Amsteel Halyard advice

[allene]

I would like to replace my all wire main halyard on my L-36 with some Amsteel. I have picked 3/16 Amsteel as the desired size. It has about the same stretch and strength as my 5/32 wire and I think it will fit the existing wire sheave grove. It also "looks right".

My question is what to cover it with for the half I would be pulling on with my hands. Stripping the cover off some 5/16 XLS and using that as the cover for the Amsteel was recommended by Samson but I would prefer something closer to 7/16 for a nice feel. What I am thinking of is threading the Amsteel inside some 3/8 line without removing any inner core. That would bulk it up to about 7/16.

However I am afraid that threading the Amsteel inside double braid would be very difficult if not impossible. Therefore I am wondering about threading it into some 3/8 12 strand single braid specifically Tenex, which is available, inexpensive, and seems like it has some nice properties although I have never seen any.

I cannot find references of anybody doing this so I am afraid there might be a good reason not to do it and am seeking advice.

I am also not sure how I would terminate the end of the cover as I clearly could not bury 3/8 line inside the 3/16 Amsteel. Perhaps I could bury the inner core and outer braid separately if I use double braid. Perhaps I could bury each of the 12 strands in a different section of the Amsteel. Otherwise, all I can think of is to taper the 3/8 and do a long whipping over the taper.

[Brion Toss]

Hi,
Sorry to have been so long in replying. You have a number of options for dealing with this halyard. It might be possible to thread it inside a cored 3/8" line, but aside from the difficulty you'd likely have a too-stiff rope. Another option is to use covered HM with a 3/16" core, and pull that into just the cover of 3/8" double-braid. This should be easier, and acceptably fat. You could even strip the HM cover off much of the core rope, so that it was less bulky when the loads are low, early in the hoist, and big diameter isn't so important. And, further , you could leave some of the original core intact, saving on expensive core.
Inside Regatta works well for runners (that's how we do it), but you'll have to whip or serve the Regatta end down to the HM, and this juncture could be vulnerable to chafe. It'll be the same with any line too fat to bury into the HM. You'd also need to bury the HM a long ways, so that it is past the stopper and/or winch even when you are reefed. And even then you'll want to stitch generously, so the core doesn't want to slip as you hoist. As above, the HM needn't run the entire length of the cover.
Fair leads,
Brion Toss

[Mark Johnson]

Hi guys, This s unrelated to the previous post... hope it is appropriate to put it here?

Brion, I am a small time rigger here in New Bern NC, and I have a problem & question about the rig on my own boat... (A Searunner 34, self built trimaran)

The rig is a double spreader, cutter, masthead rig... sailed as a sloop. (I strike the roller furling "lapper", before raising the staysail, in > 30 knots consistant winds. So the mast is in 3 panels. The problem is only when I use the lapper headsail in 27 knots of wind or so, not the staysail in 37 knots of wind. I know the why part, it is the fix that I'm asking about. How it came about... The intermediate spreaders, and staysail stay, & runners, all meet at the top of the staysail, so it is like a tank there. under full headsail It is not the mast leaning in column, but the top section that's the problem. It leans off from the lower 2/3rds in a blow. It must be streatch in the upper wires. (all 1/4") This rig was an extra tall rig that was suggested to me by the designer, years after the design came out. (4' taller than standard) The choices I had in the extrusion brand I'd chosen, were choose an extrusion a bit under speced, or a LOT over. Since the boat was considered to be vastly over designed orrigionally, the smaller moments extrusion was suggested. I also switched to 316 grade SS wire, (of the same size), rather than the 304 in the origional plans. This was for the same reasoning. (origionally over designed) The end result is that I went up on the mast height & sail area, while down on the mast strength, as well as wire strength. And of coarse... up on the longer / weaker wire's streatch. It was all good reasoning, just a bit of a spagetti stick and too flexi on the top panel. I have covered tens of thousands of sea miles all over the Caribbean with this rig, and I love it. I just reef down (raise the staysail), when "out there", and getting over 8.5 or 9 knots to windward. It is in protected water around here that I'd like to fly full sail longer, as trimarans can do this. So this puts the question into context:

My extra tall rig, (50' off the water), has always leaned off alarmingly, (perhaps 5"), in its top 3rd panel, when beating to weather in over 25 knot winds. (even with the intermediates & lowers fairly loose) While cruising I just switch from the roller reefed headsail, to raising just the staysail... No more problem.

