Hi Charlie,
Great topics as I'm tweaking my setup as well.  I think it's important to try 
different things and make the boat your own.

My R model has the three spreader Offshore Spar with runners, checkstays, 
single backstay with single hydraulic ram.  Is your mast three spreaders or the 
more common two?

In my racing, we found the runners and checkstays were unnecessary below ten 
knots of wind and most of my races were frustratingly below seven knots.  We 
did have a handful of strong wind races and we reefed down for a few starts.  I 
believe the runners and checkstays straighten the mast when the backstay is 
applied.  They limit the amount of bend and prevent inversion.  The previous 
owner of my boat rigged the runner/checkstays closer to the centerline on the 
transom as many J-35's have done.  He had bunji cords pull the slack tails to 
the backstay at around ten feet above the deck.  This puts them aft of the 
mainsail leech.  At the time, I didn't understand that setup and returned the 
rig to design.

Retractors:  I took an idea from U20 sailboats and rigged bunji cords to pull 
the runner/checkstays forward to the chainplates and hold them out of the way.  
These work great for singlehanding and I can send you pictures.  However it 
adds lines that create a spider web look and I'm sure some crew members 
wouldn't like climbing out of the cockpit under the bunji cord to get onto the 
rail.

The R model was designed w the runner tails running forward to turning blocks 
and up to the outer winches on the cabintop.  I recently added clutches to the 
lines so I can free up that winch after setting the runner/checkstay tension.  
Sometimes I need to adjust halyard tension.  Haven't sailed enough to judge 
this setup.

Have you ever measured your prebend and mast rake?

Chuck





>     On 08/18/2022 12:42 PM Charlie Nelson via CnC-List 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
>     Hello all;
> 
>     My C&C 36 XL/kcb was delivered with the runners/check-stays run to the 
> aft rail just about the location of the original headsail winches. They are 
> rigged with a 4:1 purchase and are released/tightened depending on what tack 
> we are on. Downwind they are unshackled and pulled forward.
> 
>     I removed the baby stay and its purchase/track to save wear and tear on 
> the headsail during tacks so my boat is slightly modified from its factory 
> settings. I do have and use a hydraulic backstay adjuster and always race 
> with a roller furling headsail. 
> 
>     I just had all the standing rigging replaced after 27 years of mostly 
> PHRF racing in the lighter airs of the Pamlico Sound/Neuse River in NC. With 
> a PHRF rating of 120 I am usually competitive with the fleet against similar 
> sized boats sailed reasonably well--which I manage to do most of the time. 
> 
>     My question for this group, especially those with runners/check-stays 
> rigged, is two fold:
> 
>     1. Given their aft location on the quarters, the angle they make with the 
> mast is mostly aft--I'd guess about 75 degrees from perpendicular to the 
> mast, or maybe 165 degrees off the bow. At that angle and purchase, they 
> certainly have a minor effect on pulling the mast to weather upwind, which I 
> understand is their main purpose (although they may also help prevent mast 
> pumping in serious chop). Question #1 is do I really need them as currently 
> set-up?
> 
>     2. If the answer to question #1 is yes, my next question #2 is should I 
> move them forward so they have a better angle keeping the mast to windward 
> and perhaps increase their purchase? I know from these groups that some run 
> their runners/check-stays to winches to put some serious tension on them at 
> the expense of more trimming, etc.
> 
>     Before I do a sailing test with and without them, thoughts from the lists 
> are welcome.
> 
>     BTW, my mast is a relatively bendy Off-Shore spar--hardly a telephone 
> pole--so it can be bent with the hydraulic backstay adjuster.
> 
>     Thanks,
> 
>     Charlie Nelson
>     1995 C&C 36 XL/kcb
>     Water Phantom
> 
> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to