Low-Stretch Halyards actually worth it for cruising?

[Davidasailor26]

You are likely putting up and taking down your sails every day or maybe every two or three days.

Unless you have roller furling and touch the halyards once per season. In that case the lower stretch might be valuable for keeping the draft in the same place on windy and calm days. A racer would probably still adjust the halyard tension to match the day, but for a cruiser at least having the same tension would probably be a little better than having more stretch on the windy days.

 

[colemj]

There does seem to be a better selection of colors in the blended lines but the least cost method is to buy an entire spool for all halyards even though you end up with all halyards being the same color. When I re-rigged my boat it was less than half the cost going to spool size rather than individual lines of different colors. Even though I really prefer a different color for every line, the cost difference won....

The color argument is strange. Looking at NER's offerings in Sta-Set polyester double braid, Endurabraid dyneema, and Viper blended dyneema, they offer Sta-Set in 8 colors/flecks, Viper in 8 colors/flecks, and Endurabraid in 11 colors/flecks. However, Samson does offer more colors in their XLS polyester double braid than they do in their dyneema and dyneema blend products. In the latter, there are only 4 color choices, while the XLS offers 11 colors.

Spools are always a much better deal if you can use it or split it. So are end/odd cuts if they fit your size/length need. The best deals overall are found looking outside the marine market for the identical rope sold into arborist and industrial applications, sometimes under a different name. For example, I just bought 200' of 3/8" Amsteel II Plus for $1.32/ft from an industrial rigging and lifting company. This saved me at least 60% compared to the same line sold through marine sources. Cheaper than Sta-Set polyester double braid (and half the weight).

Mark

 

[Joe]

It seems like low stretch halyard is an expensive solution to a niche problem.

You can save a bundle by building "tapered" halyards yourself. You'll save because you can use a smaller diameter line. Racers will strip the cover off their expensive hi tech double braid such as Warpspeed. But that's throwing money away. Where you save most is buying the single braid dyneema core and covering the back half of the line that's cleated, winched and handled with a less expensive polyester sheath. I have built a number of tapered halyards and have found it quite satisfying to know I've saved so much money and also made something really cool for my boat and for my friends also.

For instance, on my 27 footer, instead of 3/8" polyester I was able to go down to a halyard with 3/16" dyneema core, which I covered with the outside sheath of a 5/16" dacron double braid. 5/16 was as small as I wanted anyway. So I used 80 ft of 3/16 amsteel, found on sale for around $1.00/ft, and 43 ft of 5/16 Samson Xls for about .70 ct/ft... note... any double braid dacron will work... let your wallet be your guide. So total for core and cover came to about $110.

The splice you need to use is in the Samson splicing guide online. I think they call it a "bury" splice... anyway no special tools except something sharp to cut he dacron strands, a big needle and some whipping twine. (you should have all this in your ditty bag, heh, heh) You can buy "cover only" line, which I did once.... it was supposed to have a messenger line to help with fishing the dyneema core into place... it didn't... but I was able to fashion a tool with a wire coat hangar to get the job done (another vanishing item). So.. just get the inexpensive double braid and use its core as the messenger.

I have posted the complete process of making these very cool halyards a few times over the years, so I won't repeat that.

 

[Foswick]

You must be invested in Dyneema, @colemj. I get that you are a fan, but I think you have taken an extreme view on the subject. I detect a little confirmation bias. I get that you think you are objectively correct on this. Just understand that not everyone sees sailing and the choices about equipment and materials the same as you. And, they are not wrong.

I have nothing against your choice to prefer Dyneema-like materials. But, your arguments are reductionist. I do not wish to argue with you. I simply want to point out that there is not one blanket correct answer to this question. I hope you can make room for that position.

As for me, many of my polyester rigging lines are up for replacement. I will replace them with polyester - not because I am inadequately informed, but because the pros of Dyneema simply don't outweigh the cons to me. My enjoyment of sailing will be unaffected.

As to the original question, I just don't think it matters one way or the other in this case, except to say there is no reason to spend more money, unless one really prefers the handling characteristics of Dyneema (for some reason). Any performance benefit is highly situational and probably more about perception bias than physics.

 

[colemj]

You must be invested in Dyneema, @colemj. I get that you are a fan, but I think you have taken an extreme view on the subject. I detect a little confirmation bias. I get that you think you are objectively correct on this. Just understand that not everyone sees sailing and the choices about equipment and materials the same as you. And, they are not wrong.