The thing is, that I would like to push the boat more in our local protected Pamlico Sound waters. The rig is 14 years old and due for replacement anyway. I am switching to DUX for the running backs, but do not like it's lifespan enough to do the entire rig this way.

My wires that stretch TOO MUCH, are ONLY the upper shrouds & for / back stays. (all 1/4") 316 grade 1X19 wire. My options are to switch the above wires to either 5/16" of the same type, or the smaller dia. but = strength, 7 MM Dyform type "compact strand" wire. It comes in lighter & thinner, for the same performance, so looks better for a small trimaran. The thing is:

I understand that Dyform went belly up. Isn't there another brand of Compact Strand Wire now available? Is it also 316 grade SS & as good? Are you a source?

Also... I read on the web a piece you wrote that explained that this stuff is not to be used with hydraulic backstays. (presumably because it's cylinder can freely spin?) The Compact Strand stuff tries to unlay due to all of it's strands going the same direction. Is it safe on a backstay with cottered turnbuckles? How about the fact that I use all StaLocs... Will the wires "unlay" characteristics make it want to tighten my StayLocs, or UNscrew them?
If it is UNscrew them, I would not use the Compact strand...
Thanks Brion! Mark Johnson

[Mark Johnson]

I found the answer to some of my question... (at the bottom). This leaves me with one final question about using Compact Strand Wire.

I see that the Issue of UN screwing my StaLocs is moot, because it will actually tighten them as the wire tries to unlay..

If I have no hydraulic back stay, but have only cottered turnbuckles, I could install the wires with half a twist of "pre spin" on them, and presumably the turnbuckles cotter pins can easily resist the wire from unlaying and spinning the turnbuckle. Is this correct?
Is the tendency to unlay enough to overcome the cotter pins?

I don't want to have my turnbuckles making half a spin of turn when the rig is loaded up, only to return when it's not. The return spin could unscrew my Sta Locs.
Will the above method of installing the wire with half a turn of tightening pre spin, keep my turnbuckles firmly against their spin restricting cotter pins, and stay there, even under load & a trimarans more active motion at sea?

Thanks! Mark Johnson



Technical Notice - Dyform™ Wire with Hydraulic Cylinders

Unidirectional lay wire (such as Dyform™, or “compacted strand”) is used in rigging applications where designers desire a lower-stretch solution than standard 1x19 wire rigging. Several problems result from the use of this wire with hydraulic cylinders including lower effective stiffness, unwinding of the lay of the wire and unscrewing of the rigging fitting assemblies.

Dyform wire is twisted in only the left hand direction. This construction improves the strength and stiffness of the wire when compared to 1/19 wire of a similar diameter. However, Dyform tries to “unwind” as it is loaded due to this construction. Hydraulic cylinders have no provisions to prevent this unwinding rotation. As the Dyform unwinds, it grows longer and the stiffness is effectively reduced. When the load is removed, hydraulic cylinders may not allow the wire to fully re-wind. After several loading cycles, the Dyform wire may be significantly unwound. The residual torque from this condition can act to unscrew rigging fittings on the wire. Based on the points above, Navtec does not encourage the use of Dyform wire with hydraulic cylinders.

Dyform is generally recommended for use with the appropriate swaged and swageless fittings without hydraulic cylinders. Swaged end fittings prevent the unwinding by locking the wire. During loading, right hand threads, such as those in swageless end fittings are tightened by the unwinding of the wire and are not affected. When unloaded, the wire fully re-winds and there is no residual torque to unscrew the fitting. Of course, as is the case with all rigging assemblies, it is important that all threads be locked.

For boats that have Dyform with hydraulic cylinders installed there are several alternatives. One alternative is to replace the Dyform with the equivalent 1 x 19 wire, rod or Kevlar cable.

