H26 Forestay Connection

[Jackdaw]

Funny hoe I have seen stress cracks in the gel cost around other mfg chain plates to include Beneteau, Catalina and many others over the years
The forestry chain plate on the h 26 has worked well over the years for me without concern to include oth dealers and customers

Dave,
I don't make that comment as a Beneteau owner (or as a past Catalina, S2, C&C, Ericson owner). I make it as sailor, engineer, and product development person who tends to look a ALL products through a very clear lens.

All products, sailboats for sure included, are sold after being built to a very specific set of product trade-offs that trade function for cost. Everyone does that 100 times a day in the choices we make and product we use. I don't think my current boat was built and designed perfectly, and there are things I would have done differently. But I do know WHY they made the tradeoff, and and I agree with 98% of their decisions. Thats why I own it. And love it. But that does not mean that I stop looking at it with a critical eye. I call a spade a spade.

EVERY engineer will tell you that chain-plate loads should be in shear, and not in tension. And not mounting into only a plastic material. The 26 shrouds and forestay are loaded in tension, and into only plastic. It probably saved them 10 bucks in parts and 2 hours of construction labor. Makes a less expensive boat. Does it work? Sort of. But you have owners here on this thread saying it cracks. No need to argue with me about that point.

 

[Dennis Kitchen]

Not to contend with some of the excellent posts here, but I would like to again say that the cracking is probably only in the gel- coat which is a problem all over the boats of this era. If in fact the laminates are cracking in that area it would be imperative to stop sailing, take the rig down and get it fixed or risk losing the rig and perhaps killing someone.

On the cherubini era boats with shrouds and stays at the rails, u-bolts were used in lieu of chain-plates. This was accomplished by thickening the laminates at a section of the shear on each side of the boat. A ledge was created that was 2-4 inches deep by say 3/4 to 1 inch thick into which 5/16 or 3/8 u-bolts were mounted in bored holes. The ledges were of course " in shear" to the hull sides and the bolts " in tension" to the shrouds and laminates. Nevertheless, the forestay and backstay were on traditional chain-plates on boats I've seen. I recall reading that at Cherubini Yachts they used to move fully assembled boats around by picking up with bridles at the u-bolts. Of course just looking at the displacement vs ballast figures of these boats vs newer designs you can deduce the heavy construction.

All that said, my 23.5 is lightly built and as others here have shown the rub-rails where the u-bolts mount through tend to warp upward during the sailing season from the constant loads of keeping the mast up all season instead of trailer sailing. If I keep her I will probably add chain-plates at the upper and lowers as a secondary load path.
Dennis

 

[Jackdaw]

Not to contend with some of the excellent posts here, but I would like to again say that the cracking is probably only in the gel- coat which is a problem all over the boats of this era. If in fact the laminates are cracking in that area it would be imperative to stop sailing, take the rig down and get it fixed or risk losing the rig and perhaps killing someone.

On the cherubini era boats with shrouds and stays at the rails, u-bolts were used in lieu of chain-plates. This was accomplished by thickening the laminates at a section of the shear on each side of the boat. A ledge was created that was 2-4 inches deep by say 3/4 to 1 inch thick into which 5/16 or 3/8 u-bolts were mounted in bored holes. The ledges were of course " in shear" to the hull sides and the bolts " in tension" to the shrouds and laminates. Nevertheless, the forestay and backstay were on traditional chain-plates on boats I've seen. I recall reading that at Cherubini Yachts they used to move fully assembled boats around by picking up with bridles at the u-bolts. Of course just looking at the displacement vs ballast figures of these boats vs newer designs you can deduce the heavy construction.

All that said, my 23.5 is lightly built and as others here have shown the rub-rails where the u-bolts mount through tend to warp upward during the sailing season from the constant loads of keeping the mast up all season instead of trailer sailing. If I keep her I will probably add chain-plates at the upper and lowers as a secondary load path.
Dennis

Dennis,
That's an interesting details about the older Cherbs. I agree that that technique was probably pretty sound.

As to the 235 and 260 stay/shroud construction technique, first its clear that mast aren't failing down everywhere. Or anywhere AFAICT. So in that regard maybe its doing OK. Trying something new in product design is always a bit of a gamble. Its always east to stick with tried and true, usually because you know it will work. Products get used in ways you didn't expect, or last as longer than you expect. So you do your best, thinking about your target customer, and hope no one is laughing (or crying) in 10 years.

 

[Dennis Kitchen]

Jackdaw,

Your analysis of engineering vs cost is "spot on". Wish you worked for some folks in Detroit. It seems their goal is often "how cheap can we make it and get away with it and still get rich.......?"

Products get used in ways you didn't expect,........

Man that is so true! Which probably brings up the video I'm about to post of me sailing in 26 mph winds with gusts to 40 in my 23.5!

 

[isaksp00]

It is interesting that the (I assume older) 23 has a chain plate in the anchor locker that supports the forestay, though I am not sure how that chain plate attaches below the locker floor. It also has chain plates for the side stays that attach to wooden bulkheads (sort of like large wooden shelf brackets) that are tabbed to the inner hull, with three bolts attaching the bottom of the chain plate to the bulkhead. In fact, I just re-glassed in a replacement for one that cracked (sure hope the glass cloth I used is strong enough ). It did not use u-bolts.

