Dyneema Loops question for those who like Ropes

[Franziska]

Hi,

I know that we have some folks amongst us which are very knowledgeable about Dyneema Loops.

I need to use some (made of 8mm = 5/16) as attachment points.

Here is the question, should I use them as seen on image 1, or better as on image 2?
In both cases I can not change the hardware, I just like to kindly ask if one "attaching" method has an advantage over the other.
My gut feeling is for the double Looped version. Method 2.

Simple answer (if there is!) please at first.
I follow a deeper discussion on the why gladly later.

Thanks,

Franziska

Sorry about the typo in the heading, could not correct that after the thread was started. Mods, if you can, please do. Thank you. Done, Pete7

[Breaking Waves]

Method 2 is stronger. It has 4 strands holding the load, vs only 2 in first method.

Just FYI method 2 is called “basket configuration”

The small bend radius at the metal attachment point will be a weakness. There are ways to reduce/minimize that - a lashing of smaller diameter Dyneema or webbing for instance.

Why are you putting the Dyneema in there’s?

Ps not a fan of “ring dings” on Cotter pins. They have a history of getting accidentally snagged and pulled off

[Franziska]

Thanks Breaking Waves (&Pete), so it's method 2 basket style.

The reason for the loops is that the chain plates are unfortunately built in a way that prevents toggles to properly fit.

The loops fit well and they should carry theoretically almost double of the original Dyneema shroud diameter as the material is doubled up inside. That should be enough margin of safety. Before the loops the shroud will break I guess.

The chain plates where initially meant to be used without turnbuckles.
I did use them for a long while without turnbuckles, but want to fit some now. The lashings are a pain when it comes to easy tightening and I do not mind the extra weight that much. This is a cruising boat :-)

Might add a short lashing on top of the turnbuckles though to allow for initial stretch/setting in.
Not sure it's necessary though. Any thoughts on that?

Interesting what you say on the ring dings. Either I'll tape them over, or use normal cotter instead.

[DefinitelyMe]

Agree, method 2 is better. Our lower shrouds are set up in exactly the same way and so far, so good, 20,000 miles later.

[Checkswrecks]

With respect to your first photo, clevis and cotter pins should always have the tails down, aft or inboard unless there is a compelling reason otherwise. The reason is that if the cotter pin falls off the clevis, gravity will hopefully keep the pin in the hole. (Obviously, vibration and working back and forth can beat gravity sometimes.)

Ring-dings, safety wire, etc are a topic of many threads on their own.

[Franziska]

Originally Posted by Checkswrecks

With respect to your first photo, clevis and cotter pins should always have the tails down, aft or inboard unless there is a compelling reason otherwise. The reason is that if the cotter pin falls off the clevis, gravity will hopefully keep the pin in the hole. (Obviously, vibration and working back and forth can beat gravity sometimes.)

Ring-dings, safety wire, etc are a topic of many threads on their own.

Thanks Checkswrecks.

Agree completely. Usually do it that way, this was just a quick setup to show the two loop variations.

[jaylo264]

I think I would myself prefer to use small diameter dyneema looped many times through-and-through the stay bottom fastening/cotter pin maybe [I also prefer split pins] just as used on many guard rails/jack stays [so a knife can release a floating casualty, for example] then knotted with a double fisherman bend.
FYI, I took a brand new Flica37 Woods design/build from Plymouth to Dubrovnik way back in the late 80's -- SO many things wrong with it as delivered!!