| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
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? |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
|
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
wrote: .. 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? IMHO, you already know, or you wouldn't be asking. Time for a replacement. There are no rigging chandleries ay sea. Lew |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
On Oct 7, 8:02 pm, Brian Whatcott wrote:
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:44:16 -0700, wrote: 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? The stay will break proportionately sooner (i.e with a proof load about 17/19 of its former rating.) But before that stress level, the two wires will unravel. Brian Whatcott Altus OK OK, here's what you do. Get a round jewelers file (you can get some at Radio Shack) and a magnifying glass. Then gently file the nicks so they have a very large radius if curvature while watching through the glass. SS is fairly soft so this shouldnt be hard. This will eliminate the localized stress riser produced by the nicks. I doubt that your tensile strength will be affected much after you do this. |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 17:16:28 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote: Time for a replacement. There are no rigging chandleries ay sea. And a dismasting is a lot more expensive than a new head stay. |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
On Oct 7, 9:37 pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 17:16:28 -0700, "Lew Hodgett" wrote: Time for a replacement. There are no rigging chandleries ay sea. And a dismasting is a lot more expensive than a new head stay. OK, lets see. Assume the two wires are actually removed thus reducing the maximum load by 2/19 to about 90% of its previous capacity. This seems well, worth the risk to me in terms of cost. However, this is NOT the case. Filing down the two nicks will basically give the two wires back most of their strength so I estimate the stay will have AT LEAST 95% of its pre-nick strength (however, you have to remove the stress riser produced by the nick or it weakens the whole thing). The average stay that is less than 5 yrs old where such a nick is removed is probably stronger than the average 10 yr old stay without nicks (due to crevice corrosion in the fittings). There is a lot of overstrength in these stays so reducing it to about 95% is nothing. |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 18:53:39 -0700, Frogwatch
wrote: And a dismasting is a lot more expensive than a new head stay. OK, lets see. Assume the two wires are actually removed thus reducing the maximum load by 2/19 to about 90% of its previous capacity. This seems well, worth the risk to me in terms of cost. However, this is NOT the case. Filing down the two nicks will basically give the two wires back most of their strength so I estimate the stay will have AT LEAST 95% of its pre-nick strength (however, you have to remove the stress riser produced by the nick or it weakens the whole thing). The average stay that is less than 5 yrs old where such a nick is removed is probably stronger than the average 10 yr old stay without nicks (due to crevice corrosion in the fittings). There is a lot of overstrength in these stays so reducing it to about 95% is nothing. I'm not disputing your numbers, I just think it's a bad bet. Price of new headstay: $200 to $300. Cost of dismasting: $20,000+ |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
On Oct 7, 10:30 pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 18:53:39 -0700, Frogwatch wrote: And a dismasting is a lot more expensive than a new head stay. OK, lets see. Assume the two wires are actually removed thus reducing the maximum load by 2/19 to about 90% of its previous capacity. This seems well, worth the risk to me in terms of cost. However, this is NOT the case. Filing down the two nicks will basically give the two wires back most of their strength so I estimate the stay will have AT LEAST 95% of its pre-nick strength (however, you have to remove the stress riser produced by the nick or it weakens the whole thing). The average stay that is less than 5 yrs old where such a nick is removed is probably stronger than the average 10 yr old stay without nicks (due to crevice corrosion in the fittings). There is a lot of overstrength in these stays so reducing it to about 95% is nothing. I'm not disputing your numbers, I just think it's a bad bet. Price of new headstay: $200 to $300. Cost of dismasting: $20,000+ By your logic, you should go to 21 wire forestays to increase strength. Every little bit helps but there is a practical limit and replacing a perfectly sound forestay seems silly. |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
Frogwatch wrote:
On Oct 7, 10:30 pm, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 18:53:39 -0700, Frogwatch wrote: And a dismasting is a lot more expensive than a new head stay. OK, lets see. Assume the two wires are actually removed thus reducing the maximum load by 2/19 to about 90% of its previous capacity. This seems well, worth the risk to me in terms of cost. However, this is NOT the case. Filing down the two nicks will basically give the two wires back most of their strength so I estimate the stay will have AT LEAST 95% of its pre-nick strength (however, you have to remove the stress riser produced by the nick or it weakens the whole thing). The average stay that is less than 5 yrs old where such a nick is removed is probably stronger than the average 10 yr old stay without nicks (due to crevice corrosion in the fittings). There is a lot of overstrength in these stays so reducing it to about 95% is nothing. I'm not disputing your numbers, I just think it's a bad bet. Price of new headstay: $200 to $300. Cost of dismasting: $20,000+ By your logic, you should go to 21 wire forestays to increase strength. Every little bit helps but there is a practical limit and replacing a perfectly sound forestay seems silly. By YOUR locig, if you don't want to fix it, don't ask! |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
