Type 316 Stainless rigging Wire
Christopher A Emond
Hello all,
We're in the process of replacing our standing rigging. We've decided on
type 316 1*19 stainless wire rope and Sta-Lok's but have encountered a
problem finding the wire. Presumably type 302/304 is much more common in
Canada or at least Vancouver since I've had a heck of a time finding 316.
I finally found a distributor who will bring in 316 wire, but now I have
to choose a manufacturer. I notice that Loos & Co seems to be common with
some of the large American boating warehouses whereas a Korean wire
seems to be the cheapest the distributor has found.
So is type 316 wire, type 316 wire or are there differences? Any comments or
experience would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Chris.
Graham
Christopher A Emond wrote in message <6hojuj$8cp$1...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>...
Chris,
We do a lot of rigging in our area and have the same problem - We can get
good quality 316 wire from the USA, but the price is high. I don't know
about the Korean wire - I know that in industrial applications there have
been failures of bolts and piping from what are called "offshore sources" -
If you are going to the added expense of 316 stainless, then you woukld want
to be sure it is good and the only way to do this is to get it from a
reputable supplier.
One thing just in case you are not aware , 316 S/S stays should be one size
larger than 302/316 - 316 has a lower allowable working load. We are in a
fresh water area and almost all builders used 302/304 and we replace with
the same. However, many boats do head South for periods, and the only effect
we see is some tarnishing. Lower swages do sometimes come back with stress
chloride cracking, but these are 316 anyway so it is not a 302/304 problem -
Staloks or proper sealing of the swages would prevent this problem.
Regards,
Graham
Windjammer Sails, Box 23004 Amherstview PO Kingston Ont.
Canada K0H 1G0. (613) 389-4349 FAX (613) 389-4762
MAIL WEB SITE
wind...@fox.nstn.ca http://fox.nstn.ca/~windjamm/
Joe Kovacs
In <6hojuj$8cp$1...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, cae...@unixg.ubc.ca (Christopher A Emond) writes:
>Hello all,
>
>We're in the process of replacing our standing rigging. We've decided on
>type 316 1*19 stainless wire rope and Sta-Lok's but have encountered a
>problem finding the wire.
Aside from a boat rigger, you can find it at the
nearest airport with an aircraft repair shop, and they
can routinely swage anything. Or know where really
heavy stuff can be made up. Those are really control
cables for aircraft, you see.
The quality will be excellent, of course.
I don't know how prices will be. I did that once for
a small job and for it the price was low.
Joe Kovacs
Guelph Ontario Canada
Harrison Evatt
Isn't it true that although 316 stainless 1 x 19 wire may not have the initial
strength of 304 grade , its ultimate long term strength may be better if you are
in a highly corrosive area such as the tropics where type 304's strength may
degrade from corrosion?
Harrison
Graham wrote:
> Christopher A Emond wrote in message <6hojuj$8cp$1...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>...
> >Hello all,
> >
> >We're in the process of replacing our standing rigging. We've decided on
> >type 316 1*19 stainless wire rope and Sta-Lok's but have encountered a
OptoEngr
Graham wrote in message <353ff...@news.cgocable.net>...
>
>Christopher A Emond wrote in message <6hojuj$8cp$1...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>...
>>Hello all,
>>
>>We're in the process of replacing our standing rigging. We've decided on
>>type 316 1*19 stainless wire rope and Sta-Lok's but have encountered a
>>problem finding the wire. ....<snip>
Macwhyte Sailbrite is readily available in Seattle.
I was able to buy it at wholesale prices from the distributor down in the
port area, although they had to special order it.
I don't believe that it's really necessary to upsize when using
Sailbrite with non-swaged fittings such as Norseman or Staylock.
All the test results I've seen indicate that a complete stay with
end terminals is stronger, size for size, when built using
Sailbrite and similar materials.
I don't work for the company but had very good results
with their products....put together rigs for 11 boats in our
cooperative.
Paul Mathews
obvious anti-spam modification of address is req'd
Graham
OptoEngr wrote in message <6hq7pk$284$1...@news.whidbey.com>...
>I don't believe that it's really necessary to upsize when using
>Sailbrite with non-swaged fittings such as Norseman or Staylock.
>All the test results I've seen indicate that a complete stay with
>end terminals is stronger, size for size, when built using
>Sailbrite and similar materials.
>
I would like to see these results!
If a stay is made from type 316 S/S, it almost certianly has a lower
allowable working load than 302/304 for the same wire size (exceptions may
be special wire shapes like Dyform) - If you do not upsize the wire, you are
operating with a lower safety factor with 316 than with 302/304 and the wire
is therefore more likely to fail and will stretch more. The fittings are the
same in both cases and their strength is not a function of the wire used.
Therefore a stay made up of 302/304 is stronger than one made from 316.
My own experience with saltwater corrosion is not as great as that of others
who do rigging work in warm salt water climates. However, the saltwater
failures we do see on 1x19 wire are never due to corrosion of the wire, but
always at the fittings - the mechanism is due to chlorides being trapped in
an oxygen free environment. 302/304 may be more susceptible to this than
316, but in both cases there is a need to seal the fittings when they are
new or before they see salt water so that salt cannot get into the fittings
(where there is a lack of oxygen)
To summarize - By all means go to 316 S/S. It will tarnish less and may
offer better life . However, do not do so unless you maintain the stay
strength chosen by the designer by maintaining an equivelent allowable
stress. (We have some tables that compare 302/304 with 316 on our web site
under Useful Data ) - This usually means going up one size on wire - If you
don't believe me - read Practical Sailor's article on the same subject when
they were upgrading a C&C 33,s rigging a few years ago.
Graham
Harrison Evatt wrote in message <35409E98...@ibm.net>...
>Isn't it true that although 316 stainless 1 x 19 wire may not have the
initial
>strength of 304 grade , its ultimate long term strength may be better if
you are
>in a highly corrosive area such as the tropics where type 304's strength
may
>degrade from corrosion?
Harrison,
It is accepted that 316 is a better choice for the tropics - However,
sealing fittings to prevent ingress of salt water (when new) is the first
thing to do.
There is more to rigging than corrosion - The stay must have minimum stretch
when exposed to the rig,s forces. If 316 is chosen, a size should be chosen
that will keep the mast straight under load.
Graham
OptoEngr
I wouldn't want to discourage anyone planning an ocean
crossing from upsizing their rigging, regardless of what material they are
using.
I agree that the failures are always at the terminal, and that
is the point, but perhaps I didn't make myself too clear:
We found that the combination of Norseman/Stalock and 316 is as stronger or
stronger
than the combination of standard SS wire and swaged end terminals, so
we did not recommend upsizing.
We alway recommend that riggers follow installation instructions for
the terminals to the letter, since service life of the terminals depends
strongly on taking care to avoid damaging components and on
excluding water from the terminal itself.
You are probably aware that results in swaging vary greatly from
unit to unit. Do you also recommend upsizing the wire to account for
the likelihood of weak units?
This reminds me of another nice aspect of using the more expensive
material: It is much easier to cut. This makes using the Norseman/Stalock
terminals MUCH easier. It also could make it easier to cut away the
rig in an emergency. As anyone who has worked with 304 knows, its
surface hardness can be a real problem.
Contents may settle in shipment, and your results may vary.
pm
Compared
Graham wrote in message <3540d...@news.cgocable.net>...
>
>OptoEngr wrote in message <6hq7pk$284$1...@news.whidbey.com>...
>>I don't believe that it's really necessary to upsize when using
>>Sailbrite with non-swaged fittings such as Norseman or Staylock.
