Capt. Neal® wrote:
| I've seen the local rigger use the swaging equipment......I don't know how
| you would get your ends on as secure. I say take your measurements to a
| local
| rigger and let them makeup the shrouds, forestay etc.

Bad advice. Mechanical terminals are proven superior to pressed
swages. They can even be reused if a strand of wire breaks for
some reason (not to rare these days - wire quality is not what
it used to be, believe me.)

Sta-Loks are expensive but worth it. They will last the life of your
boat. They don't suffer the stress failures of pressed swages.
You can always tell a prudent and knowledgeable mariner by
looking at his standing rigging. Sta-Loks or Norsemen mechanical
wire terminals say "professional, Bristol, top-of-the-line."

http://www.sailingservices.com/stalok/stalok_index.htm


Its not bad advice for everyone. The cost of the fittings adds about
$75 per stay. While properly done a mechanical fitting is as good as
a swage, there is no guarantee that everyone can do it on their own.
This is a very handy skill for a committed live aboard, not
necessarily for a daysailor.

BTW, most of my fittings are swaged, a few are Stalok'd. Any that
need to be replaced will probably get mechanical fittings.

Top of the line fittings would be absurd on a bottom of the line boat.
Thus a person must decide the merit of putting such valuable fittings
on his less than strong boat. I believe that even low cost boats are
useful to cruisers.

DSK wrote:
wrote:

Top of the line fittings would be absurd on a bottom of the line boat.
Thus a person must decide the merit of putting such valuable fittings
on his less than strong boat. I believe that even low cost boats are
useful to cruisers.


I wouldn't argue the point, except that it's not a question of spending
money for good fittings so as to have bragging rights. The better
fittings are stronger, more reliable, will last longer, etc etc. If you
don't want to have your mast fall down, then they offer a greater
benefit than the cheaper fittings... even on a cheaper boat.

Your call is whether it's enough greater benefit to justify the added
expense, which will vary widely from person to person & wallet to wallet.

DSK

Just curious - are the mechanical fittings statistically better? I
mean, I suppose it could be shown that they are stronger (if properly
done!) but is there actually any evidence that boats with normal
swages are far more likely to loose the rig? I don't know of many
failures that are caused by swages letting go under normal conditions
- most seem to be other components (spreaders, etc), poor maintenance,
or the extreme stresses of heavy weather racing.

The one argument that makes sense is that mechanical fittings can be
inspected and reset by a skilled owner. This would seem to make them
cost effective for the long term owner, as well as good insurance for
the self reliant cruiser. But for the "past-its-prime" boat,
relegated to daysails at the family cottage, I don't see the value.

"Red Cloud®" wrote in message ...
| On 14 Jun 2005 18:20:57 -0700, wrote:
|
| Top of the line fittings would be absurd on a bottom of the line boat.
| Thus a person must decide the merit of putting such valuable fittings
| on his less than strong boat. I believe that even low cost boats are
| useful to cruisers.
|
| If you have a cheap car, should you look for the cheapest brakes and tires for
| it?
|
| Someplaces are better for cutting corners than others, regardless of the boat.
| Rigging failure on a cheap boat probably means the end of the boat, because a
| new mast won't be cost effective.
|
| Rigging failure on a Shannon or Hinckley will be repairable, because the boat is
| worth the cost of repairs and is probably insured up tha wazoo. In other words,
| even from an economic standpoint, top quality rigging parts are in some ways
| more important on a cheap boat than on an expensive boat.
|
| rusty redcloud


I agree with this post. Can it really be rusty writing it?

CN

Jeff wrote:
Just curious - are the mechanical fittings statistically better?

That would be an interesting question to ask an insurance company...


... I suppose it could be shown that they are stronger (if properly
done!) but is there actually any evidence that boats with normal swages
are far more likely to loose the rig?

I think more likely, but dunno about 'far more likely.' Actually, I
think mechanical wire end fittings are not stronger than swages, just
more reliable... a swage may have far greater breaking strength, but
then again it may not. Also, due to being able to be made & un-made,
they are more durable.


... I don't know of many failures
that are caused by swages letting go under normal conditions - most seem
to be other components (spreaders, etc), poor maintenance, or the
extreme stresses of heavy weather racing.

Hmm... I've know a few swage failures, a few other things you mention,
and not one single case of a mast coming down from 'extreme stress of
heavy weather racing,' unless you include things like buckling at the
spinnaker pole fitting from death-rolling in 30+ knots.


The one argument that makes sense is that mechanical fittings can be
inspected and reset by a skilled owner. This would seem to make them
cost effective for the long term owner, as well as good insurance for
the self reliant cruiser. But for the "past-its-prime" boat, relegated
to daysails at the family cottage, I don't see the value.

IMHO it depends mostly on how long one plans to own the boat, and how
comfortable one is with the cash outlay. Does a 'past-its-prime'
daysailing-only family boat need a mast that doesn't fall down?

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 08:15:29 -0400, Jeff wrote:

DSK wrote:
wrote:

Top of the line fittings would be absurd on a bottom of the line boat.
Thus a person must decide the merit of putting such valuable fittings
on his less than strong boat. I believe that even low cost boats are
useful to cruisers.


I wouldn't argue the point, except that it's not a question of spending
money for good fittings so as to have bragging rights. The better
fittings are stronger, more reliable, will last longer, etc etc. If you
don't want to have your mast fall down, then they offer a greater
benefit than the cheaper fittings... even on a cheaper boat.

Your call is whether it's enough greater benefit to justify the added
expense, which will vary widely from person to person & wallet to wallet.

DSK

Just curious - are the mechanical fittings statistically better? I
mean, I suppose it could be shown that they are stronger (if properly
done!) but is there actually any evidence that boats with normal
swages are far more likely to loose the rig? I don't know of many
failures that are caused by swages letting go under normal conditions
- most seem to be other components (spreaders, etc), poor maintenance,
or the extreme stresses of heavy weather racing.

The one argument that makes sense is that mechanical fittings can be
inspected and reset by a skilled owner. This would seem to make them
cost effective for the long term owner, as well as good insurance for
the self reliant cruiser. But for the "past-its-prime" boat,
relegated to daysails at the family cottage, I don't see the value.


My experience when I re-rigged my 40 ft. sloop was that, disregarding
the cost of the cable, the difference in cost between swedged and
mechanical terminals was very little. With the mechanical terminals
you buy them, with a small gasp at the cost, and then you cut the
cable to length and install the terminals and install the rigging.
With the swedged fittings you buy the terminal, with a slightly
smaller gasp, cut the wire to size, carry it off to the rigging shop
and have the terminal swedged onto the wire, then carry it back and
install it.

I re-rigged in Singapore and the actual cost difference between
purchased mechanical terminals (that I installed myself) and installed
swedged terminals was negligible.

There is a third alternate -- hire a rigger to come out to the boat
and do it for you but that price is shocking!!
Cheers,

Anon
)