The other alternative is to continue to use the Dyform wire with the hydraulic cylinder. In this case, it is very important to be sure that the threaded fittings in the stay are reliably locked against rotation. Since there is no thread in a swage eye, the swage eye does not require extra measures for locking it. Of course, the threaded joint(s) in a swage stud or swage turnbuckle assembly require locking.
While Loctite is frequently used with good results, due to possible variations in application, we do not recommend Loctite alone as an adequate lock in this case.
Acceptable locking methods include:

1. Adequately sized cotter pins such as are used in locking turnbuckles.
2. “Dinging” such as has been used to lock noses in marine eyes and other such assemblies. This requires the use of a dinging press, which can be found at many Navtec rigging shops.
3. Set screws. The set screw must engage a recess in the inner (male thread) surface and the set screw must be locked against loosening by Loctite.If the decision is made to use Dyform wire with a hydraulic cylinder, as with all rigging, it should be regularly checked for signs of deterioration. Signs of excessive unwinding of the lay may include broken strands, kinks of the wire or strands, or significant unevenness of the lay or construction. In practice, we have not observed these effects and think they are unlikely.

[Brion Toss]

Hi there,
Actually, three things, the first being to let everyone else know that Mark is new to the site, and hadn't figured out how to start a new thread. Welcome to the site, Mark.
The second thing is that prespinning Dyform is a bad idea, as it simply puts untwisting load on swageless terminals, with no benefit.The problem with Dyform and hydraulics is that it straightens under load, but friction in the cylinder can keep it from resuming its original twist; as it tries to, it can loosen swageless fittings instead, in addition to losing strength and stiffness in the wire itself. Multiple load/release cycles can produce progressively more untwisting, if left unchecked, and the torque can be hellacious.
The third thing is that while 1/4" might be small for the uppers, 5/16" 1x19 or Dyform is probably not worth going to. Larger wire will stretch less, but the hull might move more, as tuning loads are higher. The fact that you have an extra-tall rig just adds to the issue. The first thing I would look at is the stoutness of the chainplate attachments for the upper shrouds. On the Searunners I've seen, these go through the housetop, right where a port pierces the house side. Any give here,or where the chainplates land, will produce slack, and thus falloff of the masthead.
Therefore I recommend going to 9/32" 1x19 or Dyform, not 5/16". You'll keep the same pin and turnbuckle size, instead of having to go up to 5/8".Stay with 1/4" for the backstay, as it sees relatively low loads now anyway. You might also get in touch with John Marples, who may or may not agree with me, but who always has good and interesting things to say about rigging.
Fair leads,
Brion Toss

[allene]

Thanks for the reply Brion. I see what you are talking about with the 3/8 double braid so that is out. I am not sure I understand what you are saying about the HM. Let me see if I have this correct:

Say I need a 90 foot halyard which is 40 feet of 3/16 HM core showing and 50 feet of covered line only some of which needs to be full bulk. When reefed I need 55 feet of core to go up the mast 6 feet, around the sheave, down, around the winch and cleat and have 5 feet beyond that as a safety factor all well stitched. That means that the first 15 feet of the covered section needs to have a HM core. To make this I would get 55 feet of covered HM like Warp Speed, and 35 feet of 3/8 XLS. I would take the core out of the XLS and splice it to the core of the HM (an added touch) and then pull out 40 feet of core of the HM from the other end, stitching generously the last several feet near the splice of the buried core. Then I would take the 35 feet of 3/8 XLS cover and put it over the halyard starting at my transition and going down, leaving the end 15 feet thinner where it doesn't matter as the loads are light for that part of the hoist.

Is that what you meant?

You also say that putting 3/16 Amsteel inside a 3/8 NE Regatta Braid would work. It is good to hear that would work but I have had bad luck with Regatta Braid snagging so am not a fan. That is what got me to wondering about Tenex, which is a 12 strand but treated so it won't snag. However, it might be too stiff. It is very cheap and strong, both desirable qualities. Do you have any opinion specifically about using Tenex as the cover with 3/16 Amsteel buried in it? I have a sample of Tenex on the way. It it is too stiff, I might try running it through the washing machine.