I have nothing against your choice to prefer Dyneema-like materials. But, your arguments are reductionist. I do not wish to argue with you. I simply want to point out that there is not one blanket correct answer to this question. I hope you can make room for that position.

As for me, many of my polyester rigging lines are up for replacement. I will replace them with polyester - not because I am inadequately informed, but because the pros of Dyneema simply don't outweigh the cons to me. My enjoyment of sailing will be unaffected.

As to the original question, I just don't think it matters one way or the other in this case, except to say there is no reason to spend more money, unless one really prefers the handling characteristics of Dyneema (for some reason). Any performance benefit is highly situational and probably more about perception bias than physics.

If there is something I'm incorrect about, please correct it. There is objectively little reason for using polyester double braid for running rigging anymore. The only reason is price if one cannot downsize even a little bit because of clutches, or one finds a smoking deal on polyester (but same goes for dyneema there).

This is less of me arguing, and more about presenting current information to those considering replacing running rigging. Until the past few years, the price of higher modulus lines has been substantially above polyDB. This is no longer the case up front, and definitely not the case over the line's lifespan. Unless one has been keeping up in these markets, this is information that escapes them. I know it did me until it was time to replace our running rigging.

In no universe is stretch ever a good thing for running rigging, the things it is attached to, or the things it runs over/through, and people are beginning to understand this better now that they have realistic choices. Polyester was often times sized for minimum stretch in the past, and boats ended up with large line for little reason. Ours came with 14mm and 16mm double braid running rigging, and that has all been replaced with 10mm dyneema, since the large sized polyDB was only to keep stretch to a minimum, not because that breaking strength was necessary.

The multiple references to dyneema's handling characteristics are puzzling, because the construction of it (covered dyneema) and polyesterDB is the same in terms of lay and how the rope behaves, and I don't know anyone who can tell the difference. I sure can't. The one difference is as the rope ages, dyneema doesn't get all stiff and hard like polyDB.

There are no cons to dyneema running rigging compared to polyester double braid, even ignoring stretch or potential performance issues.

Many of your arguments can be used to support manila rope. But I accept that you for reasons that have nothing to do with price, performance, stretch, splicing ease, long life, hard to chafe, weight savings, weather resistance, and wet performance, want to stay with polyester double braid.

One related example: we just got new forward nets for our boat (catamaran). The manufacturer used to supply them with 3/16" polyDB lacing lines, but now has switched to 3/32" bare dyneema. I discussed this with them, because I've always thrown away the supplied rope in the past and laced with dyneema. Their answer for the switch was because dyneema is now the same price as the polyDB, it doesn't stretch and bag out the nets or tear out the fittings (stretch is as bad for nets and attachment hardware as it is for running rigging on a boat), it lasts the life of the nets (10-15yrs) in the elements and chafing and doesn't need to be replaced every 3-4yrs like polyDB. Sounds a lot like running rigging.

Mark

 

[dLj]

{Various edits}There is objectively little reason for using polyester double braid for running rigging anymore.

Until the past few years, the price of higher modulus lines has been substantially above polyDB. This is no longer the case up front.

Their answer for the switch was because dyneema is now the same price as the polyDB.

@colemj let me see if I am understanding correctly. You are saying the cost of dyneema, based on strength not diameter, is lower (or about the same) than poly double braid. That if you can downsize your line diameter that the cost of dyneema is the same (or less) as double braid?

I ask because I did a complete re-rigging just three years ago and for the same diameter line, the cost for dyneema based line was substantially more.

Now perhaps prices have dropped since then. I haven't looked.

Am I understanding correctly?

dj

 

[colemj]

@colemj let me see if I am understanding correctly. You are saying the cost of dyneema, based on strength not diameter, is lower (or about the same) than poly double braid. That if you can downsize your line diameter that the cost of dyneema is the same (or less) as double braid?

I ask because I did a complete re-rigging just three years ago and for the same diameter line, the cost for dyneema based line was substantially more.

Now perhaps prices have dropped since then. I haven't looked.

Am I understanding correctly?

dj

Yes, that is exactly it. I've tried to state several times that the price is dependent on whether the line will fit the clutch (or any hardware with tight specification to line size). Some clutches are precise to a particular size, while others take a range of sizes. For example, we have clutches that take 10mm-14mm. The boat came rigged with 14mm polyDB, and I replaced with 10mm dyneema. The cost for each was the same.

I also gave an example of being able to use slightly smaller line in a clutch. In the above case, if I wanted to use 8mm dyneema, I could have put a thickening core inside the areas that would see the clutch under use, effectively making it a 10-11mm line in these areas. This is very quick and easy to do.