"Frogwatch" wrote: Every little bit helps but there is a practical limit and replacing a perfectly sound forestay seems silly. "perfectly sound forestay" and "nicked forestay" are mutually exclusive terms. Lew |
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? |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
On Oct 8, 3:08 pm, Paul Cassel
wrote: 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? With that much water, a bilge pump would have been slow. |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
On 2007-10-08 08:06:34 -0400, Frogwatch said:
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. Since when does 17/19 become 20%? You're right. Should be 10% (2/19 rounded). (I was up WAY too late after a great sail that brought the bow past the outer breakwater as the sun kissed the horizon.) Yes, the stay is probably okay, but I don't play around with the forestay in particular. The OP *saw* two nicks. Are there perhaps others he hasn't noticed? Our previous boat was sideswiped, taking out two stays. Surveyor (and I) didn't see anything wrong with the others. A bit later in the season as we blew home under chute, I happened to notice that the backstay had unravelled at a fitting. We were two strands away from losing that mast from "hidden" damage. -- 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/ |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
On 2007-10-08 14:11:25 -0400, Frogwatch said:
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. There is a middle ground: close the sea cock(s) while under way. Since we're on the Chesapeake with ample numbers of working pump-out stations, our through-hull is capped. I wouldn't have my favorite cruising partner if I removed the head. 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. IF the jib depends upon a halyard from the masthead. Our Flexible Furler has an internal halyard. Come to think about it, I don't believe our jibs have wire luffs, but even without it, the bolt rope and material would do the job for a short bit. -- 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/ |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
On Oct 7, 7:44 pm, wrote:
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? here's the orginal poster back. The stay is four years old, the nicks are nicks, not gouges. Perhaps 1/8 of the strand's total diameter? Point about I already know the answer is well taken. I shall have to pay for my stupidity, as it aint worth the dismasting. (Just consider the deductible!) |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
On 2007-10-08 19:58:31 -0400, said:
On Oct 7, 7:44 pm, wrote: 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? here's the orginal poster back. The stay is four years old, the nicks are nicks, not gouges. Perhaps 1/8 of the strand's total diameter? Point about I already know the answer is well taken. I shall have to pay for my stupidity, as it aint worth the dismasting. (Just consider the deductible!) Thank you! I love it when a questioner comes back and says what he/she decided, based upon our collective opinions. Expect you won't be using the forestay as a sawing surface again.... ;-) [Don't worry, all of us who have been around for a while have done stupider things. Some of us are strong enough to admit to them. (I'm not sure I'm one of that crowd.)] -- 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/ |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:47:02 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:
[Don't worry, all of us who have been around for a while have done stupider things. Some of us are strong enough to admit to them. (I'm not sure I'm one of that crowd.)] I made up stays with crimped ferrules this Spring. In the first good blow on a lake one lower main stay came adrift; the upper held up the mast, while it bowed, interestingly, until I took in sail. When I looked at my ferrule crimp, I saw that I had been unhappy with the out of round crimp, and had recrimped it at right angles. That's a very good thing not to do. Double ferrules lead to peace of mind too, I decided. Brian Whatcott Altus OK |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
On Oct 8, 9:05 pm, Brian Whatcott wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:47:02 GMT, Jere Lull wrote: [Don't worry, all of us who have been around for a while have done stupider things. Some of us are strong enough to admit to them. (I'm not sure I'm one of that crowd.)] I made up stays with crimped ferrules this Spring. In the first good blow on a lake one lower main stay came adrift; the upper held up the mast, while it bowed, interestingly, until I took in sail. When I looked at my ferrule crimp, I saw that I had been unhappy with the out of round crimp, and had recrimped it at right angles. That's a very good thing not to do. Double ferrules lead to peace of mind too, I decided. Brian Whatcott Altus OK I wish I'd gone with Norseman or Staylok instead of swaged terminals when I rerigged. From what I see on the web, they last much longer with no cracking of the swaged area. I kept all my old rigging intending to post pics of the tiny nearly invisible cracks in them but that site I posted a link to had a good pic of such. |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:22:30 -0700, Frogwatch
wrote: I wish I'd gone with Norseman or Staylok instead of swaged terminals when I rerigged. From what I see on the web, they last much longer with no cracking of the swaged area. I think that's a good plan if you have a way to load test them to SWL off the boat. Otherwise you really need a *lot* of confidence in your workmanship. |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:29:22 -0600, Paul Cassel
wrote: '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. What is the safety factor? That is the real question. If it is large that would be one thing. Casady |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
So, lemme see...
