Following up my own post to integrate responses so far (thanks very
much, y'all!)...

Skip Gundlach wrote:
So, we're floating, again, and letting the hull settle into its water
configuration, having been out for more that 2.5 years, before we start
tweaking.

DSK and KLC chimed in:
Hmm, when you say "settle into the water," what do you mean? For the
planks to swell & close up the seams? A fiberglass boat should have
exactly zero "settling" to do.

Not really true. Even the best cradle puts different pressures on the hull
than does the water, and Essie always "settles in" to the water as Skip

referenced. Mostly this isn't much, no more than a fraction of a
fraction of
an inch athwartships -- but the companionway door always loosens up
after a
few weeks in the water, where the cradle had "pinched" it tighter. The
shrouds also tend to be marginally looser the first few weeks than
after
"settling."


That's interesting - perhaps it'll tighten up as I wait...

About interior fittings' alignment - the differences there have been
immediately apparent (stuff which used to bind on land doesn't, and a
couple of vice-versas).

Several of our yard mates have had notable differences in their hull
shapes from being on the hard. One boat, with two intermediate
bearings, had the shaft alignment more than an inch out from what it
was when he came in (corrected by judicious jacking of the [full] keel
at various points in addition to the yard's insufficient number of
supports).

Of the several power folks I've spoken with, there was unanimity that I
should wait (varying from a week to a month, with a couple of weeks
being a consensus of adequacy) for the hull to stabilize before trying
to realign the propshaft. (To the engine.) One particularly astute
(to my mind, anyway) fellow suggested I needed to tune the rig before
attempting alignment, as well.

Either way, the engine and fuel issues aren't finished, so we couldn't
fire it up yet, anyway. (I'm installing a fuel polishing system, plus
going to dual Racor 500 - thanks for all the current discussion in the
Island Packet Sailnet list about filters, saving me headaches on
refills! - as well as replacing all the supply and return lines.
That's after I get the oil filter remotely mounted, the water pump
bracket installed and the new pulley on the pump to match the engine
pulley, and a few other minor chores...) Thus, the hull will have
attained its 'normal' shape before we get to that.

(me again)
I want to tune the rig before we start sailing, and currently all the
shrouds and intermediates save one seem very loose by hand.
Regardless, they're probably not set correctly.

Once the hull's settled in, I expect that a Loos gauge is the way to go
to see the right setup. I have two questions:

First, is it worth the investment to buy one? I'm not a racer, nor
will I ever be. But I expect that a properly tuned rig will be kinder
to the boat, in any event. Is this something which I'd use frequently
or something better done by paying a rigger (the largest tool is what
our boat needs - it's 180 at list) on the occasions when I thought I
needed it?

Comments included:
Personally, I don't think that matters. If you want to be
able to set up your rig (or a friend's) properly *and*
(here's the key part) be able to do it the same every time,
then a Loos gauge is the best tool for it. There are other
ways of judging tension, in fact you can home-brew a tension
gage. But it will cost more in time and be less accurate.

OTOH you can borrow one, or jury-rig a tension gauge that's
good enough.

and:
You're going to be surprised how tight you want to get those stays
(although there will be even more tension when you're sailing).

To my mind, the cost of a good rigger is one of the best "deals" left
in sailing. In a couple of hours they can check and "cruising" tune
your rig - tuning a racing boat is more involved. You'll greatly
decrease the odds of catastrophic rig failure on your first gusty day
and probably have a substantially faster boat upwind.

and:
I second that advice. A good professional rigger will get the jobdone much more quickly and accurately.Dismastings are a *very* expensive repair.

and:
Ya think If they're loose to the hand, then they are definitely notset up to sail. But it's easy to do a basic set-up

Once the hull's settled in, I expect that a Loos gauge is the way to go
to see the right setup.

and:
Depends partly on your rig & partly on your goals. It'sprobably cheaper to pay a rigger, especially if you have multiple spreaders.

and:
"Proper tension" depends on who you ask. The minimum should
be 10% of the wire's limit (termed "working load").

