here, mucking in to help each other out. When you win, I win. Simple as that.

Best of luck with your project. I hope it turns out well for you.
If it doesn't, you know where you can find a **** load of vicarious advice.
It's all fun.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

casey1999 said:


> Do you have a S-N diagram for stainless steel? showing the 30,000 psi fatigue limit?
> Regards


If you understand S-N curves, then the following will be helpful: http://www.asminternational.org/content/ASM/StoreFiles/05224G_Chapter14.pdf ... also includes sequential chemical corrosion to fatigue propagation, etc.

The 30ksi limit for 300 series SS is a just a 'rule of thumb' limit I used to use for 'crit' design when the client didnt want to go to the expense of a full dynamic destructive testing series to evaluate the 'actual in service' fatigue limit. This ~30ksi was derived from forensic failure analysis that I was doing at the time, quite along time ago in the Chem Process and Structural (ASME code 3) Industries. Of course the only true way is build two and test one until it breaks ... 'spensive to do on boats. 
The practical way is to use only materials with complete 'mill certs' otherwise you can easily wind up buying asian 'schlock' these days.

BTW - that 30% UTS limit equates to a good blue water boat designers Safety Factor (SF) of 3:1 ... a lot of SF 'as built' stuff by Bob Perry back-calculates to sometimes as high as 4:1 SF .... hence the reason for my previous mentioned: "Holy $#iT, amazing".

)


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

casey1999 said:


> First this project is probably about a year off, as I got some more pressing task to take care of.
> 
> Second, I am still on the fence if I should install the Solent Stay. RichH had some good points. I could see if the Solent were not installed well, or not tensioned well, it could lead to a rig failure that one was trying to prevent (or at least have a back-up plan for in case of rig failure). So I am still somewhat uncertain.
> 
> ...


Take a good look at the Seldén designed tangs ... impressive from a 'pure stress' design POV.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Have been thinking about some sort of inner stay on my GOB A35. With a hefty block near the masthead and a lead block at the base, what would be the problem with a small jib with an internal low stretch halyard that could be anchored somewhere aft of the forestay and hauled up/tensioned with a cabin-top winch. This would be a simple set-up. The extra halyard could be secured when not needed and simply attached to a jib when the wind piped up. Someone recently described in another thread how they had their jib bagged w/ Velcro, sheets laid out and ready to hoist right from the cockpit. All kinds of tensioning gear and running backstays are great and shiny things but is this level of equipment really necessary for a 80 sq. ft. storm jib?


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

I almost always used a SF of 4:1. I might go lighter today depending upon the type of boat.
Nothing wrecks your day like the rig coming down.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

smurphny said:


> Someone recently described in another thread how they had their jib bagged w/ Velcro, sheets laid out and ready to hoist right from the cockpit. All kinds of tensioning gear and running backstays are great and shiny things but is this level of equipment really necessary for a 80 sq. ft. storm jib?


Might have been one of my posts about keeping the jib bagged and rigged BEFORE you need it.

When you look up and see the mast pumping you'll be glad to have runners. They aren't just shiny bits.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

The nice thing about running backs is that you don't have to use them if you don't need them. But I agree with SVA. They can at the least make you feel more safe.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

The nice thing about runners is you can use them instead of a backstay adjuster - faster and cheaper too. .... and already there if you happen to 'pop' a backstay.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

funjohnson said:


> Brion Toss' site has a lot of good information about the solent stay. Also, you can contact your spar manufacturer for their recommendation. Our boat is rigged with Hall Spar's mast and besides going with different brands than what they offer (due to cost), our solent will be rigged like their suggestion.


Could you tell me what you are planning for you mast fitting attachment? I did a searvh of Hall Spar but cannot find anything on these fittings.
Regards


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

RichH said:


> The nice thing about runners is you can use them instead of a backstay adjuster - faster and cheaper too. .... and already there if you happen to 'pop' a backstay.


Concerning runners, say you have a inner forestay (that requires runners) with a sail hanked on in a strong blow. Then the tensioned windward runner breaks or maybe someone accidently eases the load. Will this lead to immediate rig failure, or will the rig just start to pump at which time you fix the problem?


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

RichH said:


> If you understand S-N curves, then the following will be helpful: http://www.asminternational.org/content/ASM/StoreFiles/05224G_Chapter14.pdf ... also includes sequential chemical corrosion to fatigue propagation, etc.
> 
> The 30ksi limit for 300 series SS is a just a 'rule of thumb' limit I used to use for 'crit' design when the client didnt want to go to the expense of a full dynamic destructive testing series to evaluate the 'actual in service' fatigue limit. This ~30ksi was derived from forensic failure analysis that I was doing at the time, quite along time ago in the Chem Process and Structural (ASME code 3) Industries. Of course the only true way is build two and test one until it breaks ... 'spensive to do on boats.
> The practical way is to use only materials with complete 'mill certs' otherwise you can easily wind up buying asian 'schlock' these days.
> ...