2 of the 19 strands, 10.5%, have the POTENTIAL to fail before the other 17. |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
On Oct 8, 9:41 pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:22:30 -0700, Frogwatch wrote: I wish I'd gone with Norseman or Staylok instead of swaged terminals when I rerigged. From what I see on the web, they last much longer with no cracking of the swaged area. I think that's a good plan if you have a way to load test them to SWL off the boat. Otherwise you really need a *lot* of confidence in your workmanship. I am an expert at overestimating my abilities. |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
|
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
Subject
Haven't done any serious cable design for many years. That said, cables have their applications but are designed with serious safety factors applied. The weakest point of the cable design is the termination and/or the splice. In addition, hidden corrosion at the termination also weakens the cable system over time. One of the biggest unknows in cable design is fatigue failure due to vibration induced by the winds. Just ask any electrical power distribution company why they have all those funny looking things hanging on their cables in what appear to be unusual positions. (One of my fraternity brothers was chief engineer for a company that helped solve many of the cable fatigue proplems.) Those same fatigue failure problems apply to sailboat rigging. Bottom Line.................................. There is a hell of a lot we don't know about what happens to a cable, when loaded, thus BIG saftey fsctors are required. Lew |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:47:26 -0700, Frogwatch
wrote: I think that's a good plan if you have a way to load test them to SWL off the boat. Otherwise you really need a *lot* of confidence in your workmanship. I am an expert at overestimating my abilities. ===================================== Aren't we all. Boats have a way of finding us out however. :- |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
"Brian Whatcott" wrote: Now THERE'S an interesting question! How would an engineer want to specify the rigging for a sailboat? With an eye on the budget. Find a similar boat and see what it is using. Use that size as a base, then increase it one size jut to CYA. End of design. In the USA, material is cheap, manpower is not. It is something you learn very early, if you want to continue to be a design engineer. Airplane design is a totally different story. Lew |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:50:57 GMT, Brian Whatcott
wrote: How would an engineer want to specify the rigging for a sailboat? He might want to consider the peak loads applied to the rigging. What could that be? Perhaps it would be the gale that puts the main mast and sail parallel to the water? The rigging forces could hardly get greater, possibly? Except for a roll over and no rig is designed to withstand that. Professional experts and engineers use the righting moment of the boat to determine rig loads. Sail area is largely irrelevant. A fudge factor for shock loads and a safety factor is also necessary of course. I don't know how rigging wire is specified but I do know that anchor chain and rode is usually specified with a Safe Working Load (SWL) of approximately 20 to 25% of breaking strength. Sometime after SWL is exceeded, but before breaking, the material in question will exceed its elastic limit and permanent elongation will occur. That's a particularly bad thing for chain which is sized to fit the pockets in the windlass gypsy. It would also be a bad thing for rigging wire because it would leave the mast badly out of tune. |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
Jere Lull wrote:
Come to think about it, I don't believe our jibs have wire luffs, but even without it, the bolt rope and material would do the job for a short bit. No, actually it wouldn't. Not unless it was at least the size and strength of the forestay - and tightened the same or tighter. If the forestay failed that boltrope won't even slow it down... Richard |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Brian Whatcott" wrote: Now THERE'S an interesting question! How would an engineer want to specify the rigging for a sailboat? With an eye on the budget. Find a similar boat and see what it is using. Use that size as a base, then increase it one size jut to CYA. End of design. In the USA, material is cheap, manpower is not. It is something you learn very early, if you want to continue to be a design engineer. Airplane design is a totally different story. Lew Good, Lew! :) |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:50:57 GMT, Brian Whatcott wrote: How would an engineer want to specify the rigging for a sailboat? He might want to consider the peak loads applied to the rigging. What could that be? Perhaps it would be the gale that puts the main mast and sail parallel to the water? The rigging forces could hardly get greater, possibly? Except for a roll over and no rig is designed to withstand that. Professional experts and engineers use the righting moment of the boat to determine rig loads. Sail area is largely irrelevant. A fudge factor for shock loads and a safety factor is also necessary of course. In other words, a safety facor of 4 to 5. |
stainless rigging wire - nick in wire
Jere Lull wrote:
Since when does 17/19 become 20%? You're right. Should be 10% (2/19 rounded). (I was up WAY too late after a great sail that brought the bow past the outer breakwater as the sun kissed the horizon.) Yes, the stay is probably okay, but I don't play around with the forestay in particular. The OP *saw* two nicks. Are there perhaps others he hasn't noticed? My first thought on the filing of wire strands was - How much damage would that do to the rest of the cable? Anybody really think they can dress out two strands of cable - IN the cable - and not touch any of the rest of them? You know, the most interesting part of this story has not been told yet! How did the hacksaw just happen to nick a couple of wires? There has just GOT to be more to that one... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:01 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com