Setting up a cruiser's mast should be quite simple. The goal
is to get the mast standing up & keep it there! It's
surprising how few people pay any attention to this.

http://www.sailingsource.com/neilpry...al/rigtune.htm
http://hallspars.com/Resources/Articles/rigtune.htm

Start off with all standing rigging slightly loose to the
hand. Use either a plumb bob (which I don't like, since it
can be misleading) or a protractor from 'way back on shore
to measure the RAKE of the mast. This is how much it leans
aft. You want enough to get a good helm balance when the
boat is powered up under sail. Too much weather helm means
too much rake (ie leaned too far aft). This is adjusted at
the forestay (looser = more rake).

Now get the mast straight up & down athwartship. You'd be
amazed how many boats are sailing around with their mast
leaning to one side or the other. The lower shrouds should
be loose, uppers barely taut. Put a tape measure on the main
halyard and make a measurement to a good marking point which
can be definitely the same on both sides, say for example to
the gun'l right at the chainplates. It almost certainly
won't be the same on both sides unless you are very lucky.
Adjust only the upper shrouds until it is the same on both
sides, then tighten the upper shrouds to the minimum,
counting the turns on each turnbuckle & keeping them the
same, then lock them.

Now, sight up the mast track. It should be perfectly
straight all the way up. If not, tighten the lower on the
side that it bends away from.

When the mast is raked properly, centered, and straight
(termed "in column"); and all the shrouds are set up to
their minimum tension, you can go sailing. You will want to
tighten the uppers enough to keep the lee shrouds from going
slack (assuming your hull is strong & rigid enough), and the
lowers enough to keep it in column. You will also want to
adjust the lowers such that when you tighten the backstay,
you get a little curve aft in the mast. This does two
things, it controls sail shape and it prevents the mast from
pumping (alternately bowing one way then the other as the
boat goes over waves). Remember to always adjust the shrouds
in pairs, keeping the same number of turns on each side.

And don't overdo it, remember the mast & rig is like an
enormous bow & arrow that you do *not* want to shoot!

And that's it. Many fairly successful racers do less.

and:
A Loos gauge may be useful as a final check, but you will probably need
the
large one.

For a cruising boat with masthead rig, you need to first of all decide
how
much rake you need. This is usually not known, but if boat has weather
helm,
mast should be close to vertical and forward in base, if it can be
adjusted.
If it has lee helm, mast base should be further aft and mast should be
raked
more. For a start, I would put mast base in centre position and rake
top of
mast about 1 mast diameter by adjusting forestay/backstay accordingly -
use
rigging links if forestay has non-adjustable furling.

Uppers, backstay & forestay should be made about hand tight - Not so
tight
so as to bend mast (use main halyard or topping lift pulled tight to
gooseneck and sight up mast track to check for straightness)

Uppers should then be adjusted so that top of mast is centred
athwartships.
Use the main halyard and distance from top of mast to toerail is equal
on
each side.

Then take up on lowers and adjust them so mast is kept straight - Keep
double checking by sighting up mast track.

Once everything looks good, take up a few turns starting with uppers,
then
backstay/forestay then lowers and check and adjust again for
straightness.
Exact tension is not important, but stays should be tight enough to go
sailing. Loos have a guide to the tension needed by wire size in this
link:
http://www.saltyjohn.co.uk/resources...the%20Loos.pdf

Go sailing in about 10-12 knots and watch rig. Leeward uppers and
lowers
should not be loose. As wind increases, some "loos"ness should develop
at
say 15-20 knots.

A backstay adjuster that can relieve forestay/backstay tension at dock
is a
good idea - otherwise boat needs to be stiff and not deform under the
constant load.

-----

Lots of great info there, and likewise very helpful links. Thanks so
much to all for those. Given the purely cruising nature of our boat,
we don't have adjusters nor running backs - though, given the added
inner forestay, it might have been a good idea. So, the rig will
remain tensioned and static, other than the occasional times we might
pull the inner off to the side (removable fitting), which I presume
would change the shape of the mast slightly.

One minor question, which seems counter-intuitive to me: Pulling the
lowers to as to bow the mast AFT. Why is that? If any curve, I would
think it should be forward...

