Sewn, Seized Eye for Rigging

Sail Delmarva has covered a topic which I had heard about but had never had the chance to try out. I love the idea and actually have had very good success with a similiar idea. You can read about that at the end of Sail Delmarva article here on sewn/seized eye. Besure to click over to Sail Delmarva's site for other great articles on boats, sailing, and boat products. Without further ado, Drew starts out with a prologue......

Can't Splice Old Line? Try a Sewn Eye.

Splicing is the gold standard for forming permanent eyes and joining lines; unfortunately used double braid generally lacks the flexibility required for splicing; the cover won't open and the core won't slide. Knots are a standard solution and work in most cases; yes, there is some loss in strength, but lines generally die from chafe and I can't remember having one fail at the knot, other than in testing. But sometimes there simply isn't enough space or a knot will snag. 

Seizing is traditional and just as reliable as ever. I've seized a dozens of eyes over the years and never had a failure. I helps if you cover them for UV and chafe protection, but if the seizing is double layer like the old days, the outside layer is the UV protection and the inside layer holds the load. But seizings are long and stiff and can hang up, since the tail is neither covered nor tapered. So occasionally I use a hybrid sewn/seized eye. This isn't an idea I dreamed up, it is an old one that I read of many years ago in theNew Glenans Sailing Manual. They also speak of stropes, the precursor to soft shackles.



First I remove about 1 1/2 rope diameters of core. This will allowed the end to be stitched down to create smooth taper. The New Glenans Sailing Manual calls for 3 1/2 to 4 rope diameters of core and I've got 4 1/2 diameters without counting the taper.How much stitching is enough? Most whipping thread is about 50- to 60-pound test (I use 90-pound Kevlar, just because I have it), and doubled that suggests about 25 stitches on each side to reach 5000 pounds. Sure, it is not loaded in-line, but most of the load (about 65% in testing) is actually carried by line-to-line friction, just as in a seizing. Also remember that due to friction of the eye around the shackle or fitting, the free end is only carrying about 35% of the load. The results is that the stitching is only carrying a working load of about 1000*0.35*(1-0.65)=122 pounds and a line failure load of about 610 pounds (assuming 5000 pounds for aged 1/2" Stayset); not nearly as demanding as you would guess and as usual, the splice is stronger than the line. The stitching is scattered so that some are in every part of the core.After stitching I add 2 seizings for good measure. The throat seizing is the important one, as it keeps the first row of stitches from getting over loaded.Then cover it with something for UV and chafe protection. Heat shrink is fast and nice. tape works too, if you check it annually. Webbing would be very good in some severe applications.

The New Glenans Sailing Manula only calls for 3 1/2 to 4 rope diameters and I've got 4 1/2 diameters without counting the taper.
Just the money saving trick I need today. Just recently I needed a 75-foot sheet for a new bit of rigging and I had a perfect bit of double braid salvaged from a halyard that had suffered chafe in one spot. I particularly enjoyed this lower cost (zero) solution since I am not completely certain of the final rigging. Spending money is bad, but spending money on something you might decide to change is worse.

Sooo, how strong is this? Click on over here to read about Sail Delmarva testing of the sewn and seized eyes

 Now on Solace, we use the seizing to make an eye with wire and a very clever tool we bought from a boat show in the USA. It was there that we saw demonstrated, many uses for this wonderful device. making an eye was one of them. In fact, we use this on the Genoa Halyard now. I've checked it several times, and with high tension, it shows no sign of breaking or slipping.
Demonstrated here is just one seizing to make an eye. We usually use four with a thimble to help form the eye. We then wrap the wire in self wrap tape to protect the wire.

Here to the right you can see the tool ready to cinch down the wire to form the seizing.

To the left is the finished product. We usually use four of these to seize for an eye.

To the right, the eye is starting to be formed. By the time you get four of those on, the eye will be as  strong as any that has been spliced.  Be sure to cover the wire with  with something for  chafe protection. Heat shrink is fast and nice, tape works too.

