Does a sloop need an inner forestay?

[phetploy]

Originally Posted by Stumble

A baby stay actually pulls the front of the mast towards the bow. And restricts it ability to invert by preventing the mid mast from moving backwards. On mostboats withthem they aren't really critical, since the mast bow is normally achieved with the shrouds, but it's a massive safety line preventing inversion.

Think of it like a tether. In all my years sailing I can think think of a time when it kept me on the boat. But I would never go to sea without one.


To minimize the tacking problems slide a piece of 1/2" thin walled PVC, or very thin walled aluminium over the shroud. It will act like a bearing and all we the sail to slide over it.

Got the PVC pipe in place, there is just so much more of the genoa aft of the babystay than forward that in light winds or if the crew doesn't time it perfectly we end up walking the clew round.

[phetploy]

Originally Posted by Paul L

What type of use do you plan for the boat? If I was going to long distance cruise the boat then I'd set it up for a staysail. Put a fairly heavy sail on a furler. It will get used offshore more often than the 140%. It is would also be easy to use inshore when short tacking.

Thanks Paul, but we get light winds much more often than strong winds in the Gulf of Thailand. I think a staysail woul see too little use to be worth the investment.

[phetploy]

Originally Posted by Chuck Hawley

Interesting question. Based on the absence of any staysail gear, I would wonder if the point at which the inner forestay attaches has an opposing set of stays or shrouds that oppose its tension.

I could imagine a set of intermediate shrouds that were located aft of the plane in which the mast is located so that the three wires held the middle of the mast in a fixed location. I could also imagine that you'd have running backstays that would oppose the inner forestay.

One benefit of a baby stay or staysail stay is to keep the mast from inverting, especially in a pounding sea. It forces forward bend in the rig, which is a good thing, and can induce pre-bend so that the mainsail sets flatter.

I'd be interested in what you find out.

Finally, having the option to fly a storm staysail would be a pretty cool thing to have.

Chuck

Chuck, I've been trying to post a picture of Phetploy, so far with no success, but there is not a shred of evidence that she was ever rigged as a cutter and with the sails I have, a staysail would be largely redundant.

[phetploy]

Thanks to all contributors. I see there is a division of opinion on this which is healthy and both points of view have taken the trouble to explain, which is helpful. I have succeeded in posting a picture of her on the hard at Bang Pakong and have the following observations to make;

I don't think this is a "babystay" because a) the point of attachment to the deck is too far forwards, b) the point of attachment to the mast is too high at the upper spreaders, c) there are 2 lower shrouds originating at the lower spreaders and leading forwards to apply the equivalent force of a babystay at the right point of the mast.

It now seems likely to me that when the cutter version was changed to a sloop version the company did not alter the rig and simply kept using the existing stock of masts and rigging. I will try to contact them.

Unless the masts need TWO sets of forward bracing stays to prevent inversion, I am therefore forming the opinion that the inner forestay does not have much to do with stability and am more confident about experimenting with de-coupling it in light winds and gradually testing in increasing wind and sea conditions, particularly as true heavy weather sailing is very rarely (practically never) experienced in the Gulf of Thailand.

I could, when the genoa needs replacement, go to a cutter rig with a Yankee and staysail by replacing the inner forestay, mounting 2 extra winches and a self tacking track. This would definitely improve the windward performance as at the moment the genoa can only be led outside the shrouds, however this would be expensive - 2 new winches, 2 new sails, running backstays and tracks, to be honest unless I am planning to go far outside out our local cruising grounds, I would probably get more mileage from an assymetric spinnaker or a cruising code zero.
Thanks again to all and I invite anyone with a further point to make to reply to my conclusions

[Snowpetrel]

It's an inner forestay by the looks of the picture. Definitely a pain to tack the headsail around. I've often removed them in the light stuff to make it easier to tack, but as soon as you reef you can start having inversion or pumping issues where the upper portion of the mast starts bowing aft in the middle or bouncing back and forward.

The fore and aft lowers should help, and enough prebend forward to load the mast the other way helps a lot. In waves the inner forestay and/or runners stabilize that kind of mast enormously and stop any pumping. It's a good feeling having a rock solid rig when it get nasty.

If it were me I'd happily remove it in flat seas, light airs. And I would slowly work up to stronger winds with the stay left loose watching the mast carefully to find a point where inversion becomes a possibility. If its needed in any chop ideally find a new position for the forestay further back nearer the mast so the headsail tacks easier, make it out of dyneema and make it easily removed and attached with a highfeild lever or a tackle (or prehaps some low friction rings) back to a winch.

For offshore work setting up a stormjib and some runners using this stay would add real peice of mind.

[UNCIVILIZED]

As stated, Dyneema or Dux is an option. But if you really want to know how necessary it is, just do the math. Most of the how-to of which is covered in Brion Toss's book The Complete Rigger's Apprentice.

[Pelagic]

Have not read all the replies but it is an inner forestay.

If not wanting the 3rd sail i would make it quick release detachable, but keep availability for rough conditions

[Mika F]

When I tack on my cutter, I partially roll the 135%, then pull it out again when the sails start to fill. A bit of a pain, but it saves the sail.

I was inspired to doing this by watching the Volvo Ocean footage on Youtube.