Coincidentally, I was talking yesterday with one of the yard guys who
previously was the head rigger at Catalina.

He essentially echoed the above comments about alignment, but said that
once snug and firm, a couple of full turns on each of the turnbuckles
would be about right.

He also commented that a Loos gauge was mostly a racer's tool, as it
allowed a crew to quickly duplicate a setting they previously found to
work to their satisfaction. He also suggested that if one were to
truly do it right, those weren't nearly accurate enough. He went on to
say that for our purposes, however, all the above suggestions were
ample.

As to hiring a rigger, vs the cost of the tool, at the largest (what
we'd need), it's only (everything's relative - it would be one of the
smaller costs in this refit) $180 at list, less in a variety of
available sources, so by comparison to a rigger, should we do this with
any frequency, probably a bargain.

OTOH, as pointed out, a dismasting is an expensive luxury from a poorly
received bargain!

However...

As we sailed it over, in mostly very heavy weather, it balanced very
nicely, so I presume the rake is about right. Until we played with it
in nearly 30k, pinching tighter and tighter, making it heel
substantially, we had no weather helm nor lee helm we could discern.

So, I'm pretty comfortable about the angle of the mast. Ours is a
single-spreader rig, so it's a little less challenging than some might
be. As we get close to the time of sea trials, we'll loosen the
shrouds and do the adjustments recommended.

Once we get to sailing, we'll check out the lee cables. If they are
slack under any but very substantial loads, we'll take up some more on
the tension, duplicating the turns on each side, but still checking for
straight line in column.

Thanks again for the knowledgeable input, and the links. I'll spend
some quality time with all the info points before we start at it. And,
I think, from all here and my local contact, that a Loos isn't
something we need aboard...

L8R

Skip and Lydia, deeper in the water than we thought possible! (Heavy,
Dude!)

Skip Gundlach wrote:
Of the several power folks I've spoken with, there was unanimity that I
should wait (varying from a week to a month, with a couple of weeks
being a consensus of adequacy) for the hull to stabilize before trying
to realign the propshaft.

I guess more boats are more poorly built than I realize.
Most of the boats I have experience with, including our 22yo
36' Taiwan-built trawler, have very little or no deflection
when set up on jackstands, and no need whatever to
"settle." In a boat that has more than a tiny fraction of an
inch deflection, I'd think they need some structure re-tabbing.

Fiberglass is wonderful structural material, and most of the
people designing boats know how to spec a girder or panel.
Must be the builders!



-----

Lots of great info there, and likewise very helpful links. Thanks so
much to all for those.

You're very welcome. Most of what I wrote was cribbed from
earlier posts I wrote to answer similar questions.

.... Given the purely cruising nature of our boat,
we don't have adjusters nor running backs - though, given the added
inner forestay, it might have been a good idea. So, the rig will
remain tensioned and static, other than the occasional times we might
pull the inner off to the side (removable fitting), which I presume
would change the shape of the mast slightly.


If you're going to fly a sail from that inner stay, you'll
want to set it up pretty tight, and of course it should be
opposed by increased tension on the aft lowers.

Remember, anything less than 10% of the wire's working load
will let the wire stretch, and will not pre-load the toggles
& pins... you will then have shock loading on the rig and
that can produce rather bad results.


One minor question, which seems counter-intuitive to me: Pulling the
lowers to as to bow the mast AFT. Why is that? If any curve, I would
think it should be forward...


You're right. I was assuming that either your spreaders rake
aft, thus inducing bend in the mast, or that you have double
lowers.

Coincidentally, I was talking yesterday with one of the yard guys who
previously was the head rigger at Catalina.

He essentially echoed the above comments about alignment, but said that
once snug and firm, a couple of full turns on each of the turnbuckles
would be about right.


That could produce either dangerous under tension or a rig
that gets progressively out of column under more loads....
bad advice IMHO. Maybe he's the reason why Catalinas are not
Baltics




As we sailed it over, in mostly very heavy weather, it balanced very
nicely, so I presume the rake is about right. Until we played with it
in nearly 30k, pinching tighter and tighter, making it heel
substantially, we had no weather helm nor lee helm we could discern.

