On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:37:56 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 03:44:54 -0500, "QLW" wrote:
my Engineer Friend went on in great detail to explain why
stepping the mast on the deck or on the keel has no effect on the strength
of the mast in compression. While some small benefit could conceivably be
gained by helping to keep the mast in column, he claimed that would only
occur in the case of a flawed design.

============================================

I think this is one of those cases where theory and the real world
break down, probably because of faulty assumptions supplied to the
theory. In the real world of squalls, knock downs, luffing sails and
accidental jibes there are many asymmetric side loads generated which
are trying to force the mast out of column.

That's when the extra support provided by the deck becomes the most
useful.

I'm not so sure about that. If, when there are sideloads in squalls,
knockdowns, etc., the deck stepped mast failed by remining in one piece
but slipping out of it's step, then I'd agree that a keel stepped mast
would solve that problem ... if it didn't snap at the deck. But most
of the mast failures I've see are when it snaps somewhere aloft, like at
the spreaders. How it's stepped doesn't make a difference when it
breaks up there.

I haven't seen many keel stepped masts break at the deck either. If it
did, that would indicate there was enough sideload at that point to
maybe knock it out of the step if it were deck stepped.

Steve