>>All the test results I've seen indicate that a complete stay with
>>end terminals is stronger, size for size, when built using
>>Sailbrite and similar materials.
>>
>
>
>I would like to see these results!
>
> If a stay is made from type 316 S/S, it almost certianly has a lower
>allowable working load than 302/304 for the same wire size (exceptions may
>be special wire shapes like Dyform) - If you do not upsize the wire, you
are
>operating with a lower safety factor with 316 than with 302/304 and the
wire
>is therefore more likely to fail and will stretch more. The fittings are
the
>same in both cases and their strength is not a function of the wire used.
>Therefore a stay made up of 302/304 is stronger than one made from 316.
>
>My own experience with saltwater corrosion is not as great as that of
others
........<snip>
Paul and Cindy Kruse
< >Hello all,
< >
< >We're in the process of replacing our standing rigging. We've decided on
< >type 316 1*19 stainless wire rope and Sta-Lok's but have encountered a
< >problem finding the wire.
Look in your local phone book under "Sling" for a company that will fabricate
wire rope slings. If you cannot find one in your area, then look under "Crane"
and call up a local crane company and ask who makes up their slings. They would
also be able to use proper swaging technology for your terminations. Sta-Lok's
primary market seems to be for people who do not have access to proper swaging
equipment.
A regluar sling shop will also be able to do spelter fittings for you. They are
more expensive than a swage, but will last longer in a marine application. The
disadvantage is that they will be galvanized instead of CRES, and they will be
fatter and uglier than what you are currently considering.
While I do monitor this newsgroup, my server is
famous for losing Usenet articles. If you reply to
this posting, please also route a copy to me via E-mail.
Have a great day,
plk...@iu.net (Paul Kruse)
Graham
>
>We found that the combination of Norseman/Stalock and 316 is as stronger or
>stronger
>than the combination of standard SS wire and swaged end terminals, so
>we did not recommend upsizing.
>
A couple of comments:
If Stalok/Norseman were tested with 302/304 perhaps they may have been even
"stronger"?
I think "stronger" needs some definition - Is this breaking point? This
would have to be breaking point at the fitting because 316 will break before
302/304 if of equal size or so the manufacturers say.
Another remark regarding "stronger". If the 316 stay does not break, but
elongates more than the 302/304 of the same size, then there is chance that
the spar will go out of column and could buckle. (It would be interesting to
see elongation data for wire of different materials.)
I f I were upgrading my own boat and cost was a factor, I would go with
302/304 of same size with swages at top and Stalok at bottom. If cost was
not a factor, I would either upsize with standard 316 1x19 or i would go to
Dyform of same size with Staloks at both ends (Norseman and Stalok
considered equal)
Graham
Harrison Evatt
I believe that Norseman/Gibb makes 316 stainless wire. Check with suppliers of
Norseman fittings; they should be able to supply 316 1 x 19 wire as well as the
fittings. Be sure to follow instructions carefully and seal mechanical fittings with
the proper sealant; I have been told by a master rigger in the BVI's that certain
sealants may attack the integrity of the wire.
Harrison
OptoEngr
See comments below:
>A couple of comments:
>
>If Stalok/Norseman were tested with 302/304 perhaps they may have been even
>"stronger"?
Yes, that's what was done. Of course, all breaks were at fittings.
My bias is that elongation is a lesser evil than breakage.
>I f I were upgrading my own boat and cost was a factor, I would go with
>302/304 of same size with swages at top and Stalok at bottom. If cost was
>not a factor, I would either upsize with standard 316 1x19 or i would go to
>Dyform of same size with Staloks at both ends (Norseman and Stalok
>considered equal)
I agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps one should consider, as part of making
the judgement, whether the rig was conservatively designed in the first
place.
In the case of my own Bristol Channel Cutter, I believed that Lyle Hess was
probably very conservative in spec'ing the rigging, so I had no thought to
upsize. If I were converting say, a Hunter 36 for offshore use, (perish the
thought), I might go up a couple of sizes. Of course, it soon gets to the
point where
the chain plate attachments and deck are the weakest point in the
system.....
pm
>
>Graham
>
>
>
>
>
jktho...@earthlink.net
Some years ago Dyform had a problem with swages - has that been solved ? It was
apparently so slippery that the swage crimping didn't hold. Is there any
problem with StaLocks and Dyform ?
What is the percent cost premium of Dyform over name brand 1x19 316 in the same
size ? What's the percent tensile strength premium of the two ?
Graham wrote:
> >
> >We found that the combination of Norseman/Stalock and 316 is as stronger or
> >stronger
> >than the combination of standard SS wire and swaged end terminals, so
> >we did not recommend upsizing.
> >
>
> A couple of comments:
>
> If Stalok/Norseman were tested with 302/304 perhaps they may have been even
> "stronger"?
>
> I think "stronger" needs some definition - Is this breaking point? This
> would have to be breaking point at the fitting because 316 will break before
> 302/304 if of equal size or so the manufacturers say.
>
> Another remark regarding "stronger". If the 316 stay does not break, but
> elongates more than the 302/304 of the same size, then there is chance that
> the spar will go out of column and could buckle. (It would be interesting to
> see elongation data for wire of different materials.)
>
> I f I were upgrading my own boat and cost was a factor, I would go with
> 302/304 of same size with swages at top and Stalok at bottom. If cost was
> not a factor, I would either upsize with standard 316 1x19 or i would go to
> Dyform of same size with Staloks at both ends (Norseman and Stalok
> considered equal)
>
> Graham
Graham
Harrison Evatt wrote in message <35411E29...@ibm.net>...
>I believe that Norseman/Gibb makes 316 stainless wire. Check with
suppliers of
>Norseman fittings; they should be able to supply 316 1 x 19 wire as well
as the
>fittings. Be sure to follow instructions carefully and seal mechanical
fittings with
>the proper sealant; I have been told by a master rigger in the BVI's that
certain
>sealants may attack the integrity of the wire.
>Harrison
Norseman Gibb do have 316 1x19 and Dyform wire (Cost of this in Canada (for
original posters benefit) is high) The rigger was probably talking about
using regular Silicone Sealant - This releases acetic acid (vinegar) during
the curing process which could corrode the fitting. There are marine and
electrical siliocones that use a different cure process that are suitable as
are several other sealants. (if the silicone smells like vinegar, don't use
it)
Graham
Jordan Bigel
Paul and Cindy Kruse wrote:
>A regluar sling shop will also be able to do spelter fittings for you.
>They are
>more expensive than a swage, but will last longer in a marine application.
>The
>disadvantage is that they will be galvanized instead of CRES, and they will
>be
>fatter and uglier than what you are currently considering.
>
Can anyone go into more detail on "spelter" fittings? What are they?
If they are better than swaged why are they not more widely known
in marine (sailing) circles?
>Sta-Lok's primary market seems to be for people who do not have access
>to proper swaging equipment.
Also, what about this claim? I've known of many who have chosen to use Sta-Lok
(or Norseman) fittings even when proper swaging equipment was available.
Or is Mr. Kruse claiming that most professional riggers do not use proper
swaging equipment?
J.
Graham
Jordan Bigel wrote in message <6i2n9k$g...@lotho.delphi.com>...
>
>Can anyone go into more detail on "spelter" fittings? What are they?
>If they are better than swaged why are they not more widely known
>in marine (sailing) circles?
Jordan - these are industrial type fittings - The wire rope is passed
through the fitting into conical shaped cavity where the strands are splayed
out - Molten alloy (zinc I think) is poured into the conical area and sets
up around the strands - The joint is sound but the units don't look that
good and would be subject to corrosion as does Galvanized wire. These
fittings are best used with galvanized wire and it is hard to find 1x19
galvanized wire these days.
