OK, how about this...Will the fordeck on a slant cabin 33 handly the stress of a baby stay mounted aft of the forward hatch? I've got to figure out something to combat the mast inversions without utilizing the forward lowers, as they won't structurally allow for enough tension to do thier job.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
Doug T.
baby stay... new forehatch ?
How much tension do you want to put on the forward lowers? Why do you believe there's not enough structural strength? Do the chain plates look stressed? Does the hull deform? Are you releasing the topping lift when you sail or is it still holding up the boom? If you release it, the forces on the mainsail leech (and head) will help to keep the masthead aft. Use of a boom vang will also help here. Depending on the cabin top to hold the tension on a baby stay sounds risky. Even if you spread the load out with a huge backing plate and/or use a split stay to spread the load even more, the cabin top certainly isn't designed for the upward forces you propose to inflict. You might end up ripping out a new hatch on a particularly windy day... If you ran the stay through the deck and down to the hull, it would be a lot better, but then you have a wire in the middle of your cabin and a nice new leaky spot in your deck.
How much tension do you want to put on the forward lowers? Why do you believe there's not enough structural strength? Do the chain plates look stressed? Does the hull deform? Are you releasing the topping lift when you sail or is it still holding up the boom? If you release it, the forces on the mainsail leech (and head) will help to keep the masthead aft. Use of a boom vang will also help here. Depending on the cabin top to hold the tension on a baby stay sounds risky. Even if you spread the load out with a huge backing plate and/or use a split stay to spread the load even more, the cabin top certainly isn't designed for the upward forces you propose to inflict. You might end up ripping out a new hatch on a particularly windy day... If you ran the stay through the deck and down to the hull, it would be a lot better, but then you have a wire in the middle of your cabin and a nice new leaky spot in your deck.
E
Ed Schenck
Inner-stay.
These inner-stay questions are interesting given that some have converted their cutters to sloops. See the "H37C Headsails" item in this forum.
These inner-stay questions are interesting given that some have converted their cutters to sloops. See the "H37C Headsails" item in this forum.
B
Ben
Not an inner stay, Hull compresses
No I don't sail with a toppling lift, don't have one, I race the boat, and do well with it, but the main sheet or vang do not hold the head of the mast behind column, as well the Backstay does not achieve it either, I've an adjustable one. If I tighten the forward lowers to about 900 Lbs the mast will bend properly when I tighten the backstay and keep the head of the mast behind column, but the Door to the forpeak will not shut then and there are definate pooch marks on the exterior of the boat where the forward lower shoulders connect. There is nothing structurally damaged there is just no bulkhead across the boat to keep in from squishing together. The Baby stay, unlike a cutter rig inner stay, is not used for a sail but for a way to control mast bend. Any ideas would be helpful, And I agree that a wire going into the hull would not be a good idea.
No I don't sail with a toppling lift, don't have one, I race the boat, and do well with it, but the main sheet or vang do not hold the head of the mast behind column, as well the Backstay does not achieve it either, I've an adjustable one. If I tighten the forward lowers to about 900 Lbs the mast will bend properly when I tighten the backstay and keep the head of the mast behind column, but the Door to the forpeak will not shut then and there are definate pooch marks on the exterior of the boat where the forward lower shoulders connect. There is nothing structurally damaged there is just no bulkhead across the boat to keep in from squishing together. The Baby stay, unlike a cutter rig inner stay, is not used for a sail but for a way to control mast bend. Any ideas would be helpful, And I agree that a wire going into the hull would not be a good idea.
E
Ed Schenck
Squishing?
Surely another H33 owner could enlighten us here. My H37C is keel-stepped so I obviously do no understand the problem. I thought I had read there were two H33 models, a keel-stepped and a deck-stepped. But a bulkhead should not be required, isn't that the job of the compression post? If the post is solid and the bridge across the keel is solid then there should be no "squishing".