If the upper limit of tension is 30% UTS, is there a lower limit of tension that you do not want your rigging wire to fall below? If a rigging wire is too loose and flops around does this lead to fatigue failure?


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Some small section lightweight racing rigs absolutely rely on runners, but for most it's a trim/sailshape feature rather than a rig integrity one.

Runners and checkstays are usually all about controlling/managing forestay tensions and mast bend.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

bobperry said:


> 999:
> You are going to have to try a lot harder to offend me.
> 
> We are all sailers here, mucking in to help each other out. When you win, I win. Simple as that.
> ...


Thanks Bob,
My slip mate has a Nordic 40, and I admire that boat every time I walk by.
Regards


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

casey1999 said:


> Concerning runners, say you have a inner forestay (that requires runners) with a sail hanked on in a strong blow. Then the tensioned windward runner breaks or maybe someone accidently eases the load. Will this lead to immediate rig failure, or will the rig just start to pump at which time you fix the problem?


Some lightweight racing rigs do rely on the runners (and good crew work) for integrity.. on most rigs however, they are trim controls more than rig integrity. Pumping is a possibility depending on wind conditions and the particular rig, but sail shape is what will primarily be affected if they are misadjusted or accidentally released.

Runners and checkstays are usually tools to control/manage stay tension and mast bend.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

casey1999 said:


> If the upper limit of tension is 30% UTS, is there a lower limit of tension that you do not want your rigging wire to fall below? If a rigging wire is too loose and flops around does this lead to fatigue failure?


Not fatigue failure ... rather IMPACT failure when the mast top is now violently 'rocking back and forth' and coming to a violent stop at the end of it 'leash', etc.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

I used to think that runners would be a complete an utter PITA but on a cruising boat where they are not an integral part of the rig they turned out to be no trouble at all. Reality was that the only time we needed to use them on our old boat was offshore in plus 30 knots and that was such a rare event any nuisance factor was pretty much irrelevent. We kept the inner lashed back to the baby stay most of the time anyway. Nice to have, or at least it felt nice to have it there but a partially furled number two and double reefed main was as far down as we ever needed to go. 

Current boat has a Solent and it does get a fair amount of use but largely because removing the thing is fiddly and stowing it difficult (attachment via one of those wheel adjusters as per John Eisberg's post on page one) we rarely remove it. Result of that of course is that unless on a long beat offshore we tend not to use our number one genoa cos the thing is such a pain to tack around the solent. Mind you in anything up to 40 knots which is as bad as we have had it she sails quite happily on number three (on solent) with deeply reefed main.


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

casey1999 said:


> Bob, did not mean to offend you. I apologize that you took it that way.
> Fair winds


I mean no offense, but I have an observation for you. An apology can never begin with the words "_I apologize that you..._."

Good manners will help you get along in life. Poor manners will arrest your potential.

MedSailor


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

For the attachment of the soilent or cutter stay, has anyone considered using regular blocks and high tech line? Seems like the loads we're talking about here easily fall within the design loads of many good quality blocks.

The advantage I can see is that this would be much quicker and easier to set up and tension than the wheel that TDW finds so tedious.

Something like this at the lower end of the soilent stay:









MedSailor


----------



## funjohnson (Aug 20, 2008)

casey1999 said:


> Could you tell me what you are planning for you mast fitting attachment? I did a searvh of Hall Spar but cannot find anything on these fittings.
> Regards


I'm installing a Solent stay this spring using the Wichard backstay adjuster (same as the baby stay, but without the pelican hook), the dual padeyes on deck, a Wichard 9150 mast tang, and an Amsteel stay.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

MedSailor said:


> For the attachment of the soilent or cutter stay, has anyone considered using regular blocks and high tech line? Seems like the loads we're talking about here easily fall within the design loads of many good quality blocks.
> 
> The advantage I can see is that this would be much quicker and easier to set up and tension than the wheel that TDW finds so tedious.
> 
> ...


No way a simple tackle like that can provide enough tension.. a 16 or 24:1 magic box, maybe, but not a 4 or 6 part like you've got there....


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

Faster said:


> No way a simple tackle like that can provide enough tension.. a 16 or 24:1 magic box, maybe, but not a 4 or 6 part like you've got there....


Thought that might be the case....

A segue if I may. How much tension can an average human put into a line by hand? ie the purchase would be 4:1 or 24:1 of what multiplier? 100lbs?

MedSailor

PS My neighbor uses back-stay adjusters for his cutter and baby stays on his custom 40ft wood boat. He's done a few Vic-Maui races and many, many other hard races with that rig.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

MedSailor said:


> I mean no offense, but I have an observation for you. An apology can never begin with the words "_I apologize that you..._."
> 
> Good manners will help you get along in life. Poor manners will arrest your potential.
> 
> MedSailor


I do not really see the difference, maybe you would like this better:
"I am sorry I offended you Bob."

