New eye terminals on under-sized tangs, am I going to die?

[Ryban]

I replaced all my shrouds recently with slightly up-sized rigging. This wasn't really intentional. When I measured the wire diameter with my calipers. It seemed to be giving me values around 5.5mm, so I rounded up and assumed it was 6mm. I also witched to Sta-Lok terminals, which have really beefy eyes, compared to my old swaged terminals, where the eyes were about half as thick.

Any way, there were several complications with the cap shrouds:

For one, I couldn't remove the old shrouds without bending out the tang, as the pins were backed against the mast, and the bolt holding the tangs n place was hammered over.

Two, it was difficult to bend the tang back in sufficiently over the new Sta-Lok eyes. I was eventually able to do so, and get the preventer ring in place, but it's a tight fit. I've thought about going back up the mast and using seizing wire to make super-sure that the tang won't ever open up.

In terms of loading, the pin is still taking the load and transferring it properly to the tang.

[jt11791]

I think I would have cut and replaced the bolt, but whatever, it looks good now. I'd at least tape up the wire rings. They will catch on a sail or halyard.

[Orion Jim]

Looks fine. I'd replace those split rings with cotter pins.

[skipmac]

I would have put the pin in from the outside of the tang and the split ring (or cotter pin) on the inside. Am I missing something by doing it that way?

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by skipmac

I would have put the pin in from the outside of the tang and the split ring (or cotter pin) on the inside. Am I missing something by doing it that way?

I don't think so; it's how we do ours!

Ryban, if you have the split pin on the inside, *stuff* will be unable to snag and open it. That is the concern with the rings. I, personally, don't trust the rings; over the years, too many have come open for no discernible reason.

Ann

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Orion Jim

Looks fine. I'd replace those split rings with cotter pins.

Definitely. Those split rings have a nasty habit of being ripped free. As others said, the pin should be inserted in the other direction.

[Benz]

If you bent the tangs back and forth, you might have weakened them--how many times have they been abused like that? There's only so much you can bend metal around before it fatigues. Usually, as has been pointed out, the cotter is put against the mast, which makes it devilish hard to work with, but keeps it from snagging and from having to do violence to the tanks to get the pin in and out.

[Ryban]

I don't think the tangs have been precious bent back and forth. I only bent them by a few degrees, and only just this once. But fatigue was on my mind.

Unfortunately I can't remove the pins and install them the other way around without removing the bolt that holds the tangs in place, which I just have no means of doing at the moment.

I'll go back up and install cotter pins instead.

[Paul L]

Can't you slide the tangs, or just inner tang, forward or aft to expose the inner hole?

[Ryban]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Can't you slide the tangs, or just inner tang, forward or aft to expose the inner hole?

Unfortunately not, they're solidly held in place, perhaps by adhesive at the top, or just from the pressure of the nut on the through-mast bolt.

[Don C L]

My boat, which has single lowers came with 1/4" (about 6mm) lowers and I think those are extra beefy for my boat. My uppers are 7/32" and that was an upgrade from the original 3/16" Other things may break but I'll wager it won't be that shroud or sta-lock! I see that you had to pry the tang out to get the pin out, but I wouldn't repeat it that way on the next one. The clevis pin should come in from the outside and finish with cotter pin and it will be good for quite a while. I probably would not go back and switch the other one now. Just cotter pin and forget it.

edit, ah I see what you mean about the tangs and sta-locs. You need longer clevis pins, don't you? Yeah, I'd go back up and check to make sure cotter pins will slide in the holes in the clevis pins. But if they won't fit in there, I hate to say it, you should do it over and get longer clevis pins.

I see now that the the tangs and clevis pins were put in that way since when the tension is on the shroud there isn't much room in there.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Ryban

I replaced all my shrouds recently with slightly up-sized rigging. This wasn't really intentional. When I measured the wire diameter with my calipers. It seemed to be giving me values around 5.5mm, so I rounded up and assumed it was 6mm. .....

FWIW, you old rigging was probably 7/32". While needlessly upsizing rigging is not a good idea (extra weight aloft etc), in this instance there should not be any problems in this area.

[Bean Counter]

If you are going to replace everything else in the rig which is x years old, why would the tangs not need replacement too? If so get bigger ones and a new through bolt.. It would be a constant doubt in my mind. Sort of like replacing the anchor chain but keeping the old shackle.

[Boatguy30]

Normally the range are ok, but how's that top bolt? Also if you had to bend the tang away from the mast other than slightly, it's again suspect. Meaning if you pried it out enough it didn't return to it's previous orientation you have work hardeneded the

[Boatguy30]

Normally the tangs are ok, but how's that top bolt? Also if you had to bend the tang away from the mast other than slightly, it's again suspect. Meaning if you pried it out enough it didn't return (spring back) to it's previous orientation without bending it again you have work hardeneded the stainless.

Also, those narrow eye swage eyes are still readily available