Shroud Anti Chafe Cover End Caps

 In deciding to make my own shroud anti chafe covers, I came up with an idea for the end caps. These are usually split so they can be applied to the end caps of the tube and sit firmly against the wire rigging. The tube, (in my case I am using 32mm pressure PVC pipe), is slid over the shroud (the shroud has to be undone from the turnbuckle). Then, once the shroud is re-tensioned, the end caps are applied and secured in place with a small screw to each side.
I made mine from a hard wood called Rimu. The caps have a 10mm hole in the center to match my wire rigging.
 The problem with making end caps and then splitting them, is that if using a saw, the dimension for the end cap to fit in the pipe is changed by the thickness of the saw. Also it can be very difficult to get a straight cut down the center of a small round piece of "dowel".
Here's how I over came that problem. First I glued two pieces of wood together using a "light" type of PVA glue WITH a piece of paper between the two pieces of wood. This was set up over night with the two pieces under pressure in a press. You could try a heavy weight; I'm sure that would also work.
The ends of the wood were sawn square and on a drill press, the 10mm hole was drilled down the center.
A piece of dowel was tapered slightly and driven down into the 10mm hole at one end. This was cut and sanded square with the end surface, and a center bit was used to place a start "dimple" into the dowel.
Then the spindle that supports the wood was driven into the end, using the center of the dowel to help in the location.

This was then placed in the lathe and a running center applied to the outboard end. You can see in the picture to the right, how the two halves are glued together, with the paper between.

These were then turned down to the required size and shape. On mine, I placed 40mm of length, to go inside the pipe, and a mushroom type of head for the outside.
On the picture to the left, you can see in my left hand, a preformed gauge to give me the required dimension.

Finally, you can see the finished products to the right, in both a 32mm and a 50mm pipe, and one sitting outside the pipe, in it's two halves.
How did I get it into the two halves?
Once finished turning and finale sanding, take the  cap and place it on it's end. Then get a wide and sharp chisel. Place this at the interface of the two pieces of wood, right on the edge of the paper. Usually, supporting the wooden cap and chisel with one hand, and giving the chisel a knock with the other hand was enough to split the two halves along where the paper is glued. Some times I had to use a wooden mallet and give a little more of a knock.
Then when separated, sand the paper off on a belt sander.
These wooden end caps will have a couple of coats of epoxy "applied and dried" to them, before fitting. This will give the wood some protection from the elements and give a longer life. If you find one of your ends caps is a little smaller in the fit to the pipe than you would like, you could probably take up some of the extra slack with another coat of epoxy.
I'm using 32mm for the shroud anti chafe and the bigger 50mm for a back stay HF antenna stand off project still to be completed. The final of these two projects will be published in a later blog.

I would like to thank Paul Gooch for his expert knowledge and use of his equipment in the making of these wooden caps.

BallslideT Batten Systems Without Separate Track

What is different about this slide is that it will work on a bolt rope extrusion. Most ball bearing slides require a track added to the back of the mast. This batten end slide can be used by racing boats that have a bolt rope extrusion. The ball bearings should make the slide freer to move under load. Would work for full length top batten.

---

Ronstan International, Inc.'s Description
Performance - Free-running performance while raising and lowering the mainsail is provided by cars that run on twin races of recirculating ball bearings specifically designed and oriented for compression loads. Minimum distance from mast to mainsail luff enhances mainsail efficiency, and when used with Ronstan batten receptacles the luff is always on the centre line. Compatibility - The complete range of car profiles and adapters provides the right Ballslide™ solution for the most widely available mast profiles and luff groove shapes. Selection tables and luff groove gauges simplify specification.
Flexible Solutions - Individual cars can be used in conjunction with a bolt rope on “soft luff” sails which have only a top full-length batten, or simply as low friction sail slides on larger yachts.

Faster, Easier and Safer - Sailing professionals around the world choose Ronstan Batten Systems for superior and innovative features combined with race-proven performance and reliability.

• With 5 track sizes available in the standard product range, there is a system with the right specifications for each boat and sail plan.
• The range includes all elements for a complete system, including headboard plates and batten receptacles.
• Easy track installation using patented slug connectors.
• Minimum distance from mast to mainsail luff enhances mainsail efficiency.
• Batten receptacle links and accessories are available to suit other commonly available batten receptacles.

A Quick an Easy Way to Do Your Own Rigging

Most sail boat owners at some time or another are faced with having to have their standing rigging replaced. For some, it's a question of can I do this myself. One of the inventions which has potentially made this possible is swageless fittings, However, even some of them require some skill, as most require unraveling the outer wire strands and getting them evenly spaced before the final assembly. You can see the Norseman fitting in the middle of this blog to compare with Suncor fittings. To me, the Norseman seems way more "fiddly" to assemble. To help you make an informed choice here is what Bosun Supplies had to say with their test of Suncor fittings.