A similar alternative would be Cast Lok fittings which use a similar
assembly, but use an epoxy instead of the alloy.
These types of fittings are sometimes used on home-built budget boats or on
work boats - They don't suit the modern sailing vessel.
>
>>Sta-Lok's primary market seems to be for people who do not have access
>>to proper swaging equipment.
>
>Also, what about this claim? I've known of many who have chosen to use
Sta-Lok
>(or Norseman) fittings even when proper swaging equipment was available.
>Or is Mr. Kruse claiming that most professional riggers do not use proper
>swaging equipment?
>
Mr. Kruses' statement here is as you have noted, somewhat inaccurate. Stalok
and Norseman fittings are the preferred termination for the offshore yacht
that will be exposed to salt and tropical temperatures. They can also be
re-used making repairs in out of the way places possible.
Swaging is inexpensive and fast and is preferred by stock boat builders and
is quite OK provided the fittings are sealed right after swaging, rigging is
regularly inspected and in salt water replaced every say 7 years. (Actual #
open for discussion)
Chuck Rose
Jordan Bigel wrote:
>
> Paul and Cindy Kruse wrote:
> >Sta-Lok's primary market seems to be for people who do not have access
> >to proper swaging equipment.
>
> Also, what about this claim? I've known of many who have chosen to use Sta-Lok
> (or Norseman) fittings even when proper swaging equipment was available.
> Or is Mr. Kruse claiming that most professional riggers do not use proper
> swaging equipment?
>
Swaged fittings are cheaper (Less costly) in materials and labor for a
shop equipped with swaging equipment. If they do enough rigging to
justify the initial investment in tooling, it makes sense. The shop can
do more rigging, offer a more economical alternative to the consumer and
turn a higher profit margin as well.
When I re-rigged Lealea last year, the rigger at Ala Wai Marine
initially questioned my choice of Sta-Lok fittings and tried to convince
me to use swaged fittings instead. He based his argument on cost,
pointing out that I would save a fair amount of money if I used swaged
fittings. I told him I had made my decision and would go with the
Sta-Loks. A little while later he came over to the boat and watched us
at work for while. When I walked up to him he asked a few questions
about what my long term plans were and what I intended doing with the
boat. He looked the boat over and said "OK, now I understand. Come
over to the shop later and I'll show you how to set up that rig
properly." When I went to his shop that afternoon, he explained how
most boat owners didn't want to go to the effort of installing
mechanical end fittings themselves and didn't want to spend the money to
have the yard do the work either. That, combined with the cost of the
fittings themselves, caused most boat owners facing new standing rigging
to opt for the less expensive swaged fittings.
Swaged fittings work fine for 99 out of 100 applications and the have
the advantages of being less costly for the boat owner and more
profitable for the yard. However if you want the strongest, longest
lived setup available with the added advantage of reuseability and
installation with common hand tools, and if cost is a secondary concern,
mechanical fittings such as Sta-Lok or Norseman would be my choice.
Aloha,
Chuck Rose
S/V Lealea
Honolulu
jktho...@earthlink.net
What damage might one expect the vinegar to do to the 316 Norseman fitting or
the 316 1x19 wire ?
Graham
>What damage might one expect the vinegar to do to the 316
Norseman fitting or
>the 316 1x19 wire ?
>
Actually, the acetic acid is released from the silicone as a
vapour so would only become "vinegar" if it was disolved and
diluted with water - it does have a vinegar smell. At 100%
concentration, and tropical temperatures, acetic acid could
be quite corrosive to stainless steel - A table I have says
>0.05" per year, but if pitting occurred, this could be a
lot worse on a small diameter wire - Not much would happen
to the actual fitting except perhaps some surface pitting.
I am not a materials engineer (just a Chem.Eng.), so if you have a
real concern about this, I would suggest contacting General
Electric who make the RTV silicones and ask them - They have
a weath of information provided you get to the right person.
Graham Moss
Anders Svensson
Given that Sta-Lok (similar) end fittings are more expensive (but reusable
for low cost), what about the idea to invest in a larger size of wire, and
go with the cheaper swaged terminals. In that case, the complete cost for a
rig may be the same (or less), but the larger size wire will have longer
life length and be stronger ?
--
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
Chuck Rose <p...@lava.net> skrev i inlägg <35462B...@lava.net>...
Harrison Evatt
If you increase the wire size above the necessary strength needed for a
particular boat and rig design, you are adding weight aloft which may be
detrimental (righting moment, etc). I re-rigged my boat myself using 316
wire and Norseman fittings ( I was in the tropics at the time). I chose
to go with the Norseman fittings and do the rigging myself . The rigger
from whom I purchased the materials gave me a quick lesson review in
installing the Norseman fittings to show me a couple of potential
problems which can occur if you are not careful. I followed the Norseman
and rigger's instructions carefully and took my time . I am confident
that all of my fittings are correctly installed and sealed with the
proper sealant and also loctite for the threads. I have seen many swaged
rigging failures and many swages that are slightly banana shaped on
other people's boats. A swaged fitting which is not smooth and straight
is a potential problem. Also, it is possible to take apart Norseman
fittings to inspect and re-use if you use a new cone. A few hand tools
and care are all you need to correctly install mechanical fittings. I'm
a believer in doing projects myself which I am capable of doing
correctly. I know my Norseman fittings are on correctly. When someone
else installs swages, it's a matter of trust that the swages were done
correctly. I have watched boat yard personnel install swages with less
than a careful approach. It's your rig which you may depend on for
safety; use a reliable rigger or do the job yourself.
Harrison
Paul and Cindy Kruse
Jordan Bigel <jbi...@BIX.com> wrote in part:
< Can anyone go into more detail on "spelter" fittings? What are they?
< If they are better than swaged why are they not more widely known
< in marine (sailing) circles?
"Spelter" is an archaic word meaning "zinc" according to
my dictionary, but it is still commonly used in the
commercial rigging world for a poured zinc type of
fitting. In recent years, a couple of very excellent
rigging hardware companies have introduced an epoxy
compound to replace the zinc. These are often referred
to as "epoxy spelter" fittings, though the fittings
themselves are exactly the same as those used with
poured zinc. A poured zinc fitting is one of a very
short list of terminations that is as strong as the wire
rope. I have tested the epoxy variety and found them to
be equal to the poured zinc. None-the-less, I still
specify poured zinc for my spelter fittings. Call me
old fashioned, I guess.
These are extremely common in commercial and military
marine circles. The only place they are not common is
in recreational applications. The reasons for this,
IMHO, are two fold: They are more expensive than most
other fittings expensive, and they have a commercial
look to them that some folks do not like on their
recreational boats.
< Or is Mr. Kruse claiming that most professional riggers do not use proper
< swaging equipment?
Bingo.
Proper swaging equipment is very expensive, and can only
be justified for higher production applications--or for
lifting applications in which it is often a requirement.
Though I'm sure that someplace it is possible to find a
sailboat rigging shop with proper equipment, but I have
yet to find one myself. This is why I would have all my
rigging done at a shop that specializes in making slings
for commercial and industrial applications.
We have a rigging shop at work that only does work for
rigging used by our company. We do not do any outside
work, so please do not construe this to be a commercial
advertisement. Our two presses are 1200 and 1500 tons.
The dies can cost a thousand dollars each or more. (We
have about two hundred dies.) If you cut through a
swaged fitting, it will look like a solid bar of steel.
You will no longer be able to see the individual wires,
even with a magnifying glass. This is because it was
swaged under enough pressure to cause the metal to cold
flow and weld together. This is what I call a proper
swage, and the only type of swage that our insurance
companies and lawyers will let us use for lifting
equipment. All other types of swages were invented as
work-arounds for people who cannot afford this type of
equipment.