So, I'm pretty comfortable about the angle of the mast.

Sounds good, although you might want to add a little bit of
rake. Some weather helm is good. I would recommend taking a
tape measure to the main halyard and measuring the rake in
some way that is clear & repeatable, and writing this in
your maintenance log. That way you don't have to start from
scratch if you ever take the mast down.



Once we get to sailing, we'll check out the lee cables. If they are
slack under any but very substantial loads, we'll take up some more on
the tension, duplicating the turns on each side, but still checking for
straight line in column.


Right. Get the boat heeling about 20 degrees and the shrouds
on the lee side should not be noticably slack... the tension
will definitely drop, but they shouldn't be slatting around!

One funny thing I have noticed, many boats do not have the
same tension on opposite shrouds when the mast is set up
straight & proper. Can't explain it, but it's that way on at
least a dozen boats I've played at tuning up. Oh well, if it
was an exact science, it wouldn't be fun.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

"DSK" wrote
I guess more boats are more poorly built than I realize.
Most of the boats I have experience with, including our 22yo
36' Taiwan-built trawler, have very little or no deflection
when set up on jackstands, and no need whatever to
"settle."

A Trawler? I thought this discussion was about sailboats!

Sailboat rigging does bend the boat and when stored, the hull tends to
revert to it's original shape.

It is impossible to put 1000+ lbs of force on the forestay and backstay and
not have the hull deflect. Fibreglass laminates are elastic, so do bend and
the bend releases when the forces are removed.

Wooden sailboats (especially those with long overhangs) when stored with
mast down, used to settle unless the bow and stern were supported. If this
was not done, the rig tension would open up the seams, especially around the
keel. Fibreglass boats may settle a bit further due to gravity if stored for
very long periods but not much. Important though to have weight on keel and
not on supports which may deflect the hull under pads.

One other thing. The temperature has an affect on rig tension - both on
thermal expansion and on elasticity of metals and hull. Aluminum expands
about 30% more than S/S does. In addition, these metals and the hull become
LESS elastic as temperature rises. It's a complex mix of affects! If the
rig is set up in cold weather, by mid summer the tensions will be different.
Just keep watching the leeward shrouds and tighten up when need be.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Skip Gundlach wrote:
Of the several power folks I've spoken with, there was unanimity that I
should wait (varying from a week to a month, with a couple of weeks
being a consensus of adequacy) for the hull to stabilize before trying
to realign the propshaft.

I guess more boats are more poorly built than I realize. Most of the boats
I have experience with, including our 22yo 36' Taiwan-built trawler, have
very little or no deflection when set up on jackstands, and no need
whatever to "settle." In a boat that has more than a tiny fraction of an
inch deflection, I'd think they need some structure re-tabbing.

Fiberglass is wonderful structural material, and most of the people
designing boats know how to spec a girder or panel. Must be the builders!


Doug, Essie takes serious exception to the slanderous allegation that she
was "poorly built." I told her that you really didn't mean it, but I think
it'll be a while before she forgives you.

KLC Lewis wrote:
Doug, Essie takes serious exception to the slanderous allegation that she
was "poorly built." I told her that you really didn't mean it, but I think
it'll be a while before she forgives you.



OK, re-phrase that statement so as not to be pejorative.

However, there is really no reason for a fiberglass boat to
have any measurable flex in it's hull, other than rigidity
(and the strength that is a commensurate by-product) not
being high on the list of builder's priorities. For example,
many years ago a buddy of mine & I went in shares on a fancy
racing boat, a 1-Tonner. Several years past it's prime, of
course, or we would not have been able to afford it.

This boat had been built to be driven *hard* under sail, and
stiffness means speed to a racing boat. The tuning guide
said that at times, it was possible and desirable to place a
tension of 10,000 lbs on the backstay. I spoke to the
builder and asked if the boat would really take this, and he
laughed and said "Heck yes, when we trialed that boat, we
put 20,000 on the backstay and measured a little less than
1/4" deflection along the deck."

