Jump.  Probably a better term.  Maybe we just use the Hispanic
pronunciation. :)

Dennis C.



On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Joel Aronson via CnC-List <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Dennis,
>
> Nice blocks.  We "jump" halyards up North.  And 30 years olds don't date
> teenagers.  :)
>
> Joel
>
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Dennis C. via CnC-List <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Interesting.  Never thought one of those old 90 degree exit blocks would
>> rip out but there's proof.
>>
>> Here's some more thoughts on re-configuring running rigging.
>>
>> While I did mention that as part of Touche' running rigging
>> reconfiguration I'd removed the two 90 degree exit sheave blocks at the
>> mast base, I didn't mention that I installed halyard exit plates well above
>> deck level.  All the halyards exit high enough that the mast person can
>> easily grab and "hump" the halyards.  (Not sure that hump is a local term
>> or not.  Refers to the repetitive grab and hoist action for hoisting
>> sails.)  I covered the holes for the old exit blocks with metal plates.
>>
>> When re-configuring the running rigging, I wanted to ensure that the
>> loads were carried by the mast, not by the collar.  In some boats, the
>> halyard turning load is transferred to the collar or to a deck mounted
>> turning block.  In my opinion, that is not optimal.  Some boats have a
>> short turnbuckle or such which connects the collar to the mast to prevent
>> the collar (and deck) from lifting.
>>
>> After some research, I  found Garhauer had some nice hinged mast base
>> turning blocks.  Guido even offered to countersink the bracket for flat
>> head fasteners.  I think Garhauer was making these blocks for Catalina.
>> They can be seen here:
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_sb5TfIENvsdTZpUEFRcjZ1SEE
>>
>> You can also see the top of the metal plate covering the exit block hole
>> behind the black line (which is the pole topping lift).  The red line is
>> Spin 1.  The aftmost white line is the main halyard.  The blue line on the
>> forward part of the mast is the spin pole car sheet.
>>
>> Keep in mind that Touche' is rigged to race.  I had been racing as crew
>> on many boats for nearly a decade so I'd seen a lot of racing rigs and knew
>> how I wanted Touche' rigged.  Of course, converting an early 70's boat to
>> approximate today's efficient racing rigs is a compromise.
>>
>> Although I was able to cross the port jib halyard to exit starboard, I
>> haven't crossed the wing (spinnaker) halyards to the opposite sides.
>> Touche's spinnaker halyards are external.  I think Touche's masthead is
>> unusual.  Seems C&C (Klacko) used several different mastheads.  Touche's is
>> a single ear projecting forward.  My buddy's Hull 61 has two ears or bails
>> projecting at about 45 degrees.  Touche's original spinnaker setup had a
>> shackle with two blocks.  It can be seen here:
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_sb5TfIENvsQ1R6SkRkTThKZEE
>>
>> One of the issues with that was the top of the furler extrusion extended
>> upward between the two blocks.  When the furler spun, it whacked around
>> between the blocks.  Not optimum.  I replaced the shackle with an eyebolt
>> and eye nut to spread the distance between the blocks.  I also replaced the
>> two old Schaefer blocks with Harkens.  See the new configuration here:
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_sb5TfIENvsMWFpLTdLaUpoVkE
>>
>> Crossing them externally is not a good option.  In order to cross them,
>> I'd have to install exit sheaves just below the masthead in order to run
>> the halyards inside the mast.
>>
>> For non-racers, the reason you want to cross halyards is to put the mast
>> person on the high (windward) side of the boat as you approach and round
>> race marks.  It is not only better for weight distribution, it is safer for
>> the crewperson.  Hoisting a sail from the low side of the boat while the
>> boat is heeled 15-20 degrees (and your butt is hanging over the lifeline)
>> is intimidating.  We most frequently do port roundings (leave mark to port).
>>
>> Dennis C.
>> Touche' 35-1 #83
>> Mandeville, LA
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Matthew L. Wolford via CnC-List <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> James:
>>>
>>>     If you’re looking for general feedback, I’ll add my two cents.  The
>>> main halyard on my 42 was wire-to-rope and was led internally through an
>>> exit box near the base of the mast.  In my case, a winch on the deck near
>>> the mast was used for the main.  A few years ago we were heading out for a
>>> race in about 20-25 knots of breeze, started to raise the main, and the
>>> exit box ripped out of the mast.  Something about that 90 degree angle
>>> results in a lot of force.  We made a semi-permanent repair that got us
>>> through the season.  At the end of the season, I decided to do several
>>> things: 1) instead of using the old configuration, I eliminated the exit
>>> box and started using a mast-mounted winch that was already on the mast but
>>> wasn’t being used for anything (which I found curious); 2) a short distance
>>> above the winch, I installed a mast exit plate so the halyard would stay
>>> internal; and 3) I replaced the wire-to-rope halyard with a low-stretch New
>>> England rope.  I forget the name, but it was more high tech than Sta-Set.
>>> I like the new configuration, although someone needs to raise the halyard
>>> at the mast (which is no different than it was before but may be a drawback
>>> for shorthanded sailors).  The only issue I have is that the high-tech line
>>> is not as low-stretch as manufacturer claims, and I use the Cunningham more
>>> than I care to as the wind picks up.  That said, the run from the winch to
>>> the top of the mast is over 50 feet, so some stretch is to be expected.
>>> When the current halyard is retired, I will replace it with something that
>>> is really low stretch, and may possibly go back to wire-to-rope.
>>>
>>>     MLW
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
>> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
>> use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Joel
> 301 541 8551 <(301)%20541-8551>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each
> and every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list -
> use PayPal to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray
>
>
>
_______________________________________________

Thanks everyone for supporting this list with your contributions.  Each and 
every one is greatly appreciated.  If you want to support the list - use PayPal 
to send contribution --   https://www.paypal.me/stumurray

Reply via email to