Mark F Edwards
Paul and Cindy Kruse wrote:
>
Mr. Kruse:
Just out of curiosity which company do you work that has a rigging
component? Thanks!
Brian A. Glennon rigger http://www.cgedwards.com
Jean Somerhausen
Anders Svensson wrote:
>
> Given that Sta-Lok (similar) end fittings are more expensive (but reusable
> for low cost), what about the idea to invest in a larger size of wire, and
> go with the cheaper swaged terminals. In that case, the complete cost for a
> rig may be the same (or less), but the larger size wire will have longer
> life length and be stronger ?
>
> --
> Anders Svensson
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Chuck Rose <p...@lava.net> skrev i inlägg <35462B...@lava.net>...
> > Jordan Bigel wrote:
> > >
> > > >Sta-Lok's primary market seems to be for people who do not have access
> > > >to proper swaging equipment.
> > >
> > > Also, what about this claim? I've known of many who have chosen to use
> Sta-Lok
> > > (or Norseman) fittings even when proper swaging equipment was
> available.
> proper
> > > swaging equipment?
> > >
fittings is not due to the fact that you put silicone under pressure
into them, which prevents saltwatder getting into the fittings and
starting the decay of the SS wire. When renewing the rigging for the 28
footer I'd bought second-hand, my rigger injected LifeCalk into the end
fittings before swaging the wire. That should ensure that no salt water
will come into the end fitting and start corrosion. Wonder wether other
riggers do that ?
John
Graham
Jean Somerhausen wrote in message <6ie002$m...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>I actually wonder whether the better reputation of the Norseman/StaLock
>fittings is not due to the fact that you put silicone under pressure
>into them, which prevents saltwatder getting into the fittings and
>starting the decay of the SS wire. When renewing the rigging for the 28
>footer I'd bought second-hand, my rigger injected LifeCalk into the end
>fittings before swaging the wire. That should ensure that no salt water
>will come into the end fitting and start corrosion. Wonder wether other
>riggers do that ?
John
This is interesting - I am not too sure about using Lifecaulk (Polysulphide
sealant), but we had the same thoughts about sealing the swage fittings and
have used a similar process .
We used a 2 part epoxy - We were concerned about getting proper bonding
within the swage, so we only added the epoxy to the last 1/2" (Where the
wire exits the swage). When we pass the assembly through the swage machine,
quite a lot of heat is generated - This makes the epoxy run and also cure
fast - It runs into the wire strands and provides a very good seal at the
end of the swage.
This process adds to the time and we sometimes get epoxy over thr machine,
so we only do it when we know the boat is heading South and Staloks or
Norseman fittings have been ruled out.
I think we might look into a different selant - Maybe 3M 5200? It might hold
without swaging :)
Chuck Rose
Anders Svensson wrote:
>
> Given that Sta-Lok (similar) end fittings are more expensive (but reusable
> for low cost), what about the idea to invest in a larger size of wire, and
> go with the cheaper swaged terminals. In that case, the complete cost for a
> rig may be the same (or less), but the larger size wire will have longer
> life length and be stronger ?
>
> --
> Anders Svensson
> ----------------------------------------
>
Anders Svensson
The idea is that the swaged terminal is at least as strong as the wire,
just like the StaLok or Norseman. The wire will break before the terminals
on any of these, given that they are properly done.
Thats why I suggest that a similar amount of $$ will give you a 30-40 %
stronger rig by going up one dimension instead of getting a (questionable)
extra 5 % or so by going the expensive "StaLok way".
--
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
Chuck Rose <p...@lava.net> skrev i inlägg <354E0E...@lava.net>...
Howard Hering
A major advantage to staloks are that they prevent galling in the stainless
to stainless connection. This is the major source (correct me if I'm wrong)
of failures.
Howard
Jean Somerhausen
Graham wrote:
>
>This is interesting - I am not too sure about using Lifecaulk (Polysulphide
> sealant), but we had the same thoughts about sealing the swage fittings and
> have used a similar process .
>
> We used a 2 part epoxy - We were concerned about getting proper bonding
> within the swage, so we only added the epoxy to the last 1/2" (Where the
> wire exits the swage). >
> without swaging :)
>
> Graham
>
to stainless. Maybe you can tell me.
OTOH, stainless and epoxy have different expansion rates when heated, so
maybe there would still be a possoility of water seepage. As you say, 3M
5200 is an extremely tenacious adhesive AND flexible, so maybe that's
the way to go.
John
Anders Svensson
Swaged terminals do not work anything like the friction cone of a
Norseman/StaLok. A proprly swaged terminal is more like "cold welding" -
that is when metal cold flows and make a excellent non mechanical
connection.
There is a common problem for both kinds of terminals. The wire may not be
perfectly even seated, and some of the strands may be loaded more than
others. Another issue is that the terminal itself "lock" the wire and
doesn't allow it to "work" properly and therefore it invariably breaks
close to the terminal. IMHO, nothing much can be done about this, except
dimensioning correctly.
It is true that the swaged terminal has disadvantages, most often banana
shape (due to uneven pressure from rollers - the wear out surprisingly
fast) or to low swaging pressure. But the leakage problem is IMHO
exagerated. Backside with sealing is that it also traps any moisture that
enters.
Careful sealing is one way to go but well aired stainless does not corrode,
either. Many Scandinavian boats utilise a aluminium tube as bottlescrew and
terminal protector. It is closed by means of a plastic top and open for
drainage in the bottom. That keeps water out (reasonably) but allows air to
ventilate the stainless all the time.
Anyone using 302 or 304 wire together with 316 wire terminals is IMHO
asking for trouble. These stainless metals are quite dissimilar.
--
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
Jean Somerhausen <diplo...@worldnet.att.net> skrev i inlägg
<6ilmgr$7...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
Graham
Anders Svensson wrote in message <01bd77f0$964fa3e0$LocalHost@zrkciqaa>...
>
>Anyone using 302 or 304 wire together with 316 wire terminals is IMHO
>asking for trouble. These stainless metals are quite dissimilar.
>
>--
>Anders Svensson
Anders,
I would be interested in any theoretical or experimental data that you
might have or documented failures caused by using type 316 swage fittings
with 302/304 S/S wire .
This is a very common practice in North America - Most production boats are
built this way and any failures appear to be due to stress chloride cracking
rather than any electrochemical or mechanical failure caused by dissimilar
metals.
In fresh water boats (Great Lakes) we never see fitting failures which would
confirm that the 302 & 316 work fine from a mechanical point of view - the
only failures we see in fittings are on boats that go into salt water and
then return to the Great Lakes.
302 and 316 are different, but they are of the same class of austenitic
alloys with Ni & Cr in approx the same range, so are not really that
different except for the carbon content which presumably provides the
strength in 302 and the Mo which provides the improved corrosion resistance
in 316.
Regards,
Jordan Bigel
Quite interesting. Thank you for the information.
I am quite surprised to learn that there are superiour
rigging techniques used in commercial and military
applications which are not (apparently "easily")
available for the cruising sailboat where ultimate
durability and strength are the key measurements of
quality.
Why do not more riggers use spelter fittings or
proper swaging? As Mr. Kruse describes it, the equipment,
though expensive, would seem to be worth it.
I find it hard to believe that there are no quality rigging
shops that use the proper equipment (as described below).
Are there really NONE? Anyone care to jump in here?
J.
Paul and Cindy Kruse wrote:
>
> < Or is Mr. Kruse claiming that most professional riggers do not use
>proper
> < swaging equipment?