To underscore the size/strength/stretch difference between dyneema and polyDB, our main halyard needed to be 14mm polyDB for these reasons. The 10mm covered dyneema has at least the same properties here, but that doesn't really tell the story. All of the strength and stretch is only in the core, and the core of 10mm covered dyneema is just 7mm. This is sufficient for a spectra/kevlar mainsail on a 46' catamaran.

On small boats, line needs to be sized for ability to handle comfortably, and is almost always larger than necessary wrt strength and stretch. Here polyDB is going to be less expensive. On larger boats, halyards are sized for strength and stretch. Particularly stretch, as most halyards are larger than they need to be for strength only. Here, dropping a couple of sizes in dyneema is likely to cost no more than staying at the same size polyDB, and have the benefits of running freer, less chafe, longer lifespan. Sheets are sized first for handling, then for strength and stretch. Most larger boats can downsize sheets also, and still retain handling characteristics (I find 8mm to be a minimum for this).

Where "small" transitions to "large" would be determined by that point where a line sized at minimum for handling (8mm?) becomes too small for strength and stretch reasons.

Mark

 

[dLj]

@colemj ah, just making sure prices hadn't taken a dip since I did my re-rigging, which could be possible.

I actually use a 6 mm dyneema line on my staysail furler. I was worried it would be hard on my hands but due to the very soft texture of that material, I find it quite easy to handle. It takes a handling technique. Instead of holding the line running from pinky to thumb and fore finger, run it the other way. With more abrasive line that will be quite uncomfortable, but with the soft dyneema, not an issue. I was also worried about it working in my winches but with a few more wraps it works great. Just my personal experience.

dj

 

[colemj]

just making sure prices hadn't taken a dip since I did my re-rigging, which could be possible.

Depends on which rope and where you buy it. For example, Defender sells 10mm Sta-Set for $1.09/ft, while West Marine sells it for $1.59/ft. You can get 10mm Amsteel II Plus covered dyneema for $1.35/ft here: AMSTEEL II PLUS ROPE | Tallman Equipment Company

Of course, that is just size for size. One would need 14mm Sta-Set to equal the strength and stretch of the 10mm dyneema.

Furling lines are really helped by dyneema because it can be downsized so that the drum doesn't become overloaded with line. I strip the cover off ours up to the clutch/winch, which halves the volume on the drum when wound in, but keeps the easy clutch and winch operation.

Haven't you heard that you aren't supposed to use a winch on a furling line ?

Mark

 

[dLj]

Haven't you heard that you aren't supposed to use a winch on a furling line ?

Hahaha - yeah I heard that after using a winch on my furling lines for many many years. I guess I've been doing it wrong for decades.

I actually like to see someone roller furl in my fore sails without a winch. In very light winds I can, but certainly not when there is more than that....

dj

 

[Joe]

Why were so many boats rigged with wire to rope halyards back in the day? Primarily to save space without sacrificing strength and stretch. For boats with one or two externally run halyards, size won't be as critical as having a rig with 3, 4 or more internal halyards and control lines that take up room inside the mast and around the base, oh, and don't forget to leave room for the wiring and electronics cables. But the wire to rope became replaceable as other materials gave us stronger, lighter line.... but they were still stretchy until the dyneema, technora etc. hi tech became available.

The smaller diameter line can run more freely through the blocks and masthead sheaves...so doesn't it makes sense to minimize line diameter to allow for better, safer performance. Cruisers and daysailors may claim they don't care much about reducing weight aloft.. but they are under the misconception that weight is the only consideration for a smoothly operation rig. If your 40 footer is cluttered with large diameter line because of polyester specs, every piece of hardware those lines come into contact with will be required to accommodate them if a smoothly operating rig is important to you.

If your boat came originally equipped with club level, double braid polyester line, NE Sta-set for example, it may be wonderful the first year or so... but as time and exposure to the elements start taking its toll on them, the rope is going to get puffy and a little brittle.... so that 9/16 jib halyard may find the fit a little tighter as it squeezes through the masthead fitting....Your vang, with all it's multiple purchase bending might require a little more effort to set and release... but where it really is noticeable is with the ever popular "lines led aft" where we think nothing of adding 2,3 maybe 4 more turns.... FRICTION.... same goes with your reefing gear....and here you're probably not getting the benefit of a roller bearing block....

Anyway...think about it. It's really about minimizing the friction and it's easier and cheaper to reduce line size that it is to change the hardware.

