replacing rod rigging

[phmccartney]

I have a 1974 C&C 35 Mk II with what im sure is the original rod. Ive had the boat 3 years and know little of its history other than people in my marina describing losing races to this boat in the past.

I was told that sticking with rod (reheadding or even full replacement) would be cheaper than switching to wire because my mast is set up for rod. Then, as an after thought, navtec mentioned that my existing K100 navtangs would be in compatible with any new rod ends and would have to be upgraded to the new ones. those are $600-800 apiece and i need three! Clearly, "cheaper" means differen things to different people.

So now im thinking id rather switch to wire and compresison fittings. the question is - what would be the easiest and cheapest way to convert my mast? could i use stemball fitings for wire on my existing navtangs? IF not, should i look for a differnt type of stemball fitting, t, or just a traditional tang for forks? the holes for the navtangs are approximately one inch round so ideally id like something that involves the least modification of those holes.

The spreaders just had the simple alluminum sleves on the rod and a machine screw to keep it from falling out. wire shouldnt cause a problem there.

thanks to any with advice

Peter

[Brion Toss]

Hello,
First, the reason that Navtec changed those tangs is that the old head shape was too fatigue-vulnerable. So your rod likely has a tenuous attachment to your mast; time to do something.
Changing to wire has costs, too. Normal tangs aren't so spendy, but if you want to keep the turnbuckles at the lower ends, you'll need to have very expensive Navtec turnbuckle bodies swaged on the wire. In my experience, these cost more than a conventional turnbuckle plus a wire terminal. On the other hand, Navtec turnbuckles of that age might also need replacing anyway.
Possibly you could simply put conventional tangs in, and get eye fittings, same size as for wire, on the upper ends of the rod. It all depends on being able to fit the tangs to existing holes. Be careful here, as there are likely backing plates to deal with, as well as that big hole. Got pictures? If you need to replace turnbuckles, get conventional ones. These boats are peppy enough to notice the difference between rod and wire, so I'd do what I could to stay with rod.

[phmccartney]

Thanks for the input. No pictures at the moment, im on the chesapeake and we are buried in snow.

sounds like my original tangs are a writeoff regardless of whether i recommission my existing rod or start over.

replaceing even the screws for my navtec turnbuckles would cost nearly as much as new convenional ones and the studs to use them, so i wasnt expecting to keep those.

Two more questions though. First, Navtec does sell a tang that can accept either rod or wire stemballs (K200). this would be substantially cheaper but require widening the holes considerably. But what most disturbs me is that they dont seemed to be designed to have a tie rod connecting them. is that something to worry about?

second, if my rod is still good and i can find someone that gives me a reasonable price for reheading, will i have enough length in my existing rod to switch to the rod stud/conventional turnbuckles? they look shorter than the navtec turnbuckles.

thanks.

[phmccartney]

Hope im not overstaying my welcome with all these questions. Snow has melted here in the mid atlantic and i was able to bring my rod home and get a good look. heres what i can see:
upper end of forestay was bent - could have happened when they dropped my mast, but id say at a minimum, two inches would have to be cut off to remove the bend.

two lower stays show wear on the rod where they emerge from the Navtang. Two others have the ball frozen in place and cannot be freed from the tang. These are the older K100 tangs and i suspect im witnessing the very reasons why these were dropped in favor of the stemball design.

Finally, the navec C-style turnbuckle screws all look to me to be the long versions, suggesting that the rods might have been reheaded onee during thier 35 years (but long enough ago that they were still using ball ends). It looks like i have about two inches of adjustment left on the screws.

The last survey of the boat was done in 2002, in which the surveyor simply did visual inspection with binoculars and wrote that it looked serviceable. Given all this, would anyone seriously consider taking this stuff in for more sophisticated inspection when the best outcome would be standing up a rig that is a mix of new parts and 35 year old parts?

Assuming it woudl be ok to use aluminum sleeves to reduce those 1" and 7/8" holes down to 1/2" for a conventional through-bolted tang, i could buy an entire wire or Dynex rig for what just a set of the new Navtec K150 tangs would cost. Im not a racer..im a weekend cruiser who's wife cares more that the mast will stay up than i do about going fast. Am i really being hasty in giving up on the rod?

[Brion Toss]

Hi again,
First, don't plan on reusing any of the old rig; at its age, recycling is the best thing to do.
Next, larger holes in the mast, assuming that they are for tangs appropriate to the mast, are not a problem, since the tangs, once installed, will actually strengthen that area. One thing to be sure of is that the tangs fit smoothly against the interior wall of the mast. You can check this by sliding them into the bottom of the mast when it is out.
Next, I recommend staying with rod for this boat. It will notice the difference if you go to something more elastic.
Finally, you can install conventional tangs, with interior reinforcement, and still use rod. Valiant has been doing this for decades. This will make for a simpler installation, and leave you options in the future. Let me know in a PM if you need to buy those tangs.
Fair leads,
Brion Toss

[Tessellate]

Hi Brion,
Sorry to dig up an old thread but I'm reading all your advice because I'm researching a rerig for my C&C. I'm in the Seattle area, so I'll give you a call, but wanted to ask about a comment you made here:

"These boats are peppy enough to notice the difference between rod and wire"

Does that advice apply to Dyform too? Navtec's specs page seems to say Dyform is nearly as low stretch as rod: http://www.navtecriggingsolutions.com/rigging.html

For -10 rod, the equivalent Dyform would be 7mm, which has nearly the same stretch rating. Or is there something I'm missing, like perhaps in practice (real world conditions), Dyform stretches more than rod, or the rating on that webpage is inaccurate?