Surely another H33 owner could enlighten us here. My H37C is keel-stepped so I obviously do no understand the problem. I thought I had read there were two H33 models, a keel-stepped and a deck-stepped. But a bulkhead should not be required, isn't that the job of the compression post? If the post is solid and the bridge across the keel is solid then there should be no "squishing".
J
Jack
Maxed out
Perhaps your 33 is just plain maxed out and you are asking it to do more than it was designed for.
Perhaps your 33 is just plain maxed out and you are asking it to do more than it was designed for.
B
Ben
ED
The Mast isn't squishing down on the compression post and keel, you are right this shouldn't happen, the sides of the boat are being pulled together because of the tension on the rig to get the mast to not invert when sailing, the angle of the forward lowers pulls in not straight up. The bulkhead would go across the boat not up and down with the compression post, but this would severly reduce the amount of salon space. So a possible solution would be to put a baby stay, not for a sial, on the boat that would connect behind the forward hatch directly where the cross boat bulkhead is. My question was if anyone had done this or if anyone new if that area on a slant deck 33 would be strong enough to support one. This is not to be connected at the aft end of the anchor locker and used for a sail like is done on the 37c
The Mast isn't squishing down on the compression post and keel, you are right this shouldn't happen, the sides of the boat are being pulled together because of the tension on the rig to get the mast to not invert when sailing, the angle of the forward lowers pulls in not straight up. The bulkhead would go across the boat not up and down with the compression post, but this would severly reduce the amount of salon space. So a possible solution would be to put a baby stay, not for a sial, on the boat that would connect behind the forward hatch directly where the cross boat bulkhead is. My question was if anyone had done this or if anyone new if that area on a slant deck 33 would be strong enough to support one. This is not to be connected at the aft end of the anchor locker and used for a sail like is done on the 37c
E
Ed Schenck
Now I get the picture.
Afraid I cannot be of any help. From what I know about my H37C there is no place to attach a stay centerline that is aft of the anchor locker. I suppose that you could construct a stainless arch that ran toerail to toerail inside the forward cabin. Shape it to fit flush against the cabin headliner. Big job and expensive.
Afraid I cannot be of any help. From what I know about my H37C there is no place to attach a stay centerline that is aft of the anchor locker. I suppose that you could construct a stainless arch that ran toerail to toerail inside the forward cabin. Shape it to fit flush against the cabin headliner. Big job and expensive.
D
Doug T.
Hmmm. The arch idea sounds more secure than my thought of a big backing plate -- the arch would at least be secured to something more solid than the top of the cabin. I don't know what the interior of your boat looks like, but you could also run the "arch" from bow to mast instead of athwartships. Actually, it doesn't even have to be a solid stainless steel arch -- it could simply be some strong 1x19 or 7x7 rigging wire. Run the wire across the boat (or fore
E
Ed Schenck
Another option.
Saw this done recently. The shrouds were moved from the deck to the outside of the hull. Lots of strength that way. Doug, on my cutter the inner-stay attaches to a very solid bulkhead. This bulkhead is the back of the anchor locker, heavily glassed to the hull. I think Ben said that was too far forward for his baby-stay. It would make tacking with a large jib really difficult for sure.
Saw this done recently. The shrouds were moved from the deck to the outside of the hull. Lots of strength that way. Doug, on my cutter the inner-stay attaches to a very solid bulkhead. This bulkhead is the back of the anchor locker, heavily glassed to the hull. I think Ben said that was too far forward for his baby-stay. It would make tacking with a large jib really difficult for sure.