 

[Crazy Dave Condon]

Since introducing the 26 Hunter in 1992 I have yet had any failure with the forestay chain plate and that was 25 years ago. All good points on engineering but the proof is in the pudding, the forestay chainplates have yet to fail. If it ever does fail, then the circumstances of that failure need to be investigated. A good example is a tree falling on the boat and forestay which ripped the chainplat out along with all the other damage totaling that boat. So when there are comments I look at everything. No I am not a engineer but was an investigator so I look at things in a different view and there have been times my suggestions for improvement came from that angle

 

[Doug J]

Many good/valid points have been presented. My boat is a 94' and it's possible the forestay has been attached to the U-bolt all along, or maybe not, no way to really know. It might have been switched to the U-bolt when the roller furler was installed.

I have to say the owners manual surprisingly does not make it clear at all, where the forestay should be attached.
Looking at it from a logical point of view it seems to me the stronger connection point would be to the Tang, which would provide more of a shear load instead of tension, considering there are 2 screws, possibly nuts/bolts, I haven't looked in the forepeak to determine which.

Here's a picture of the crack below the rub rail.

There's no doubt in my mind the cracks right around the tip of the bow are due to the forestay connection to the U-bolt. I believe continued use like that will likely make the cracks worse.

I am going change the connection to the Tang.

 

[Dennis Kitchen]

Fellas, .......
This boat was not designed with a furler, it had hank on sails. If the forestay was on the tang where would you tack the sail to???? No, it's deduceable then that the forestay was on the u-bolt and the sail tack was on the tang. NO other way it could be. If you add a furler, no need to change the location. If you do, and it looks strong enough; you must also be able to adjust the turnbuckle short enough to compensate for the rise to the top of the tang. ( or remake forestay to account for drum,tangs, etc ) If you don't you'll increase mast rake and cause a lot of weatherhelm as well as needing to reset all your shrouds,
Dennis

 

[GGordonWoody]

Man that is so true! Which probably brings up the video I'm about to post of me sailing in 26 mph winds with gusts to 40 in my 23.5!

Can't wait to see this... We just hope to handle 10kts this year!

 

[Dennis Kitchen]

Can't wait to see this... We just hope to handle 10kts this year!

Thanks!
Unfortunately it looks like you'll have to wait until I buy a video converter as it was shot on iPhone with .MOV format which wont load here. Standby for future update.

 

[Jackdaw]

Thanks!
Unfortunately it looks like you'll have to wait until I buy a video converter as it was shot on iPhone with .MOV format which wont load here. Standby for future update.

Upload to YouTube.

 

[GGordonWoody]

This boat was not designed with a furler, it had hank on sails. If the forestay was on the tang where would you tack the sail to???? No, it's deduceable then that the forestay was on the u-bolt and the sail tack was on the tang. NO other way it could be.

Hmm, ok. Now I'm with @Dennis Kitchen , @Crazy Dave Condon, and @rgranger on this. The argument Dennis makes seems most reasonable. In fact, I'm betting he is 100% correct, and the tang may not even be a safe mounting for the forestay. I'll bet the "chain plates" for the H26 upper and lower shrouds are "U-bolts" as well, so why not the forestay? And, you'll observe that blindly following the H23.5 owner's manual results in the forestay (furler) connected to the forward-most hole in the bow pulpit, leaving the aft hole available for a sail tack. So @DougJ, my new opinion is to leave it on the "U-bolt".

 

[Doug J]

Yes, I believe I will pivot on this. U-bolt it will forestay!

 

[isaksp00]

I don't have that issue in the 23. But from looking at the photos of the 23.5 bow, if I had cracking that was not obviously just gelcoat (cosmetic) I might add a sort of chainplate under the u-bolt. Have a strap of stainless fabricated that would be L-shaped, and one leg would bolt under the u-bolt, where the backing plate is. The other leg, longer, would be bolted through the bow using a backing plate inside the hull - say about 6 to 8 in long. That assumes you can access the area right behind the bow - it is (barely) accessible on the 23. Then a good percentage of the upwards load would be supported laterally along the bow leading edge.

 

[Doug J]

Seems like not bad advise isaksp00 ! I may look into that.

 

[Crazy Dave Condon]

Since I do not have a 26 available to me right now, anyone willing to take off the b berth front wall and see if there is any backing plates behind there and if so post what you see possibly with photos??? Also look under the outside now area to see if anything under there as a backing plate although there is one posted already??
Thanks

 

[isaksp00]

The 23 has a stainless strip as a backing plate for the u-bolt that acts as a bow eye - if you have an outside "chain plate" made you could get an extra strip for the inside. I have also seen posts that used a pipe, about 1 in diameter and maybe 6 to 8 in long, as the backing plate. A metal (iron?) pipe may fit better inside the v shaped space inside the bow.

 

[Dennis Kitchen]

Can't wait to see this... We just hope to handle 10kts this year!

Here it is........ https://forums.sailboatowners.com/index.php?threads/a-brisk-sail.185678/
Dennis

 

[Doug J]

I'm kind of back and forth about this.
Dennis, I'm sure you are correct that the tang was originally intended for the tack for a hanked on jib. But I can't help to think that using that connection for the roller furler wouldn't be stronger. As you can see in one of my previous posts the tang is one piece that is bolted down with the u-bolt. The SS tang is 3/16" thick, I can't see it ever breaking. Wouldn't you think by connecting the head stay there, would induce much less stress on the fiberglass overhang?

Then maybe the u-bolt could be used for an Asymmetrical Spinnaker. I have one but no experience with it.

I'm not saying it's correct but here is a picture of a H26 with the connection to the tang.

 

[Dennis Kitchen]

Dougj,
I agree it's strong enough if not stronger than the u-bolt location. Remember to check the mast rake, and other rigging considerations I mentioned above. It may be that your unit was set up already for this location. I've seen several pictures of rigs set up this way.
Dennis