>
Graham
Jordan Bigel wrote in message <6io6io$d...@lotho.delphi.com>...
>Quite interesting. Thank you for the information.
>I am quite surprised to learn that there are superiour
>rigging techniques used in commercial and military
>applications
The kind of swaging referred to (Spelter or Lifting cable types) are usually
used on larger sizes of wire rope for industrial applications. but could be
used on larger boats albeit with something of a rough utilitarian look.
I think it is wrong to say that the methods used in the sailing industry are
work-arounds - In fact the methods used were developed for use on aircraft
and many of the fitting used are made to Military Specs (Look in any
catalogue - you will find MS fittings where the MS stands for Military
Specification). We check our swages for compliance with the Military Specs
just to check that our dies are within tolerance. They are and have been for
many years and do not seem to wear out quickly (as someone inferred).
If you are a home builder on a tight budget, by all means look at Cast Lok
or spelter fittings or check with an industrial rigger to see what they can
do - However, if you are a boat owner, you can rest assured that the likes
of SWAN, Halberg Rassy, C&C and other great boatbuilders did not put second
rate fittings on your boat!
Anders Svensson
The practice over here is to use 316 wire extensively, as for all stainless
boat fittings . The 304 composition is what we call kitchen sink quality.
It is also called 18/8, after the main ingredients of the alloy. This metal
is stainless, but will corrode in agressive surroundings.
The 316 (or 18/10/3) is "acid proof" and is the usual choice for boat
fittings in steel. It is also much used by chemical industries and in
processing plants because often the lesser 304 alloy won't hold up.
I don't know specifically know of any rigging fitting breaking because of
using 304 and 316 together, but the 304 alloy will certainly corrode
easier. OTOH, this combination is seldom seen on boats in Scandinavia.
At least theoretically, this problem is enhanced by having dissimilar
metals close together. I am more worried about the 304 being corrosion
prone than on "galvanic" problems however. The galvanic difference between
passive and active 316 is much greater than the difference between 304 and
316
in "passive" state. If both are active, the 304 will corrode the fastest
(and nastiest)
in seawater, but still much less than ordinary steel.
I see how my wording led you to belive that it was galvanic corrosion that
I was worried about.
--
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
Graham <wind...@cgocable.net> skrev i inlägg
<354f7...@news.cgocable.net>...
Anders Svensson
I think I was the one one who said that swage dies wear out quickly. This
is ofcourse something that can be discussed, and my experience comes from a
summer job on a rig making workshop (not a rigger, but serially producing
complete rigs for boatbuilders) many years ago. Once a month on such a
place may be many years in a more varied workplace.
They do wear (but maybe not "quick"), especially the roller variety used in
"simple" mechanical swage presses. There are also hydraulic presses that
work a little differently (I think one portable version was designed by
Sven Bergström (of Bergström/Ridder fame - but that may be incorrect and
possibly irrelevant).
The difference is that the handcranked ones use the die for transporting
*and* compressing the swage, the hydraulic pulls by the terminal eye and
the rolling dies will only compress, not transport. In that case, you can
use different die material that possibly will have longer life. The swage
press that transports the terminal by pulling in its eye is making a better
job - no question about that.
You will see sometimes, a slight seam on swaged fittings. This is when the
die doesn't quite match the swage, an error that can come from using worn
(equally) dies (or incorrect size dies, there are dies both for mm and
fractional inches - some of them are very close in size)
Another common error, the banana shape comes from dies being worn a wee bit
different in size or by slight differences in friction if made in a
cranking device. A slight bana shape maybe acceptable, but if it is ready
noticeable, the wire will be unevenly loaded.
And yes, I concur with Graham, properly done, a swage will be quite
satisfactory. But you will not be able to make one yourself, as with a
StaLok.
--
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
Graham <wind...@cgocable.net> skrev i inlägg
<354fa...@news.cgocable.net>...
Graham
Anders Svensson wrote in message <01bd7919$186bc060$LocalHost@zrkciqaa>...
>The practice over here is to use 316 wire extensively, as for all stainless
>boat fittings . The 304 composition is what we call kitchen sink quality.
>It is also called 18/8, after the main ingredients of the alloy. This metal
>is stainless, but will corrode in agressive surroundings.
>
>The 316 (or 18/10/3) is "acid proof" and is the usual choice for boat
>fittings in steel. It is also much used by chemical industries and in
>processing plants because often the lesser 304 alloy won't hold up.
>
Anders,
Thanks for your clarification - Just one comment - 304 is actually the best
alloy for some acids - In particular, 304 or 304L stainless is the preferred
alloy in processes containing oxidizing acids like Nitric. In these plants,
316 S/S is not even allowed.
I think that there are some poor grades of 304 and also some items, like
cheap cutlery and some wire and tubing are made using dies where iron
contamination causes surface rust - Not actually corrosion, but does not
look good.
Graham
Jean Somerhausen
Anders Svensson wrote:
>
> The practice over here is to use 316 wire extensively, as for all stainless
> boat fittings . The 304 composition is what we call kitchen sink quality.
>
> > >asking for trouble. These stainless metals are quite dissimilar.
> > >
the old Merriman fittings on stainless steel wire. They were bronze and
the stainless wire was splayed inside the cup and molten zin poured
intro the cup. Quite a cocktail of dissimilar metals, dont you think,
Anders ? But they were indestructible....
Here in the US, the wire manufacturers give the 304 wire a breaking
resistance 10 to 15 % higher than 316. Nigel Warren doesn't speak of
that difference in his book.
John
> >
> >
> >
Anders Svensson
I see how "dissimilar" leads the thought to galvanic corrosion. What I had
in mind (but did not express well) was that corrosionwise, in salt water,
the 304 alloy is so much worse than 316, so anyone using that
(corrosionwise) inferior alloy for wires will take unnecessary risks for
SCC and crevice corrosion.
Scandinavian riggers (at least those I know) use 316 wire extensively, and
redoing rigging is not something you consider a routine thing among sailors
over here. People do it, but not every 5 or 8 years.
--
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
Jean Somerhausen <diplo...@worldnet.att.net> skrev i inlägg
<6iqneg$l...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
Jean Somerhausen
John
Jean Somerhausen
Anders Svensson wrote:
>
> No, I have not. I have read a thing or two, but not that one. If you are
> thinking about any particular corrosion tidbit, share it with us!
>
> --
> Anders Svensson
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Jean Somerhausen <diplo...@worldnet.att.net> skrev i inlägg
>
> > John
> >
Would be too long and probably biolate copyrights.
John
Anders Svensson
Anders Svensson
Ah, I was merely suspecting that there was some really stainless advice (!)
regarding rigging. No, you should not copy a chapter - or even a half. A
sentence or a paragraph may be OK, however.
--
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
Jean Somerhausen <diplo...@worldnet.att.net> skrev i inlägg
<6iv8bj$5...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
Jean Somerhausen
JKline6766 wrote:
>
> When I was looking for inexpensive rigging for my home built schooner, I found
> that I could find high quality 3/8 ss 7x7 used at places that housed chickens
> for the eggs. They had the chickens in cages and everything was automated.
> The manure was drawn out of the chicken house with a tractor pulling the 3/8
> cable through blocks. Chicken manure is highly corosive, therefore high
> quality ss is used. When the cable jumps out of a block and is dammaged, the
> whole 500 ft piece must be changed. I bought the remainder for a song, and I
> could make an eye splice around a thimble by hand very easily with the 7x7.