Allen

Originally Posted by Brion Toss

Hi,
Sorry to have been so long in replying. You have a number of options for dealing with this halyard. It might be possible to thread it inside a cored 3/8" line, but aside from the difficulty you'd likely have a too-stiff rope. Another option is to use covered HM with a 3/16" core, and pull that into just the cover of 3/8" double-braid. This should be easier, and acceptably fat. You could even strip the HM cover off much of the core rope, so that it was less bulky when the loads are low, early in the hoist, and big diameter isn't so important. And, further , you could leave some of the original core intact, saving on expensive core.
Inside Regatta works well for runners (that's how we do it), but you'll have to whip or serve the Regatta end down to the HM, and this juncture could be vulnerable to chafe. It'll be the same with any line too fat to bury into the HM. You'd also need to bury the HM a long ways, so that it is past the stopper and/or winch even when you are reefed. And even then you'll want to stitch generously, so the core doesn't want to slip as you hoist. As above, the HM needn't run the entire length of the cover.
Fair leads,
Brion Toss

[Mark Johnson]

Thanks for the response Brion, I appreciate your help.
My appologies for computer ignorance. I still don't get how to start a new thread, or if there is a correct one that my questions should've been in, Most of the last two decades I have been absorbed in a boat project or "out there cruising", and with no computer connection...

My Sta Locs & proper installation...
I have taken them apart after over 10 years and the inside was pristine. No I didn't follow the instructions "exactly". I use 5200 and fill them about 60% full. First I form the wires, then open back up & make sure that no wires got in the slot.. Then I wrap a piece of tape 1/8" up the wire from where it exits the Sta Loc, and put in the dolop of 5200, and screw them together with blue loctite on the threads. A really good ooze of caulk comes out the top of the Sta Loc, but is stopped at the tape, which I then remove, and wipe up the excess, being carefull not to create a concace at the wire's exit point. This has worked well for me. One thing that I learned the hard way, is that if I put in too little caulk the first time around, and open it back up to put in more caulk, the threads that now have 5200 on them, MUST be completely cleaned before the second attempt. The combination of 5200 and blue LocTite on the threads, will never set up, and just keeps the threads lubricated! I unscrewed one once to shorten a wire, (very early on) with almost "finger pressure", from having made this mistake... Now I just make sure that I have enough caulk in there the first time around!

I was told by Sta Loc that in using Sta Locs over again, the fact that after I clean up the inside of the barrell & threads well, my "formers" are essentually still glued in there, is not really a problem. They claim that after putting on my NEW wedges it simply makes "forming" the new wire a bit fore dificult, but there is no need to remove the old "formers".
Do you agree with them about this?

Re-tune, Creep, & age...
It sounds like my rig, @ 14 years old, is in fact long over due. The fact (and my excuse) that everyone over taxes the wires lifespan, is no consolation. Good that I'm getting on it now! I haven't explained well... I have only put one extra turn on the turnbuckles in over 20,000 mostly tropical sea miles. (2/3rd Fl or Caribbean, & 1/3rd NC or SC) The sagging off of the mast's top 1/3rd from streatch, has always been there from sail #1. The main chainplates on our Searunner are massave. They are exterrior mounted on a double thick area of the cabin side, (which passes through the deck & becomes the hull), and are located about 4' or 5' from the cabin side port. Over the last 40 years, I have built all 3 of my cruising boats to a standard so high that it has caught me a lot of good natured grief from other boat builders. This one took my wife & I over 10 years, 7 of them @ 100 hrs / week between us! So it is not the chainplate's holes, which got perhaps 20 coats of epoxy in each of 8 holes, or the structure. Also, since both the intermediate shrouds, and cap shrouds, come down and attach to the same 4" wide X about 2' long chainplate, yet only the cap shroud stretches noticably, I assume it is the fact that that wire has twice the load and 35 or 40% more length, causing it to streatch, and the top of the mast to fall off... Bear in mind that I'm talking about a loaded old cruising boat, going almost 9 knots to windward, in winds gusting to 30! When out "cruising" VS "day sailing", I never do this... I reef the main, strike the roller furling lapper completely, and raise the staysail. This levels out the boat, the mast is straight, and I have to live with 8 knots of boat speed. If it wern't for the fact that changing the wires is long over due, I'd solve the problem by sailing like a sane person. Since I have to re-rig anyway, I'd like to solve the problem at the same time. This way, In our local protected waters, I'd have option of sailing like a wild man!

