Specific Solent Stay Question

[santa clara]

Hi all,


I'm trying to decide the location of a chainplate for a Solent stay. The foredeck is a bit crowded so I think the ideal place would be on the piece of wood which my windlass is on. Over the lone bolt which you can see in the piccy.

Any thought on a crucial heavy load bearing chainplate sitting on the wood block?


Thanks all
Martin

[Southern Star]

Martin, I see no reason that you couldn't remove the wood block, install the chainplate and reinstall the wood block with a slot around the chainplate. The bigger issues are:

1. Is that the ideal location from a structural standpoint and, what are you plans for the installation under the deck.

2. Is that location sufficiently far back from the bow and, will the resulting angle for the solent stay work with an appropriate location on the mast for installation of the stay (i.e., at approxiamtely the same height as shrouds?).

Brad

[santa clara]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

1. Is that the ideal location from a structural standpoint and, what are you plans for the installation under the deck.

2. Is that location sufficiently far back from the bow and, will the resulting angle for the solent stay work with an appropriate location on the mast for installation of the stay (i.e., at approxiamtely the same height as shrouds?).

Hi brad

I think I have num 1 sorted: the anchor winch straddles a bulkhead so the underside of the chain plate would be joined to that


The mast chain plate is going to be as high up as possible without fouling anything (about 10" from mast head). I haven't really thought about the angle of the stay. It won't be very different from the furling genny. Is the something I am missing?

Thanks
Martin

[Tortuga's Lie]

Martin,
You could remove the through bolt, then using the exixting hole plus one more, bolt a heavy pad eye which the bolts would then tie in a chain plate or another pad eye directly below. If you use a pad eye underneath, you could use a tension rod/turnbuckle combo to tie into the hull/bulkhead. The wood plate that your windlass is sitting on would neither be in compression nor tension because the opposing pad eyes pull in opposite directions assuming that you have it set up correctly.
Of course, I'm not sure what you have in the way directly below this area.

[santa clara]

Originally Posted by Tortuga's Lie

Martin,
You could remove the through bolt, then using the exixting hole plus one more

I have to say that I really like the sound of this...but for some reason it just seems to easy to be right! Boat jobs are ment to start difficult and get harder as they progress!

Thanks
Martin

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by santa clara

Any thought on a crucial heavy load bearing chainplate sitting on the wood block?

You don't say what size boat you have, that will help determine the loads.

But lets guess from your picture around 12m.

Wichard suggests around a 6700kg breaking strength (note there can be quite some 'mast whiping' shock loading when punching upwind thru waves) for such a solent stay tensioning device.

For that load, you need four (equally loaded) 8mm thru bolts (or two 12mm bolts).

[Southern Star]

Martin, installing your solent stay that high up will, of course, minimize the need for additional standing rigging. However, typically one wants a solent stay not only further in from the bow, but also lower on the mast. This creates a larger gap from the forestay and ensures that you will not foul your upper furling swivel; it will also allow you to fly sails from each simultaneously, if you choose. The problem, of course, is that you will either have to install it at the height of your lower shrouds, or install running backstays. On my last boat I chose the latter and found that it added considerable strength to the rig and reduced bend/pumping of the rig in the heavy conditions in which you are apt to need a storm jib.

Brad

[Joli]

Ideally you should have a ring frame below deck to carry the load to the hull. If that is not possible you may want to consider a stay to carry the load to a glassed support in the bottom of the hull. It would be bad to peel the deck off in rough weather.

[cwyckham]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

Martin, installing your solent stay that high up will, of course, minimize the need for additional standing rigging. However, typically one wants a solent stay not only further in from the bow, but also lower on the mast. This creates a larger gap from the forestay and ensures that you will not foul your upper furling swivel; it will also allow you to fly sails from each simultaneously, if you choose. The problem, of course, is that you will either have to install it at the height of your lower shrouds, or install running backstays. On my last boat I chose the latter and found that it added considerable strength to the rig and reduced bend/pumping of the rig in the heavy conditions in which you are apt to need a storm jib.

Brad

The way I understand it, you are describing an inner forestay which typically requires running backs. I thought a solent stay went to the top of the mast with no runners by definition. It is within a foot or two of the top so it needs no runners.

[Southern Star]

I always took a 'Solent' as an inner stay that is detachable and is deployed by a lever off a dedicated chainplate. Unlike a cutter rig, which has a fixed staysail stay and a mast that is typically mounted further aft, it is a sloop rig with a removable inner stay for storm sails.

Regardless, I still believe that for those with furling headsails, there are legitimate concerns about an inner stay that is located only about 10 inches (as proposed) below the forestay, as it could interfere with the upper furling swivel, the halyard leading to the swivel and in some cases, the separate halyard from the swivel that raises and lowers the sails. If the stay is dropped much lower in relation to the forestay, backstay and cap shrouds, however, it is likely to contribute to pumping.

Personally, I had no issues with runners for a stay that was largely intended for heavy weather sails. As indicated, they added rather than detracted from rig stability. Furthermore, the chainplates can be installed sufficiently forward that, unless you are sailing downwind, they do not require adjustments in order to avoid interference with the boom when tacking. Indeed, for those who deploy a storm trysail in extreme conditions, there is no concern even when running and the lower mounting point for the solent stay and the runners tends to stiffen the mast at the head of the trysail.

Brad

[Southern Star]

P.S. Of course, one could always install the solent stay at the height of the aft lower shrouds and eliminate the runners entirely. Since heavy weather sails are apt to be (and should be) much lower profile, that is a workable solution for many boats.

Brad

[santa clara]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

Regardless, I still believe that for those with furling headsails, there are legitimate concerns about an inner stay that is located only about 10 inches (as proposed) below the forestay,

Hi brad

I think if I had to have running bad stays the whole deal would be off, I value simplicity above all else. I'll post a piccy of the mast head when it gets light, perhaps that'll put your/my! mind at ease

Lots of boats with a roller furler must have a Solent stay set up so hopefully theres a way to put your doubts to rest.

Regards
Martin

[Jim Cate]

G'Day SC,

Rest easy, Mate! We have a solent rig, both sails on furlers, and the separation is a bit less than your 10 inches at the top. You will want to check out the clearances with your particular furlers and halyard setups, but there is no reason that it can't be done.

Of course, we DO have runners... but that's because it is a fractional rig, and we needed them before we added the Solent stay. We would be much happier without the runners, but that's the price you pay for this sort of rig.

Cheers,

Jim

[bobsadler]

i found the following recommendation in the selden mast on-line catalogue (page 31): "(if) the cutter stay [i.e. solent stay] is located 3 - 6% of the height of the foretriangle below the existing forestay ... (then) ... running back-stays are not required"

this allowed me to run the solent stay parallel to the forestay which gave plenty of clearance. i don't use running back-stays

Seldén Mast AB

[santa clara]

Hi jim hi bob

Thanks to both of you.

I'll send my partner up the mast later and check the percentage distance from the top

Thanks guys
M.