D
David Undewood
Ben, think you are going to mess up
Ben, I have responded to one of your prior questions... about the dimples created by too much tension. Look,talk to Mr. Cherubini Jr., he helped his dad with alot of the designs for Hunter, he is often writing/responding to this site about various articles. I'm surprised he has not responded to yours. I would not get into making the kind of changes to your H33 that you are thinking about. The boat sails great just as it was designed/engineered from the factory. When new, we actually got ours up to 9 knots!, she doesn't do more than 8 anymore, but thats because of all the stuff and wood I have added to her making her weigh more. The resale value is another thing to consider, like many things, people want to purchase boats without too many changes to the original engineering design. Key word.. engineering, the design used with all considered and balanced. If you don't like the way she was designed, sell her and buy a different boat. In the long run, who ever buys your 33 will be happier with it in more original condition and you will be happier with a boat that matches your needs and ideas. I love my 33, she's a 1982. She sails great and I find I can tune the rig to change the way she handles without over tightening the rig. I do find that the hull needs to be clean, it seems that a clean hull doubles her speed and gives her less lee helm over a dirty one. Good luck with your search. David
Ben, I have responded to one of your prior questions... about the dimples created by too much tension. Look,talk to Mr. Cherubini Jr., he helped his dad with alot of the designs for Hunter, he is often writing/responding to this site about various articles. I'm surprised he has not responded to yours. I would not get into making the kind of changes to your H33 that you are thinking about. The boat sails great just as it was designed/engineered from the factory. When new, we actually got ours up to 9 knots!, she doesn't do more than 8 anymore, but thats because of all the stuff and wood I have added to her making her weigh more. The resale value is another thing to consider, like many things, people want to purchase boats without too many changes to the original engineering design. Key word.. engineering, the design used with all considered and balanced. If you don't like the way she was designed, sell her and buy a different boat. In the long run, who ever buys your 33 will be happier with it in more original condition and you will be happier with a boat that matches your needs and ideas. I love my 33, she's a 1982. She sails great and I find I can tune the rig to change the way she handles without over tightening the rig. I do find that the hull needs to be clean, it seems that a clean hull doubles her speed and gives her less lee helm over a dirty one. Good luck with your search. David
S
Sam Lust
Early 33 Rig
Guys; The truth is the early 33 was in fact designed with and the early mast rigs used an inner stay. Jim Bohart assured me some time back that the deck was designed around the inner forestay and that the deck of my later 33 (with the squared deck) would also handle the load. I have been on Don Bodemann's early 33 and his rig (Schaefer, if memory serves) was designed around the inner forestay. The "chainplate" was nothing more than an upside-down "T" plate. I would recommend solidifying the deck/liner structure by filling the void between them with filled epoxy.
Guys; The truth is the early 33 was in fact designed with and the early mast rigs used an inner stay. Jim Bohart assured me some time back that the deck was designed around the inner forestay and that the deck of my later 33 (with the squared deck) would also handle the load. I have been on Don Bodemann's early 33 and his rig (Schaefer, if memory serves) was designed around the inner forestay. The "chainplate" was nothing more than an upside-down "T" plate. I would recommend solidifying the deck/liner structure by filling the void between them with filled epoxy.
D
Don Bodemann
Early 33 rig
My 33 is hull# 0007 (seventh 33 made) and came with a "baby stay". This piece of rigging works in conjunction with the rest of the rig, which is an unusual double spreader set up. The baby stay opposes two lower shrouds creating a "tripod" support for the middle of the mast. As Sam Lust has indicated, these are secured to the deck with upside down stainless "Tee" brackets, and are not designed for the type of loads imposed on the uppers. I recently looked at a sister boat (77 33) and was surprised to see the more conentional rig (single spreader
My 33 is hull# 0007 (seventh 33 made) and came with a "baby stay". This piece of rigging works in conjunction with the rest of the rig, which is an unusual double spreader set up. The baby stay opposes two lower shrouds creating a "tripod" support for the middle of the mast. As Sam Lust has indicated, these are secured to the deck with upside down stainless "Tee" brackets, and are not designed for the type of loads imposed on the uppers. I recently looked at a sister boat (77 33) and was surprised to see the more conentional rig (single spreader
- Status
- Not open for further replies.