Thom I can't support your example here because you are bringing in an
ancillary factor of boom strength. That is not the subject... the subject is
the suitability and ability of a rigid vang to support the loads generated
at the end of the boom in a lift situation.

I concur with your assessment that the vang is not up to the task or poorly
positioned and designed to accomodate such loads... but let's not bring the
boom strenght into the equation.

CM

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
| Doug,
|
| Think about the mechanics of both your statement and mine
|
| By using the topping lift for Hoisting the total strength of the Rig is
| used (Shrouds, fore and back stays; In my case double lower shrouds to
| keep Mast in line.
| With the Rigid Vang in Hoisting, you are putting Max Effort on the end
| of the boom, supported at a point about 1/4 of the way back from the
| Gooseneck.
| That is an awful long unsupported Alum. Pole. (Hollow Aluminium Pole).
|
| In operation, the force of the sail is at least two points on the boom,
| with the main sheet countering the force on the boom. Often assisted by
| the Vang. Often over assisted by a Hydra. Rigid Vang.
|
| I'm sure, as an Engineer, you can admit to the difference
|
| If you were careening the hull, you wouldn't weight the end of the boom
| without the back-up of the topping lift and/or a halyard to call on the
| full strength of the total rig. The topping lift is a solid connection.
| The halyard is a varying force
|
| Just some things to remind you of.
|
| I'm not knocking the Rigid Vang. I wish I could fit one on my boat but
| the Pilothouse makes that impossible. I'm thinking I might be able to
| use a KICKER. I'm pointing out that PITA top lift still is a worthwhile
| addition.
|
| Ole Thom
|