 

[FastOlson]

There will be some change in the 'righting' moment too when you upgrade from the OEM wire halyards. Certainly nothing very large, but believe me, when I say that I still recall vividly the day I removed the four factory wire halyards from our 34 footer and held up the coiled ss wires in one hand and the replacement T-900 coils in the other. Very--- noticeable difference in weight. With our tall rig - air draft 54' - , the weight difference up high may only be a "nano knot" going to weather but unlike weight changes made lower down, this is up where the difference is proportionally more effective.
That all said, it's still much much less important than my rather average driving and trimming 'skills'...!

 

[thinwater]

If, like a racer, you adjust the halyard loose off the wind and tight up wind and particularly in stronger winds when going to weather, yes, you will notice a differnce in luff tension as the wind gusts.

If, like many cruisers, you set the luff tight and forget it, there will be NO STRETCH unless the windload exceeds the pretension you set. No difference Amsteel vs. polyester vs nylon. Obvious? A 200-pound pull will not stretch a line that was pretensioned to 1000 pounds. The load on the cunningham will go down to 800 pounds, but the line will not stretch one mm.

The same rule applies when rigging lines for climbing the mast. If the line is pretensioned to greater than the weight of the climber plus dynamic loads (250 pounds or so is enough for me) there will be zero bouncing or stretch, no matter the line type. Obvious?

A similar rule applies to bolts. There is no dynamic change in stretch (or fatigue) if the initial torque is enough to hold the maximum dynamic load plus minimum required clamping force. That is how minimum torque values are determined.

----

Just sayin', there is only stretch if the sailing (or climbing) load excedes the halyard pretension.

I'm no fan of wire halyards for practical reasons. Splinters suck. Practically all of them must be old enough by now to deserve replacement anyway. Do debur every contact point.

 

[dLj]

If, like many cruisers, you set the luff tight and forget it, there will be NO STRETCH unless the windload exceeds the pretension you set. No difference Amsteel vs. polyester vs nylon. Obvious? A 200-pound pull will not stretch a line that was pretensioned to 1000 pounds. The load on the cunningham will go down to 800 pounds, but the line will not stretch one mm.

@thinwater I'm not following exactly.

Here's a graph of several different polymers. When you preload, you are simply moving up the graph on the left hand side of the graph prior to the yield strength loading level.

The more vertical that initial section of the graph the "stiffer" the material is. The less the elongation per loading, the more vertical that initial part of the graph. But even with brittle materials there is still a very small measurable amount of elongation. Brittle materials tend to not have any of the curve related to the curve after the yield strength, they simply break at the yield point. This is shown in the graph above for a brittle polymer where you see the circle indicating fracture in the far left hand curve.

The materials being discussed in this thread fall in the region of the two middle graphs. The lower graph is for a highly elastic polymer.

However, with preload or no preload, there will still be very small amounts of movement - not 0. At least that's how I understand it.

dj

 

[thinwater]

@thinwater I'm not following exactly.
View attachment 233249

Here's a graph of several different polymers. When you preload, you are simply moving up the graph on the left hand side of the graph prior to the yield strength loading level.

The more vertical that initial section of the graph the "stiffer" the material is. The less the elongation per loading, the more vertical that initial part of the graph. But even with brittle materials there is still a very small measurable amount of elongation. Brittle materials tend to not have any of the curve related to the curve after the yield strength, they simply break at the yield point. This is shown in the graph above for a brittle polymer where you see the circle indicating fracture in the far left hand curve.

The materials being discussed in this thread fall in the region of the two middle graphs. The lower graph is for a highly elastic polymer.

However, with preload or no preload, there will still be very small amounts of movement - not 0. At least that's how I understand it.

dj

Say the halyard is tensioned to 1000 pounds. You increase mainsheet tension 200 pounds. The tension on the halyard at the masthead is still 1000 pounds, and the tension on the length from the masthead to the deck is still 1000 pounds, but the load at the tack is now 1000-200=800 pounds. Thus, the length of the section from the masthead to the deck will not change because the tension has not changed.

Your graph is correct. The trick is that the tension on the line at the masthead has not changed. The same with a cylinder head bolt; when the charge goes bang the clamping force goes down and the nut load goes up, but clamping+nut=bolt tension and the bolt does not loosen or stretch or fatigue.

As I said, if the halyard is loose, to move the draft aft etc, then the halyard will stretch. But only if the pre-tension is exceed. Walk through the elongation and stretch and I think you will see this is how it works. Engineering, deformable bodies 101. Since most cruisers never adjust halyard tension, they just set it for windward, stretch is not a serious problem. If they do not pretension, well, then you are correct. It all depends on the amount of pretension.