> Now I know, 7x7 usually isnt used for standing rigging, but it has worked just
> fine for 14 yrs now, with no sign of deterioration.. The only problem is than
> when you unlay it, there is this white powder still inside. chicken manure ;-)
> Jim, Marathon Diesel Repair Inc. www.yanmardiesel.com
Fifty years ago, they practically only used that, because 1 x 19
couldn't be spliced.
John
JKline6766
Graham
Interesting story! What did you call your boat? :)
We had a si,il;at experience looking for 1x19 galvanized wire for a budget
ferrocement boat - We eventually found some, but founds lot's of 7x7 - they
use it on telephone poles.
Graham
JKline6766 wrote in message
<199805091439...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
Peter D. Engels
In article <6j1q96$n...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Jean Somerhausen
<diplo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<Fifty years ago, they practically only used that, because 1 x 19
<couldn't be spliced.
<John
Why not? I owned a Concordia yawl for 20 years; all of its standing
rigging was spliced from 1X19 SS. I believe that all the Concordias (at
least, all that are maintained by the Concordia yard) have spliced 1x19 SS
standing rigging.
--
Pete
Jean Somerhausen
Europe certainly didn't.
John
JKlopman
the differnce is misleading. This is due to the manufactured material.
Actually, 302 wire is rated higher because it can be cold drawn to a greater
degree than 316. The base tensile strength of both is about the same.
Jonathan Klopman
Marine Surveyor
JKlopman
Anders,
I think you're mixing up your corroison mechanisms. galvanic corrosionis
galvanic corrosion, and SCC is SCC, just as crvice corrosion... Some of them
are affected by a difference in galbvanic potential, but it's highly dependent
on the situation. I think that splitting hairs about the differneces in alloys
between wire & fitting is a little off base. After all, the inside of a cracked
swage is not pitted.
Jonathan Klopman
Marine Surveyor
JKlopman
I have a problem in recommending poured sockets to amatuer boaters. I have no
doubt that they are damned strong, but it takes a LOT of experience to get it
right. The ss wire cannot be etched with muriatic as the galv. wire is. Most
folks just aren't set up to pour a bunch of sockets, and when they're done.,
won't test them. I think the Stalok is reasonably idiotproof in that it doesn't
take a lot of finesse to get it right.
Jonathan Klopman
Marine Surveyor
JKlopman
Poured sockets are designed for use with steel wire, not ss. The surface of the
ss is difficult to etch properly. Poured sokets are also rather large and
unsightly for use with a yacht. The pouring process is a mess, and is not
really suited for one by one rigging. Plenty of shops swage properly. It's just
a matter of measuring the OD of the fitting after it's passed to see if it's
the proper dimension. A worn die will yield a thicker swage. Ever cut open a
swage fitting ?- it does look like solid steel.
Jonathan Klopman
Marine Surveyor
JKlopman
The vinegar theory is hogwash.
Jonathan Klopman
Marine Surveyor
Anders Svensson
Reasons for not (usually) splicing 1X19 wire is twofold.
First, it will not be symmetrical if not spliced "19 ways", so it will be
very hard and timeconsuming to splice. Secondly, it is too stiff to turn
around a thimble of reasonably small size - a function of strand thickness.
--
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
Peter D. Engels <pet...@mitre.org> skrev i inlägg
<petere-1105...@engels.mitre.org>...
Anders Svensson
I can't tell, really.
I *suspect* that the tendency for 316 and 302/4 combos to be inferior
corrosionwise is mostly because the 304 alloy being less resistant to
seawater induced corrosion (mainly chloride). The picture is not completely
clear (at least to me) about where and when corrosion reaches harmful
levels, and chloride induced corrosion ("rust"), crevice corrosion, SCC
(STRESS CRACK CORROSION) and electrolytical corrosion may also enhance
each other.
I think, however, that you will be wise in using 316 wire together with 316
terminals (swaged or cone), if only for peace of mind. It is a fact that
most wire/terminals cobos break outside of the swage and the weakened metal
structure may be a function of all or any of the corrosion types.
Empirically, scandinavian boats use 316 wire, and the issue of rerigging is
not as emphasized over here. OTOH, lower temperatures may play a part as
will the fact that we usually take down and stow the masts and rig indoors
during the off season.
--
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
JKlopman <jklo...@aol.com> skrev i inlägg
<199805112342...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
Paul and Cindy Kruse
Jordan Bigel <jbi...@BIX.com> wrote:
< I am quite surprised to learn that there are superiour
< rigging techniques used in commercial and military
< applications which are not (apparently "easily")
< available for the cruising sailboat
They are easily available to anyone. Any commercial rigging shop will make up
sailboat rigging for you, generally for about the same or less cost as your
marine shop. Just check you local yellow pages. I would think that anyone in
the USA would be within 50 miles of at least three or four such shops. Any
major port with commercial or military traffic would also have good rigging
shops close by.
< Why do not more riggers use spelter fittings or
< proper swaging? As Mr. Kruse describes it, the equipment,
< though expensive, would seem to be worth it.
Most sailboat owners would not want spelter fittings on their boats, because
they have too much of a "commercial" look to them. As for swaging equipment,
that is too expensive for anyone who cannot keep it working full time. If I
were to set up a commercial rigging shop from scratch, I would expect to spend
about a million dollars on my swaging and testing equipment.
That is another thing, I would never use any rigging shop that is not set up to
hydraulically test all the rigging they build to 200 percent of its safe working
load. This test equipment is also common in commercial rigging shops. Every
once in a while, you find a bad swage during the proof load test. It also works
to take the stretch out of new wire rope.
One of the most interesting applications that I ever saw for spelter fitting, by
the way; was for equipment for the MIR Space Station. This rigging was made in
Russia. The Russian spelter fittings are much different from ours. They appear
to be easier to install; but they hold the same load as ours in the USA.
Spelter fittings are also required by the elevator code. Most the rides at
Disney World also have spelter fittings. They are the strongest and most
reliable available; and are therefore used in most applications where this is
important. I would use good swages on a day sailor, or on a coastal cruiser;
but would only use spelter fittings with galvanized rope on a blue water
cruiser.
While I do monitor this newsgroup, my server is
famous for losing Usenet articles. If you reply to
this posting, please also route a copy to me via E-mail.
Have a great day,
plk...@iu.net (Paul Kruse)
Anders Svensson
Just some comments:
Spelter fittings (however strong) cannot be used on stainless steel. They
rely on the same effect as soldering and the metal must be "solderable".
Some additives that can be used to etch and clean the metal surface is
highly corrosive and may add corrosion problems in a salt water
environment. That's why Paul specifically said "galvanized wire".
In space programs, lightness is paramount, resistance to salt water induced
corrosion is not. I am sure NASA has the budget and knowledge to use the
very best and most suitable materials, but the parameters to choose from
seem much too different to have real value for boaters
Typical rigging loads for small and medium sized cruisers/racers are fairly
low. The breaking load for 6 mm wire (about the same as 1/4 inch) is in the
nearhood of 3 tons (only!). OTOH, the forestay (the commonly most loaded
wire) is loaded with less than half that on a half-tonner racing boat -
similar in size to a 30-33 foot cruiser. Most cruisers will have a heavier
wire than 1/4 inch, too. (These are approximate standard usage values.
Under peculiar and special circumstances, they may be 100 % off - easily.
Don't flog me with any broken remains of the wire if it breaks...)
I think the 1 mio dollar estimate for a proper rigging shop is exaggerated.
There is no way a swage press and a testing rig would cost that for
dimensions up to 10-12 mm - but it may if you make heavy duty crane
equipment and work with 2 or 4 inch diameter wire.
Swedish safety authoritys (wich I in no way will put any higher than the
Disney World people - but not below either) allow *wire clamps* (authorized
pattern and make) for elevators.