It was said that after having rerigged my boat I was not sure it had been cost-effective to do it myself. I reasoned that, between the cost of the tools I bought and the cost of the swageless fitting I ruined (by getting a wire pinched between the upper and lower terminal and stripping the threads), I was close to the cost of having the job done by a professional rigger.
That opinion was based, to a large extent, on how time-consuming and difficult it was to assemble the swageless fittings I used.
Recently, I was  asked to evaluate another fitting manufactured by a Danish company called Blue Wave. I wasn’t aware of this fitting when I rerigged my boat. The new fitting promised to be much easier to use. So easy, in fact, that I had reservations about its ability to match the full strength of the wire.
Suncor Stainless is the sole importer of this part and collaborated on its engineering and development. They supplied a sample fitting and a length of 3/16-inch stainless-steel wire. The fitting looked first class. In fact, it appeared to be the most robust casting of all the swageless fittings on the market. It was easy to install because the wire does not have to be unlaid. There is no cone to be inserted, and there is no bending of the wire over the cone. Total assembly time was under one minute. Very impressive. But was it strong enough?

To conduct a fair test, I purchased a length of 3/16-inch, 316 stainless-steel, 1 x 19 rigging wire sufficient for several tests. I could cut the wire into pieces for each sample test. Each section of wire, therefore, would be the same. I also obtained equivalent-sized fittings from two other manufacturers who supply swageless fittings. The variable would be the fittings.

In a test of this type of assembly, it’s expected that the wire will be the part that fails. It is also expected that the terminal will not weaken the wire where it’s attached to the terminal. The wire used in the test has a breaking strength of 4,000 pounds, so that was the ultimate test goal.

Overkill
Quality Testing Inc., has all the required equipment, fully certified, to pull a load of up to 120,000 pounds of force on a sample. A little overkill for my needs, perhaps, but they agreed to do the tests.

One problem we discussed was how to secure the standing part of the wire so we did not pointload one small section of wire. The solution was to build a loop in the wire with two Nicopress compression fittings and a stainless-steel wire clamp backup. A three-inch, heavy-wall piece of pipe was slid through the loop and formed the top secure point of the standing part of the wire.

To secure the fitting to the test stand, we machined a piece of steel plate with a hole in it to receive the pin of the fork from the fitting. I had to make up a swage fitting on another section of the same wire so we could test it, along with the other two fittings, as a part of the baseline.

The fittings were ready, and the lab was all set. The first fitting to be tested was the "baseline" swage fitting. One of the functions of the test machine is to monitor and record the loads as they are applied to the test specimen. If you look at the first graph (Test 1), you will see that the swage fitting held onto the wire to a peak load of 4,112 pounds before slipping. The wire did not break; it pulled out of the fitting. This was a successful test as the wire breaking strength was rated at 4,000 pounds, and the fitting exceeded that load. The other two fittings were tested to verify the baseline. One test was satisfactory, and one tested well below the braking strength of the wire (This terminal brand was retested at a later time with an assembly made up by the supplier. It also failed the second test.)

Held the Load
The new Suncor fitting was next in line. The graph (Test 4) for fitting number four shows that the Suncor fitting held the load all the way to 4,278 pounds, 166 pounds higher than the swage fitting. This assembly also successfully passed the test. Not only that, but the outer strands of the wire actually broke, leaving the inner core of the wire attached to the fitting. I do not think the inner core would support too much load, but it did stay together. This was true of one other type of swageless fitting we tested as part of establishing the baseline.

 The Suncor fittings have some qualifiers that must be observed. They should be used only with the specific size of wire for which they are made – and they are not made for all sizes of wire. The 9/32-inch Dyform wire on my boat does not have a corresponding fitting from Suncor. The closest is 5/16-inch, so I could not have used these fitting with the wire I chose. It is imperative that the directions be followed carefully as to the length of wire to protrude above the inner wedge and pressure ring. Other than that, the fitting is easy to use and has proven itself under a verified load.

Norseman Comparison.





What does all this mean? -by Jerry Powlas

When asked to evaluate the Suncor terminal we half expected him to say, "It’s too easy to be true." He could simply have presumed that these things worked as claimed, but he’s a cynic. He has had his share of surprises with rigging terminals. So he ran tests.

To provide a proper baseline for the test, he tested the two other swageless terminals he knew of, Norseman and Sta-Lok, as well as a C. Sherman Johnson Co. swaged terminal, with the swaged wire assembly professionally made.

The swaged terminal, as well as the Sta-Lok and the Suncor swageless terminals, passed the initial round of tests by breaking at a load slightly in excess of the wire’s rated ultimate breaking strength.. The Norseman terminal failed at 69 percent of the wire’s rated ultimate breaking strength. When the supplier was contacted concerning this, they offered to supply another terminal and wire assembly made up by their own staff. This terminal and wire assembly also failed the test, breaking at 80 percent of the rated breaking strength of the wire.

