|
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 21:22:48 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote: "perfectly sound forestay" and "nicked forestay" are mutually exclusive terms. Yes, and your insurance company will be quick to point out that difference if they are asked to pay for a dismasting. Most policies have exclusions for incidents caused by lack of maintenance, etc., and many companies are all to quick to look for ways to avoid paying a major claim. It will be an interesting conversation when you start explaining to the adjustors how you relieved the stress points on the damaged strands by filing them down. |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
On Oct 8, 3:56 am, Jere Lull wrote:
On 2007-10-07 19:44:16 -0400, said: I've managed to put two nicks in the 1/19 stainless forestay on my 32' boat. Dont ask how, far too embarassing, suffice to say a hack saw got drawn across the wire. Nothing was cut through, but two small chunks got taken out of two strands. How dangerous is this? Dangerous enough that my only thought is to replace it. Demastings aren't any fun, and you've degraded that stay by about 20 percent. -- Jere Lull Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD Xan's new pages:http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/ Our BVI pages:http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/ Since when does 17/19 become 20%? If your only thought is to replace it, you need to think more because your logic means that you should make it safer by going from 19 strands to 21 to be even safer. On a scale of relative dangers, one he deals with the nicks this becomes a very small danger compared to almost anything else on a boat. Your average marine head would be far more dangerous. |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
Frog,
The man complained of nicking a couple of strands. He did not tell us how old or what the "general" condition of the forestay is. Why do you conclude that after your repair this forestay would be perfectly sound? You made sense with the stress stuff but now you're trying to win an argument by blowing smoke Dave M. |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
"David Martel" wrote
The man complained of nicking a couple of strands. He did not tell us how old or what the "general" condition of the forestay is. One man's nick is another man's gouge. The OP didn't really provide any clues as to how much damage the hacksaw (?!) did. The strands might be scratched, or they might be nearly severed. |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
On Oct 8, 9:49 am, "Ernest Scribbler"
wrote: "David Martel" wrote The man complained of nicking a couple of strands. He did not tell us how old or what the "general" condition of the forestay is. One man's nick is another man's gouge. The OP didn't really provide any clues as to how much damage the hacksaw (?!) did. The strands might be scratched, or they might be nearly severed. I simply made a generalization concerning safety of aged wire. I said nothing about the age of his wire but was simply saying that most sailboats have wire that should be considered unsafe relative to new wire that has been "nicked" and then filed. If his wire is old he should replace it anyway. He called it a nick, not a gouge. If he was truly concerned, he would have called it a gouge. This is all about relative risk. I feel (no proof supplied) that the risk is minor compared to most things that you do not worry about but should. BTW, if this was rod rigging, he would be in serious danger until he smoothed the nick. I have looked over various failed (or nearly failed) wire and it almost always fails at the fitting, not at the wire in spite of some seriously bad wire I have seen. This was not a scientific survey but simply a general impression. |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
On Oct 8, 10:15 am, Frogwatch wrote:
On Oct 8, 9:49 am, "Ernest Scribbler" wrote: "David Martel" wrote The man complained of nicking a couple of strands. He did not tell us how old or what the "general" condition of the forestay is. One man's nick is another man's gouge. The OP didn't really provide any clues as to how much damage the hacksaw (?!) did. The strands might be scratched, or they might be nearly severed. I simply made a generalization concerning safety of aged wire. I said nothing about the age of his wire but was simply saying that most sailboats have wire that should be considered unsafe relative to new wire that has been "nicked" and then filed. If his wire is old he should replace it anyway. He called it a nick, not a gouge. If he was truly concerned, he would have called it a gouge. This is all about relative risk. I feel (no proof supplied) that the risk is minor compared to most things that you do not worry about but should. BTW, if this was rod rigging, he would be in serious danger until he smoothed the nick. I have looked over various failed (or nearly failed) wire and it almost always fails at the fitting, not at the wire in spite of some seriously bad wire I have seen. This was not a scientific survey but simply a general impression. Here is a web site about rigging failu http://dixielandmarine.com/yachts/DLrigprob.html Oddly, they do not address failure of the actual wire. However, they do discuss replacing cracked fittings by cutting the wire and then using a longer fitting. This might be a reasonable thing to do if the "nick" is close to the fitting and the wire is fairly new. |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
Frogwatch wrote:
Since when does 17/19 become 20%? If your only thought is to replace it, you need to think more because your logic means that you should make it safer by going from 19 strands to 21 to be even safer. On a scale of relative dangers, one he deals with the nicks this becomes a very small danger compared to almost anything else on a boat. Your average marine head would be far more dangerous. I'm in the replacement camp here, but think that probably the overall failure probability hasn't been increased by the nick / filing. Most failures of standing rigging I've seen happen at the fitting which is less strong than the wire. Thus if you have a wire section at 90% of strength, it's probably still not the weakest link. However, if you were to experience a failure at the nick point, the insurance adjuster would probably deny the claim. -paul |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
On Oct 8, 1:29 pm, Paul Cassel
wrote: Frogwatch wrote: Since when does 17/19 become 20%? If your only thought is to replace it, you need to think more because your logic means that you should make it safer by going from 19 strands to 21 to be even safer. On a scale of relative dangers, one he deals with the nicks this becomes a very small danger compared to almost anything else on a boat. Your average marine head would be far more dangerous. I'm in the replacement camp here, but think that probably the overall failure probability hasn't been increased by the nick / filing. Most failures of standing rigging I've seen happen at the fitting which is less strong than the wire. Thus if you have a wire section at 90% of strength, it's probably still not the weakest link. However, if you were to experience a failure at the nick point, the insurance adjuster would probably deny the claim. -paul The insurance thing is probably correct. However, this simply points out that even those who are paid to assess risk often do a poor job of it (although this is really an example of opportunism to deny a legit claim). Most people think their marine heads are perfectly safe but in reality they are fairly dangerous. However, insurance routinely pays for sinkings resulting from siphoning heads. I consider this to be such a serious issue that I took the marine head off my boat. A friend of mine was taking a boat across the Gulf of mexico from N. Fl to Sarasota. Somehow the anti-siphon loop got clogged and it back- siphoned filling the boat with water. By the time anybody down below woke up, the cabin sole was awash and they had to call the CG to bring them a pump. As far as REAL risk goes, the strength of the forestay is effectively increased by the strength of the wire in the luff of the jib. Another friend routinely winches his jib up so taut that he makes the forestay go slack (too much I think). Many of us in older boats only carry liability insurance so it would not pay anyway unless someone else got hurt. |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
Frogwatch wrote:
A friend of mine was taking a boat across the Gulf of mexico from N. Fl to Sarasota. Somehow the anti-siphon loop got clogged and it back- siphoned filling the boat with water. By the time anybody down below woke up, the cabin sole was awash and they had to call the CG to bring them a pump. You know folks who do blue water sailing without a bilge pump? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:25 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com