Other considerations... I have no doubt that things have changed a bit over the years, which would account for a slightly overall slacker rig.. The hull may have given a bit, bottom of the mast corroded a bit, mast tangs & chainplate holes elongated a bit, etc. However, since this "streatch on the uppers" problem was there from the get go, It's the one that I want to get right this time.

Dyform / Compact Strand Wire...
I only have a turnbuckle on my back stay, not hydraulics. The previous information I posted by Navtec said that the direction of Dyform's attempted un-lay, would try to "tighten" StaLocs. (Do you agree) The sugestion that I made of "put a half turn of pre spin on the Dyform wire", as I cotter the adjusted turnbuckle, was meant to be in the direction that would be slightly tightening the lay of the wire AND the StaLocs. This way the twisting tension may vary a bit in the gust, but the spin in the lulls would never go past its static position and try to un-screw the StaLoc. (there would always be a slight at rest, to more pronounced in the gust, tightning force on the StaLocs. Does this make sense? Can the twisting force be so pronounced that it might not be held at bay by the turnbuckle's cotter pins? I really like StaLocs, but don't want to risk this wire trying to un-screw them. Should I avoid this product for these reasons? Otherwise I'd just make the change up to 9/32" 1X19.

Dux issues...
It is good to hear that you feel that the safe lifespan of Dux is comperable to SS. I like the concept. I have already ordered it for my runners. Unfortunately the sleeves have to be removed for my 1/2" pins to fit the 7MM terminator's hole, but I'll Tefgel the pins & holes, and keep an eye on them...

In the case of my upper shrouds, I have been seeing the top of the mast move from mostly straight to bending off perhaps 5" in the gust, and spring right back. (in the above sailing conditions) In some web article you said that after a gust, the "under reasonable load stretch recovery" of SS was "quicker" than with Dux. This seems like a problem if I was to use it on my uppers. However IF I am using 9MM Dux, would this huge oversize in strength make this stretch recovery issue go away, and minimize the creep issue.
Should I consider this rather than wire on my uppers, as well as the rest of the rig?

They mention .5" of creep / year @ my perhaps 1,500# static load. Since this would be incrimental, rather than at once, I would think that I'd have to take up 1/8" every 3 months... Is this correct?

Covers for Dux...
Is it worth the expense, extra weight, & windage?

Don't use a snapshackle on my runners...
My snapshackle is rated at a 3,525 lb WL. Why not use it for this? Speed of removal & replacement is a safety issue too. Especially under the conditions where I'd be rigging it up!

Thanks again Brion,
Mark Johnson

[allene]

Originally Posted by Mark Johnson

I still don't get how to start a new thread

On the main page there is a button that says "New Thread" Just click it to start a new thread.

[allene]

I got a sample of Tenex from Samson today and I think this will work. The 3/16 Amsteel fits easily into the 3/8 Tenex. The resultant line is not stiff and about 7/16 in diameter, just like I wanted. The Tenex is a 12 strand braid made of two threads per strand or 24 total threads. It has none of the "easy to snag" feel of the Regatta Braid. I like the feel a lot.

To terminate, I taped off a section of the Tenex and cut one thread per strand which cut the bulk in half. I then buried the uncut length in the Amsteel. It fit although it brought the 3/16 Amsteel up to 3/8. When I actually do this I would taper the Tenex that I am burying in the Amsteel to form a smoorh taper. This left me with half the Tenex buried and half forming a ridge at the point of the bury. But being only half the number of threads, it wasn't too much of a ridge and I wiped it and the result is a very smooth taper.

I will run the Amsteel the entire lenght of the Tenex.

Is there anything I am thinking of that might give me problems? Are there other ways to do the termination that I might consider?

Allen