[mickelsen]

Originally Posted by roverhi

The wire appears to be a stay for a staysail that was never properly rigged. If so, removing it will cause no harm and may actually stop the mast from pumping. Without running backstays, there is nothing to counteract its pull on the mast. In short, it serves no purpose as rigged. If it was attached to the mast lower down it could be a baby stay and designer felt it necessary to keep the mast in column. Mounted that high up, it wouldn't be a baby stay.

Wrong. The baby stay or whatever you want to call it is intended to dampen out the mast pumping allowing the main to maintain a better shape. For this you do not need running backs. These boats are NOT designed by a naval architect the are knock offs. No real engineering in so many critical areas.

[mickelsen]

Originally Posted by buzz-buzz-buzz-buzz-buzz-buzz-star

Opinion: If it is not intended for a sail, it is a terrible design flaw. IMO, with no claim to expertise, anything that causes unnecessary wear on a necessary sail means that the designer has not done the job. I an clear from the posts which category this fits into, but my opinion is if it is not used for another sail it is not good, and I admit to some doubt even if it is.

.

There is no designer / naval anything

[phetploy]

Originally Posted by mickelsen

Wrong. The baby stay or whatever you want to call it is intended to dampen out the mast pumping allowing the main to maintain a better shape. For this you do not need running backs. These boats are NOT designed by a naval architect the are knock offs. No real engineering in so many critical areas.

I agree that running backstays are only needed to counteract the pull of a staysail on the otherwise unbraced middle section of the mast. However the boat already has forward pull from the lower shrouds at the level of the first spreaders. I don't really see how a second brace higher up helps much, if at all for mast pumping. You are a bit harsh on the design - even a copied design was designed by the original designer so the more faithful the copy, the more design integrity remains. Every Celestial 48 owner I have had contact with loves his/her boat and we are no exception. However lack of design expertise might well result in leaving behind an unnecessary and inconvenient forestay when the move is made from cutter to sloop even if it is "just to be on the safe side"

[sailpower]

Originally Posted by S/V Alchemy

Exactly...hey, are you related to Wally Ross? Best book I ever read on sails and how (and why) they work.

No relation.

[gjordan]

From the photo it is clearly an inner, and you have fore and aft lower shrouds. I doesnt appear that there is another aft lower that goes to the second spreaders so runners might be in order. Is there a manufacturers plate on the Mast? Is there anyplace that you can measure the thickness of the mast walls (without drilling another hole) and send that information and overall dimensions) to any mast manufacturer? It might cost you a little for an analysis, but would save you a lot of potential grief. As I said in an earlier post, my Peterson 44 was designed as a cutter, but because of it going into the charter trade, the inner was never rigged. It did have runners and if I got to pounding to weather, I would set them just tight enough to stop some considerable pumping. I understand that you dont want the hassle of a staysail, but with what looks to be a cutter design, it would be easy and not too expensive to buy and rig a staysail, but have the stay removable for your present light wind area. If you or the next owner ever get caught out in a blow, you will love the staysail. Just another 2 cents worth. _____Grant.

[beiland]

Originally Posted by phetploy

Thanks to all contributors. I see there is a division of opinion on this which is healthy and both points of view have taken the trouble to explain, which is helpful. I have succeeded in posting a picture of her on the hard at Bang Pakong and have the following observations to make;

I don't think this is a "babystay" because a) the point of attachment to the deck is too far forwards, b) the point of attachment to the mast is too high at the upper spreaders, c) there are 2 lower shrouds originating at the lower spreaders and leading forwards to apply the equivalent force of a babystay at the right point of the mast.

It now seems likely to me that when the cutter version was changed to a sloop version the company did not alter the rig and simply kept using the existing stock of masts and rigging. I will try to contact them.

Unless the masts need TWO sets of forward bracing stays to prevent inversion, I am therefore forming the opinion that the inner forestay does not have much to do with stability and am more confident about experimenting with de-coupling it in light winds and gradually testing in increasing wind and sea conditions, particularly as true heavy weather sailing is very rarely (practically never) experienced in the Gulf of Thailand.

I could, when the genoa needs replacement, go to a cutter rig with a Yankee and staysail by replacing the inner forestay, mounting 2 extra winches and a self tacking track. This would definitely improve the windward performance as at the moment the genoa can only be led outside the shrouds, however this would be expensive - 2 new winches, 2 new sails, running backstays and tracks, to be honest unless I am planning to go far outside out our local cruising grounds, I would probably get more mileage from an assymetric spinnaker or a cruising code zero.
Thanks again to all and I invite anyone with a further point to make to reply to my conclusions

I believe you are correct. It is an inner forestay, not a baby stay. The only real usefulness of it might be to counter some inversion that might occur if you were sailing in heavy weather with a reefed mainsail. Perhaps check out were the head of your mainsail ends up when it is reefed, particularly at its second reef point.

For the light air sailing that predominates your area I would say just detach it at its bottom connection and make an arrangement for reattaching if heavy weather or inversion occurs.

If your winds were more often really variable in strength (both strong and gentle), then I might make the recommendation that you carry a smaller staysail on this stay for use in higher winds. But it does not appear as though you need this.

[sailorcherry]

I'm on a 43'er with a babystay. No way would I remove it.
I know what you are talking about. I have seen others wrap it with pvc to help with that issue.

Originally Posted by phetploy

My Celestial 48 has an inner forestay like a cutter. It is a pain when tacking or gybing as it prevents the large (140%?) genoa moving easily to the other side of the boat. It also causes a lot of wear on the genoa