Forgot password

Standing Rigging - 9/32 vs 3/8

  • May 22, 2013 11:01 AM
    Quote
    Message # 1299130
    Deleted user
    My current standing rigging is 9/32.  I wont be replacing it for a few years, but was wondering if I should upgrade to 3/8?  Any opinions would be appreciated!
  • May 22, 2013 12:51 PM
    Quote
    Reply # 1299268 on 1299130
    Anonymous member
    Brett, the next size up from 9/32" is 5/16". 
    9/32" is rated at 9400 lbs and weighs 17 lbs per 100 foot.
    3/8" is rated at 16000 lbs and weighs 30 lbs per 100 foot. 

    Weight aloft is not good.

    What needs to be determined is what the breaking strength of the chainplate is and the associated bolts, clevis pins, tangs etc. Also the force on the sail can be calculated to get a realistic idea of how much force there really is on the shrouds.
    I went through this a while back and came to the conclusion that upgrading only part of the system (ie just the wire) was not going to do me any good, and upgrading everything seemed unrealistic.

    Bud Taplin might be a good source on this issue.

    Also, some have gone to the next size up on the headstay, backstay and boomkin shrouds. This seems like a good compromise...the boomkin shrouds in particular are more loaded because of the angle they are mounted at.



    Last modified: May 22, 2013 7:26 PM | Anonymous member
  • May 22, 2013 3:40 PM
    Quote
    Reply # 1299397 on 1299130
    Anonymous
    Gary, 

    On the weight... Don't you mean lbs per 100ft.  =]  
    17lbs a foot for 9/32 wire would be a little heavy... 

    9/32 is 17lbs/100ft.
    5/16 is 21lbs/100ft.
    3/8 is  30lbs/100ft

    Overall if you figure a rough estimate of 400ft of wire (I know this is really high) then 9/32 would be 68lbs overall, 5/16 will be 84lbs overall, and 3/8 will be 120lbs overall, of weight respectively.  


    Our boat has 5/16" wire rigging except the bobstay which is 3/8". 

    I would also caution about trying to decide on SWL of the wire (and consequently its size) by comparing chainplate strength to wire strength.  Chainplates are often oversized for longevity protection and not strength so they're not a good indicator of the ultimate strength requirements of a rig.  


  • May 22, 2013 3:55 PM
    Quote
    Reply # 1299400 on 1299130
    Anonymous member
    :) you're right of course, thanks for the catch.
  • May 24, 2013 5:59 PM
    Quote
    Reply # 1301017 on 1299130
    Deleted user
    Thanks much for the insight.  I'm preparing to replace my roller furling, and need to determine if I want to upgrade my rigging prior (of course this just means the forward stays.  I was hoping this was something more consistent w/WS32.  Another question along the same lines...how important is a running back stay?  
  • May 25, 2013 7:33 AM
    Quote
    Reply # 1301266 on 1299130
    Anonymous member
    Actually 1/4 " rigging was originally specified for the W32, but since we always liked to go stronger, and 9/32" wire still uses 1/2" end fitting clevis pins, we went with 9/32" for the standing rigging, and that is what I always use for the W32 and the W28.

    if you go up to 5/16" wire, then the clevis pins are 5/8"', as on the W42/W43.  That would mean you should change all your turnbuckles to 5/8" ones, as well as  opening up the chain plate holes up to 5/8".  You should also add more ballast to compensate for the weight aloft.

    Why bother, when over 800 W32's are out there with 9/32" rigging, and there is rarely ever a failure of the wire itself.  usually it one of the stainless end attachment points that fail.

    Nuff said,  Bud
  • May 25, 2013 7:35 AM
    Quote
    Reply # 1301268 on 1299130
    Anonymous member
    Running back stays are important to prevent the mast from pumping in some sea and weather conditions.

    Bud
  • June 06, 2013 10:18 AM
    Quote
    Reply # 1310856 on 1299130
    Deleted user
    Thank you Bud, that was what I was looking for.  One less concern I will have as I learn more about this boat!