I mean no offense to you MedSailor, but you could have sent this in a private note to me (that would have been the more mannerly thing to have done), unless of course you just wanted to put it into the public eye for your own benefit. At least I provided the apology (and I really do mean it), more than what most people do on these public forums. And I have gotten along pretty well in life so far.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Hang on boys. I was never offended.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

MedSailor said:


> Thought that might be the case....
> 
> A segue if I may. How much tension can an average human put into a line by hand? ie the purchase would be 4:1 or 24:1 of what multiplier? 100lbs?
> 
> ...


I think checkstays and running backstays don't really need to provide the actual tension, they need to resist the sagging of the mast at the (otherwise poorly supported) attachment point (or the over bending of the mast in the case of checkstays) that will reduce the initially set up tension of the stay itself. Slightly different job description.

Running adjustable backstays to, for example, secondary winches will make them more effective than a simple tackle.

As to force applied with the tackle it's simple enough math.. but how much force a person can apply to the tail is the key. A 200 pounder hanging off the block could theoretically end up with 4x200 or 800 lbs force with 4:1.. but standing in the cockpit pulling in the tail as hard as you can is not likely to be nearly that much. Standing on deck and pulling straight up is more effective but you'll only get the 800 lbs if you're capable of 'lifting' 200 lbs...


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Faster:
That was a beautiful and succinct answer.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Thanks, Bob  I try.....


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Faster said:


> I think checkstays and running backstays don't really need to provide the actual tension, they need to resist the sagging of the mast at the (otherwise poorly supported) attachment point (or the over bending of the mast in the case of checkstays) that will reduce the initially set up tension of the stay itself. Slightly different job description.
> 
> Running adjustable backstays to, for example, secondary winches will make them more effective than a simple tackle.
> 
> As to force applied with the tackle it's simple enough math.. but how much force a person can apply to the tail is the key. A 200 pounder hanging off the block could theoretically end up with 4x200 or 800 lbs force with 4:1.. but standing in the cockpit pulling in the tail as hard as you can is not likely to be nearly that much. Standing on deck and pulling straight up is more effective but you'll only get the 800 lbs if you're capable of 'lifting' 200 lbs...


Yes, that sounds right. The removable stays are not holding up the entire mast structure, only resisting the deflection and possible failure of the mast at a mid-point. I would think the stretch factor in whatever material used for the running stays would be significant, requiring as low-stretch as possible. I feel as if a 4:1 purchase/800# or so on each of two runners, would minimize and essentially eliminate any dangerous mast deflection. In the picture above, I'd question the pad-eye and deck attachment more than the blocks!


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

This is some good stuff gentlemen, please keep in coming. Gives us all somthing to think about when trimming and tuning. The more we know, the better we are.
Regards


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

The nice thing about runners is that they can be tacked well aft and have the best angle of any shroud on the boat. This means that for they job they do the loads are not high. I think on any boat with runners the big danger is over tightening them. I like to put a mark on te runner tail to show how far it should be brought in so some over excited crew member does not turn the mast inside out.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

In designing a possible set-up on some scale drawings, it seems that the strongest structure for an entire storm rig with both trys'l and storm jib (on an inner stay of some sort) would have to be comprised of three fixed stays: 2 running backstays and an inner headstay fixed opposite each other with the height above deck determined by the luff of the trys'l. Essentially this simply lowers the entire standing rigging. In considering a Solent stay, I was concerned because in looking at it drawn up, the trys'l has no forestay at its head, possibly subjecting the mast to too much stress. I think my system will be to make up a s.s. collar, mounted just above the trys'l, wrapped all the way round the mast, ending close to the main track. On it will be the three attachment points for temporary stays and an eye for a jib halyard block or maybe I'll just weld a block a bit off center right into the fitting. If this were built/shaped from 4" X 3/16" 316 s.s. and attached with 1/4" machine screws or even rivets, they would provide plenty of shear strength to easily take any load.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

Faster said:


> Thanks, Bob  I try.....


indeed .... very trying at times ....


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

smurphny said:


> In designing a possible set-up on some scale drawings, it seems that the strongest structure for an entire storm rig with both trys'l and storm jib (on an inner stay of some sort) would have to be comprised of three fixed stays: 2 running backstays and an inner headstay fixed opposite each other with the height above deck determined by the luff of the trys'l. Essentially this simply lowers the entire standing rigging. In considering a Solent stay, I was concerned because in looking at it drawn up, the trys'l has no forestay at its head, possibly subjecting the mast to too much stress. I think my system will be to make up a s.s. collar, mounted just above the trys'l, wrapped all the way round the mast, ending close to the main track. On it will be the three attachment points for temporary stays and an eye for a jib halyard block or maybe I'll just weld a block a bit off center right into the fitting. If this were built/shaped from 4" X 3/16" 316 s.s. and attached with 1/4" machine screws or even rivets, they would provide plenty of shear strength to easily take any load.