In years before and since I've worked on and sailed a number
of boats, and have found some that flex more, some that flex
very little or not at all. Perhaps it's just idle prejudice
on my part, but the ones that flex less seem to me to be
more desirable.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
KLC Lewis wrote:
Doug, Essie takes serious exception to the slanderous allegation that she
was "poorly built." I told her that you really didn't mean it, but I
think it'll be a while before she forgives you.


OK, re-phrase that statement so as not to be pejorative.

However, there is really no reason for a fiberglass boat to have any
measurable flex in it's hull, other than rigidity (and the strength that
is a commensurate by-product) not being high on the list of builder's
priorities. For example, many years ago a buddy of mine & I went in shares
on a fancy racing boat, a 1-Tonner. Several years past it's prime, of
course, or we would not have been able to afford it.

This boat had been built to be driven *hard* under sail, and stiffness
means speed to a racing boat. The tuning guide said that at times, it was
possible and desirable to place a tension of 10,000 lbs on the backstay. I
spoke to the builder and asked if the boat would really take this, and he
laughed and said "Heck yes, when we trialed that boat, we put 20,000 on
the backstay and measured a little less than 1/4" deflection along the
deck."

In years before and since I've worked on and sailed a number of boats, and
have found some that flex more, some that flex very little or not at all.
Perhaps it's just idle prejudice on my part, but the ones that flex less
seem to me to be more desirable.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King



Well, there's flexing and there's flexing. Essie is built exceptionally
stout for a boat of her size, having been built back in '63 before
scantlings for fiberglass boats had been developed. In those days they
really didn't know how thick things like hulls should be, so they erred on
the side of, "I dunno, Frank. Better lay up another quarter inch or so."

But a boat on the hard is unlikely to be supported the same way as the water
holds her. Essie's cradle supports the keel (full) for a good portion of its
length, then there are two supports foreward and two aft (P&S) -- for a
total of four. Over the length of a winter, with the hull alternately
heating up and cooling off (there are times even in winter when the hull can
be hot to the touch during a particularly bright day, only to drop below 20
degrees f at night), this "support" cannot help but put some unusual
stresses into the boat. When launched again in the spring, it takes a while
for the boat to relax into the water.

Again, with Essie we're talking fractions of fractions, but it's still
noticable. And she is WAY stronger-built than she needs to be. The flexing
we are talking about isn't "oilcanning" from scantlings that push the lower
limit.

KLC Lewis wrote:
Well, there's flexing and there's flexing.

Agreed.


.... Essie is built exceptionally
stout for a boat of her size, having been built back in '63 before
scantlings for fiberglass boats had been developed.

I've heard this a lot, but it's not 100% accurate. The Navy
was very interested in fiberglass for it's small boats
(gigs, whaleboats, utility boats, etc etc, which had been
previously built out of wood). In the early 1950s they paid
for, and published, a large scale engineering study of
fiberglass including how well it stood up to UV. Lots of
early boat builders used this reference.


But a boat on the hard is unlikely to be supported the same way as the water
holds her.

Agreed again. The cradle or jackstands should be positioned
to support the internal structural members, like bulkheads,
directly. And fiberglass will exhibit 'creep' under
consistent heavy load for a long time. But it won't creep if
it's not loaded past the point of measurable deflection.



.... The flexing
we are talking about isn't "oilcanning" from scantlings that push the lower
limit.


Actually, oilcanning is annoying but not particularly bad
for fiberglass. FG can withstand at least an order of
magnitude more cycles of flexing than steel before
fatiguing, in this respect it's far superior to metal.

If given a choice between a hull that had oilcanning in some
panels (for example, the big almost-flat section in the bows
of many boats) and one that flexed over it's whole length
from rig loads, I'd pick oilcanning. But it would be a lot
better to have neither.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

On 15 Oct 2006 09:37:31 -0700, "Skip Gundlach"
wrote:

One particularly astute
(to my mind, anyway) fellow suggested I needed to tune the rig before
attempting alignment, as well.

Absolutely, I had meant to ask you about that.