I am not worried about using properly applicated swages at all. They work
well. StaLok and Norseman terminals have a clean track record. I have never
seen spelter terminals on a sailing boat.
--
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
Paul and Cindy Kruse <plk...@iu.net> skrev i inlägg
<VEp71.141$HH4.4...@news1.atlantic.net>...
Graham
Paul and Cindy Kruse wrote in message ...
Part snipped
>
>Spelter fittings are also required by the elevator code. Most the rides at
>Disney World also have spelter fittings. They are the strongest and most
>reliable available; and are therefore used in most applications where this
is
>important. I would use good swages on a day sailor, or on a coastal
cruiser;
>but would only use spelter fittings with galvanized rope on a blue water
>cruiser.
>
Spelter fitings are almost never used on sailing craft whether blue water or
not - exceptions would be a few large home built or budget boats where
Stalok/Norseman or machine swaging is very expensive or outside the range of
riggers' equipment (Most yacht riggers swaging machines only go up to 3/8"
diameter) .
1x19 galvanized is not easy to find and the quality of the galvanizing can
be suspect - At one time high quality galvanized wire was available from
Britain that found use on earlier cruising craft. This would last for some
years in salt water, but eventualy had to be replaced due to rusting - Poor
quality galvanized wire deriorates quickly even in a fresh water environment
.
Failure of stainless steel rigging is not a major problem (with normal
inspection and maintenance) and costs are not exhorbitant, so the only
reason I can see to go to galvanized wire and spelter fittings is if you are
building a 50+ foot boat and you have run out of money.
One other item from Mr Kruses' posting - proof testing of wires for use in
elevators, cranes or Disney rides may be wise - However, this requires a
very expensive Instron machine which riggers just cannot afford to buy
Instead of proof testing, the suppliers of swage terminals provide tables of
dimensions and/or gauges which can be used to check that the swage has been
rolled to the proper diameter - If the swage is within tolerance, it will
meet military specifications for aircraft use and should meet the needs of
any sailor.
Paul and Cindy Kruse
"Anders Svensson" <andrs.-.eiv...@swipnet.se> wrote:
< Spelter fittings (however strong) cannot be used on stainless steel.
This is not true. I have seen CRES rope used with
spelter fittings very successfully on Navy and USCG
boats. Additionally, I have recently written a repair
procedure for the slide wires that would be used by the
Shuttle astronauts for emergency egress from the top of
the pad. These are lengths of CRES wire rope about 1500
feet long and 3/4 inches in diameter, which a basket
containing up to form persons slides down to a safety
bunker. Spelter fittings were the only ones I could get
past the reliability engineers for this application.
< That's why Paul specifically said "galvanized wire".
No, the reason that I said galvanized wire rope is
because it has been my experience that galvanize wire
rope will out last CRES in a marine environment. That
is why it is more commonly used on commercial boats than
is CRES. Besides this, I would just as soon avoid
problems with dissimilar metals.
< Swedish safety authoritys (wich I in no way will put any higher than the
< Disney World people - but not below either) allow *wire clamps* (authorized
< pattern and make) for elevators.
I'm glad you brought up wire rope clamps. I love them.
They are dirty and ugly, but they hold well. They make
great temporary repairs. They work good in some
permanent applications as well. The old design for
those slide wires I mentioned had an unusual arrangement
with wire rope clamps, together with beckets.
< I am not worried about using properly applicated swages at all. They work
< well. StaLok and Norseman terminals have a clean track record. I have never
< seen spelter terminals on a sailing boat.
I'm not sure how we got side tracked onto spelter fittings. I mentioned them in
passing, and they seem to have generated some interest. I have already said
that I would not put them onto most recreational boats.
Paul and Cindy Kruse
"Graham" <wind...@cgocable.net> wrote:
< 1x19 galvanized is not easy to find and the quality of the galvanizing can
< be suspect -
I have never had any trouble finding good galvanized rope in any of the common
constructions. It is easily available from any of my regular commercial
sources.
< Failure of stainless steel rigging is not a major problem (with normal
< inspection and maintenance) and costs are not exhorbitant, so the only
< reason I can see to go to galvanized wire and spelter fittings is if you are
< building a 50+ foot boat and you have run out of money.
I have already said that I would not put spelter fittings onto a recreational
boat; but that I have put them onto many commercial boats. You do not buy
spelter fittings to save money. They are generally your most expensive option,
which is the primary reason that I would not put them onto a recreational boat
where a less expensive option would do just as well.
As for the choice between CRES or galvanized rope, the choice is simple. If you
want something pretty and shiny, they buy CRES. If you have less concern for
that, but want to make it last as long as possible, then buy good galvanized
rope. I learned this years ago when I replaced many CRES slings with galvanized
for use on the warf. The galvanized rope far outlasted the CRES in every case.
< One other item from Mr Kruses' posting - proof testing of wires for use in
< elevators, cranes or Disney rides may be wise - However, this requires a
< very expensive Instron machine which riggers just cannot afford to buy
I seem to have touched a nerve with some marine riggers. That is no wonder,
since I have basically said to avoid them in most cases. All this "expensive"
equipment is standard in any decent commercial rigging shop. This is why I have
suggested having all your marine rigging made in these shops. You will get a
better product, and it will generally cost you the same or less money. While
they buy all this very expensive equipment, they have the commercial volume
required to keep the cost down. They can all provide you with any sort of
rigging you like for your boat, CRES or galvanized.
< Instead of proof testing, the suppliers of swage terminals provide tables of
< dimensions and/or gauges which can be used to check that the swage has been
< rolled to the proper diameter - If the swage is within tolerance, it will
< meet military specifications for aircraft use and should meet the needs of
< any sailor.
< Graham
< Windjammer Sails, Box 23004 Amherstview PO Kingston Ont.
< Canada K0H 1G0. (613) 389-4349 FAX (613) 389-4762
< MAIL WEB SITE
< wind...@fox.nstn.ca http://fox.nstn.ca/~windjamm/
While I do monitor this newsgroup, my server is
Anders Svensson
I should have been more specific:
On the 1x19 stainless wire usually aboard our boats, spelter sockets cannot
(IMHO) be used with any kind of certainty. I am pretty sure that the
stainless NASA space shuttle wire mr Krause was talking about was a
different kind of wire, with more strands. I am not sure he specified a
"spelter" spelter fitting either (spelter is a metal), but a "resin"
spelter fitting
It did not cross my mind that Paul was referring to something else than 19
strand boat rigging wire.
Anders
Paul and Cindy Kruse <plk...@iu.net> skrev i inlägg
<5tM71.190$HH4.6...@news1.atlantic.net>...
> passing, and they seem to have generated some interest. I have already
said
> that I would not put them onto most recreational boats.
>
>
Iain Hibbert
In article <01bd815f$b953e040$LocalHost@zrkciqaa>, Anders Svensson wrote:
>In space programs, lightness is paramount, resistance to salt water induced
>corrosion is not. I am sure NASA has the budget and knowledge to use the
>very best and most suitable materials, but the parameters to choose from
>seem much too different to have real value for boaters
I wouldn't place NASA standards too highly - I remember a quote from one of
the Apollo (?) astronauts regarding safety - loosely 'there we were, on top
of a machine with 30,000 components, each of which was the lowest bid in a
government contract'. And I wonder if they have changed much?
iain
Paul and Cindy Kruse
"Anders Svensson" <anders.-.ei...@swip.net> wrote:
< On the 1x19 stainless wire usually aboard our boats, spelter sockets cannot
< (IMHO) be used with any kind of certainty.
Why is that? Did you read it someplace, or perhaps you learned this from some
tests that you did, or is it just something that you feel ought to be so?