That is in the line of what I was thinking for my solent stay attachment at the top of the mast (a stainless steel collar wrapping 1/2 around the mast and rivited into place). Would any good machine shop be able to roll the stainless to match a mast to make the collar? I believe my mast is somewhat tear drop profile.

My spreaders are attached to the mast with a collar like this (it is rivited to the mast), and the baby stay is attached to the collar at a welded tang. The collar wraps all the way to the main sails slide track. The spreaders fit into stainless sockets that are welded to this collar. The fitting looks very strong and has held up for 35 years of hard sailing.


----------



## funjohnson (Aug 20, 2008)

Here you go. Pre-made and pretty cheap compared to a lot of other options.

(rigging only tang)


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

funjohnson said:


> Here you go. Pre-made and pretty cheap compared to a lot of other options.
> 
> (rigging only tang)


Nice.....


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

Damn, a few months ago (in another SN thread) Bob talked me out of even thinking about putting a Solent staysail on my Cal 227. Granted my boat is a lot smaller than has been discussed here. But, now I've got the bug again. Grrr......


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

funjohnson said:


> Here you go. Pre-made and pretty cheap compared to a lot of other options.
> 
> (rigging only tang)


Thanks for that link. That's exactly what I was thinking about. Not a bad price although I can probably fabricate one for around $50 that will fit my mast exactly. Casey, the way I would go about building one would be to make a wood profile of my mast and then fit some 3/16" flat stock around it. This could easily be done without a lot of expensive bending equipment to 3/16" stock. It can probably be spread enough when finished to fit it around the mast and rivet in place. There is also enough thickness in my mast to thread/tap machine screws. With a little Loctite on the threads, this works well. On my boat, the trysail, when hoisted, is about 3' above the spreaders so the piece would have to go there. It looks as if the triangulation from the two backstays and inner forestay will be strong enough to counter the stb'd/port force because there is a lot of support from the lower shrouds at the spreaders. The thing is like a three legged stool whereas the main standing rigging is a 4 point structure. Interesting stuff. I wish I were more of a mechanical engineer to actually figure all the forces involved. Most often the "eyeball" method leads to overbuilding.

Note: I got all my rig replacement from Rigging Only. They have quality materials for a good price.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

smurphny said:


> I feel as if a 4:1 purchase/800# or so on each of two runners, would minimize and essentially eliminate any dangerous mast deflection.


You generally only use the windward runner, so there is only one at a time loaded.

4:1 is fine on my boat (22k#, 60' mast, triple spreader) to stop pumping when I have the staysail up on an inner forestay. When things go really pear-shaped the tail leads to a secondary winch.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Thinking about a solent stay verses an inner forestay. Since the inner forestay would need and have runners as opposed to the solent stay with no runners, seems the inner forestay would give added rig safety factor. If the backstay breaks, the runners could be used to stabilize the mast. And since the inner forestay would always be rigged, it could give a factor of safety if the main forestay broke.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Permanent inner stays are a pain to tack the headsail through the now-obstructed foretriangle.. esp large genoas.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Faster said:


> Permanent inner stays are a pain to tack the headsail through the now-obstructed foretriangle.. esp large genoas.


Good point. I only sail with a 100% jib (generally winds here are 25k or more). I could partially furl in the jib then tack. Not too bad with the smaller jib I use.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

casey1999 said:


> Good point. I only sail with a 100% jib (generally winds here are 25k or more). I could partially furl in the jib then tack. Not too bad with the smaller jib I use.


That makes it easier.. still kinda hard on the sail though.. and I think you'll tire of having to partially furl the sail on every tack... but maybe you don't actually sail long beats like we do...


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

Faster said:


> Permanent inner stays are a pain to tack the headsail through the now-obstructed foretriangle.. esp large genoas.


Definitely a PITA in tacking a genoa 'through' the foretraingle with a forestay/headstay combo, even with a stays'l flying on the forestay. Even with a 'tricing line' attached to the foot of a genoa to 'bunch' the genoa forward, it still occasionally gets 'fouled' on the forestay.

Other disadvantage is that when flying an Asymm., you MUST gybe it 'out and around' and cannot gybe it 'through' the foretriangle. 'Through the foretriangle' is probably 'best' when single handing.

As stated before, with the newer 'flying sail' furlers (for drifter, code 0, asymm, etc.) there's really no need for a solent rig. Example: Flying Sail Furlers Furler & Top Swivel Sets | Ronstan Marine Division


----------

