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.