(If you want to test this, set up a polyester halyard for mast climbing. First do it semi-slack. It stretches when you weight it. Then get it bar tight. Zero stretch. A common mistake for rope climber system users.)

 

[dLj]

Say the halyard is tensioned to 1000 pounds. You increase mainsheet tension 200 pounds. The tension on the halyard at the masthead is still 1000 pounds, and the tension on the length from the masthead to the deck is still 1000 pounds, but the load at the tack is now 1000-200=800 pounds. Thus, the length of the section from the masthead to the deck will not change because the tension has not changed.

Perhaps I'm being a bit dense here, won't surprise me.

I'm not thinking of a main sheet halyard but rather a fore sail halyard. The fore sail does not have a sheet that applies downward pressure to the significant amount as a main sail does. So when loading your fore sail I'm not seeing how you aren't getting an additive loading on the halyard. Hence, having a stiffer halyard can be advantageous. If you can show me that, I'd be most appreciative.

dj

 

[colemj]

Even on a main halyard, many boats have active masts that will bend as the sail is tensioned or force increased. Or running rigging systems that will do this purposefully. This changes the tension on the halyard, and stretch in that halyard either makes purposefully setting bend imprecise, or makes the dynamics more, well, dynamic.

Thinwater's description is fine for a telephone pole masthead rig where there is no adjustments or movement. Many boats, and almost all more modern ones, have fractional rigs, and rigs that respond to conditions and adjustments.

Mark

 

[Foswick]

Once the halyard is tensioned, the only way tension increases is if the head of the sail moves farther from the masthead. It doesn't matter what else is going on with the rigging, if the head doesn't move farther from the masthead, tension will not increase.

Most of the forces that act on the rigging do not move the head any farther from the masthead.

If you crank down on the sheet, for example, that pulls the clew farther from the luff, and it pulls the entire rig in the direction of the sheet tension, but that doesn't move the head relative to the masthead.

On the other hand, if you tension a cunningham, for example, that will pull the head down and therefore increase halyard tension.

I think the counterintuitive point is that it seems like if you add tension to the sail, it must therefore add tension to the halyard, which isn't usually true. Only moving the head of the sail farther from the masthead will change the length of the halyard and therefore its tension.

I think there might be a valid argument that says if you have your headsail sheeted hard on a car that is pushed way forward, that will pull down on the head and therefore increase tension - similar to how a cunningham would. I think that is true but, I'm not sure how much of an effect that has. (Not saying it doesn't have much effect - I'm saying I'm not sure how much.)

But, as it is kind of interesting to think about, this all falls under the heading, "Things That Have Never Changed How My Day Went".

 

[thinwater]

Perhaps I'm being a bit dense here, won't surprise me.

I'm not thinking of a main sheet halyard but rather a fore sail halyard. The fore sail does not have a sheet that applies downward pressure to the significant amount as a main sail does. So when loading your fore sail I'm not seeing how you aren't getting an additive loading on the halyard. Hence, having a stiffer halyard can be advantageous. If you can show me that, I'd be most appreciative.

dj

Try this easy expereiment. Anchor a spare halyard (spin etc.) near the base of the mast and pull it just snug. Put a sling on it near the deck (prusik) and step into it. It will stretch several inches at least. Then tension it bar tight (at least 500 pounds) and step on it again. It will not stretch when you step on it.

Honestly, for most of us this is, as Foswick said, "Things That Have Never Changed How My Day Went". I've had Kevlar, polyester, and Dyneema halyards. Unless you adjust your halyard tension a lot, you will never know.

 

[colemj]

Once the halyard is tensioned, the only way tension increases is if the head of the sail moves farther from the masthead. It doesn't matter what else is going on with the rigging, if the head doesn't move farther from the masthead, tension will not increase.

This is only true for a masthead rig with a very stiff mast. Any mast that can purposefully change its shape, like all fractional rigs, and most modern rigs, will change the halyard tension as the mast adjusts to either intentional rigging input, mainsheet tension, or wind force. The head of the sail doesn't have to move in relation to the masthead at all for this to happen - just the middle of the mast changing in bend.

And this is precisely when you do not want a stretchy halyard.

The argument that only racers need non-stretch halyards because they change its pretension a lot doesn't hold up. Racers use halyard locks just so they don't have to mess with halyard tension, or have the tension change on them. They adjust the rig, not the halyard tension, to change sail shape.

Mark