There are very narrow limits to what can be inferred from testing only one sample assembly of each terminal (or in the one case, two samples). Many samples of each terminal would need to be tested to make definitive statements about the performance of these parts. At nearly $100 a test sample, we were not inclined to do that, although we hope the manufacturers of these critical parts are no inclined.

Not significant
Respecting these narrow limits, it should be said that the differences in the ultimate breaking strength of these assemblies (the highest load before failure) are not significant in the case of the three assemblies that had ultimate strengths higher than the wire rating. If the terminal functions properly, the test becomes a test of the breaking strength of the wire, not the terminal. This is true even in cases where the wire deforms and pulls out of the terminal without breaking.

In the cases of the two Norseman terminal-and-wire assemblies that failed to reach the breaking strength of the wire, many explanations are possible. Without more evidence (more testing to achieve statistical significance and professional engineering evaluation of the failures), it is not fair to speculate.

One of the appeals of swageless terminals is that they do not require a (very expensive) swaging machine, so they allow the boatowner the opportunity to do this job personally. If spare wire and terminals are carried, it’s even possible for the owner to make repairs in remote ports, or in a worst case, at sea.

There are many critical attributes to a swageless rigging terminal. It must be consistently strong, corrosion-resistant, and affordable. If it’s to be offered for use by amateurs, it must also be easy to use, so that the liklihood of proper and satisfactory assembly is extremely high. We tested only a few samples, so our opinion must be tentative, but this evaluation certainly suggests that the Suncor terminal is extremely easy to use. Bill considered the Sta-Lok terminal easier to use than the Norseman terminal. In at least some instances, the Norseman terminals may not be able to allow the full strength of the wire to be utilized.

Backing up a Chain Plate

Capt'n Pauley's Virtual Board Yard has shown us how he backed up his chain plate. This is in a similar vein to the backing up I did on Solace for my forstay installation. In my case the forstay padeye had no support at the deck and so I installed a small bulkhead in the chain locker and put two stays from the padeye down to the bulkhead. You can read about that here. For Capt'n Pauley's article, read on.....

The aft chain plates on my Columbia 10.7 had a problem; the tabbing on the hanging locker had broken, allowing the shroud to poll up the chain plate and crack the deck. That allowed water to leak into the deck core, weakening it.

Before I could re-core the deck, I had to off-load the chain plate and hanging locker. I accomplished this by yying the bottom of the chain plate ( a stock Schaefer part) to the lower srtinger by means of a cable and turnbuckle. The following photos show how I did it.
I used a 24" length of 1-1.2" x 1-1/2" sainless steel angle underneath the stringer. The forged eye bolt passed through this angle. I also filled in either side of the eyebolt with wooden filler blocks, then laminated 6 layers of fiberglass cloth and epoxy. The fiberglass strips went down the hull, scross the top of the stringer and then down the wood blocks and hull underneath the stringer.

A view from above the stringer.

The new chain plate in place. This chain plate extends below the locker to connect to the cable stay.

A view from below the locker showing the cable connected to the new chain plate.

A view showing the cable stay connected to the eyebolt and chain plate.

The finished installation. A very minor cut will need to be made to the edge of the berth cushion.

How To Make Soft Shackles

Forestay Installation

When we purchased Solace it didn't have a forestay and yet we had running back stays. A pad eye was on the foredeck where perhaps a forestay should attach to, but that was just attached to the deck with no support from below such as a bulkhead. We decided we wanted a forestay, but with suitable support from below to take care of loads; as we intended to use it for a storm jib. Here's what we did.

The padeye was above our anchor locker which had no convenient bulkhead to attach to. So we created  and glassed in a false bulkhead in a "V" shape to allow the anchor chain to continue to lay down. This was then finished off with a coat of "Flowcoat"; an air cure gelcoat.

Two rods were shackled to the new bulkhead. These had turnbuckles for adjustment of tension and PVC tube placed over for protection from the anchor chain.

Shackle to bulkhead

Finally, the padeye on the deck was replaced with a folding padeye which matched the one seen here under the deck. Reinforcing between the padeye and underside of the deck was also undertaken. The two padeyes where then secured through the deck with countersunk bolts and nuts. The two rods where then shackled to the underside padeye to provide the support need for the forestay. We finished with installing our forestay and used a quick coupling cam lever to attached and remove the forestay from the padeye when not needed. Perhaps unluckily, one storm has proved it's effectiveness and I'm convinced our mast stands today because we had the forestay and running backs attached when a shroud broke.