You are right, though; that the slide wires were not 1 x 19. They were 6 x 36
IWRC RRL.
Right off the top of my head, I cannot remember ever putting a spelter socket
onto onto 1 x 19 rope, but it is commonly used on bridge strand wire, which is
similar.
Why are we still talking about this? I have already said several times in this
thread that I would not put spelter fittings onto a recreational boat. I have
put them onto many commercial boats, but always with galvanized wire. The stuff
that I have put onto Navy boats is about half and half between CRES and
galvanized. The only non-commercial privately owned boat that I would put
spelter sockets onto would be a serious passage maker. In that case, I would
most likely not use 1 x 19; but that would have nothing to do with the zinc.
Rather, it would be because I do not believe that it would be the best rope for
that application. Properly swaged sockets and 1 x 19 CRES rope is just fine for
any recreational boat that I have ever seen.
< I am not sure he specified a
< "spelter" spelter fitting either (spelter is a metal), but a "resin"
< spelter fitting
We are talking about poured zinc fittings. I have never yet had the guts to use
the epoxy fittings on a really critical long term application.
Jordan Bigel
Anders wrote:
> I am not worried about using properly applicated swages at all. They
>work well. StaLok and Norseman terminals have a clean track record. I have
>never seen spelter terminals on a sailing boat.
>
>I'm not sure how we got side tracked onto spelter fittings. I mentioned
>them in passing, and they seem to have generated some interest. I have
already
I guess I started by asking about spelter fittings, having never heard of them.
And, as my interest is specifically and exclusively in offshore cruising
(bluewater)
the topic is of some interest to me. Since Paul did (and continues) to
advocate
them for offshore cruisers...
So far, I am distinctly unconvinced either way regarding spelter fittings.
Both sides of the debate are being championed by seemingly knowledgable
parties who make cogent arguments. Thus I am still left with the question:
For offshore cruising boats of 40+ feet LOA, are spelter fittings stronger
and cost neutral (give or take) when compared to tradional swaged or new
style fittings like the StaLock? And, of course, being how (as I have learned)
spelters are Zinc, it would seem an unneccessary risk to use them with SS,
thus indicating galvanized wire.
So the question becomes one of SS/Swaged/StaLok Vs. Galvanized/Spelter.
Of course, given a lack of convincing evidence in favor of the spelter, the
cautious marnier will most likely stay with the traditional, me included
among them.
J.
J.
Anders Svensson
> "Anders Svensson" <anders.-.ei...@swip.net> wrote:
>
> < On the 1x19 stainless wire usually aboard our boats, spelter sockets
cannot
> < (IMHO) be used with any kind of certainty.
>
> Why is that? Did you read it someplace, or perhaps you learned this from
some
> tests that you did, or is it just something that you feel ought to be so?
My reasons: No one I know uses them on boats, 316 wire doesn't solder well.
As I said before, I have not seen them on boats with SS wire rigs - ever.
1x19 is hard to make into a proper, fuzzu wide broom, and I believe that
the spelter adhesion to the wire is paramount for the spelter fitting to
work. The strands are not wedged between the cone and the fitting wall,
with pretension from a screw on fitting like the StaLok, but work by the
cone having the strands embedded and the tension compresses the cone after
sufficient pull. This is probably one of the reasons for always proof
testing spelter fitted wires.
But as you say, it is just an opinion - I have no particular interest of
proving anyone wrong if they are happy with spelter fittings, I just don't
want to use them on sailing boat rigging wire.
>
> Why are we still talking about this? I have already said several times
in this
> thread that I would not put spelter fittings onto a recreational boat.
Beats me too! I seem to recall, however, that you recommended them for
bluewater cruisers - but I may be wrong.
> Have a great day,
Absolutely... May our wire terminals never break - whatever kind ;-)
>
> plk...@iu.net (Paul Kruse)
>
>
Peter D. Engels
Personally, I vote for spliced 1x19 SS wire. Lasts forever.
--
Pete
Jean Somerhausen
packet !
John
d.f...@cat.csiro.au
In article <6jsvml$9...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
Jean Somerhausen <diplo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Peter D. Engels wrote:
stuff deleted
> >
> > Personally, I vote for spliced 1x19 SS wire. Lasts forever.
> >
> > --
> > Pete
> Do you do your own 1 x 19 splicing, Pete. If not, it will cost you a
> packet !
> John
>
I like the idea of hand splicing and am happy to do it myself, but can anyone
suggest where to get a splicing vice (new or secondhand) suitable for 1/4" to
3/8" wire? I cant find one here in Australia.
Cheers
Don
28' timber Buchanan
Brisbane
Australia
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Paul and Cindy Kruse
Jordan Bigel <jbi...@BIX.com> wrote:
< For offshore cruising boats of 40+ feet LOA, are spelter fittings stronger
< and cost neutral (give or take) when compared to tradional swaged or new
< style fittings like the StaLock?
I have never used, nor have I ever tested a StaLock fitting. They are not used
in my industry, and in fact are illegal for all critical applications within my
industry. I will therefore make no further comments concerning them; but will
confine my comments to your other two options. They are either spelter or
swaged. When I say swagged, I am talking about the full cold welded type swage;
which in the sizes you need require a press of about 500 tons to fabricate.
I have made much fuss about the expense of the equipment required to do a proper
swage. This is true. The equipment is very expensive, and cannot be justified
unless you have enough business to keep it busy. In fact, you will not normally
find this sort of equipment in a shop that employes less than about five full
time riggers and wire rope fabrication technicians. Once you have the equipment
and enough business to keep it busy, then the swaged fitting becomes the least
expensive of all options. The fittings are by far the least expensive to buy,
and also the quickest and easiest to install. This is why the least expensive
option for you would be to go to a commercial sling fabrication shop and have
them make your sailboat rigging for you.
Spelter fittings are more expensive. In fact, they are generally your most
expensive option. This is because the materials are more expensive, the wastes
more expensive to dispose of, they are more labor intensive to install, and that
labor requires a higher skill level. I'm not going to mention a price for
installing a spelter fitting, because that can vary quite a lot from one shop to
another. Suffice it to say that we save spelter fittings for only our most
critical applications; in which we are not willing to accept any risk of a rope
failure at all.
One of the really big advantages of spelter fittings is that they can be done in
the field by a qualified person, whereas a swaged fitting cannot. This means
that if you are willing to learn how to install one yourself correctly, then you
can perform repairs yourself on your own boat, even while underway. This is my
primary reason for leaning toward spelter fittings for blue water passage
makers. They are the only high efficiency fitting that you can do yourself on
your own boat without toting along a hydraulic press that weighs about the same
as your 40 foot boat.
The strength of a spelter fitting and a proper swaged socket are the same. Both
will give you 100 percent of the rope's strength. Even the new poured resin
fititngs, which use exactly the same fitting as a spelter fitting, will give you
the same strength. I would also be willing to use them on my own boat.
Keep in mind that we are talking about a large ocean cruiser. For small
recreational boats and coastal cruisers, I would still stick with 1 x 19 CRES
rope and swaged fittings.
< And, of course, being how (as I have learned)
< spelters are Zinc, it would seem an unneccessary risk to use them with SS,
< thus indicating galvanized wire.
Poured fittings, either spelter (zinc) or resin, have the same efficiency and
strength with CRES rope as with galvanized or with plain steel rope. Spelter
fittings are used with CRES rope all the time in very critical applications. I
have load tested many of them to 200 percent of the safe working load, and have
never had a failure.
To me, the only reason for using CRES rope on your boat would be because you
think it is pretty and you like the way it looks, and you do not mind the
additional cost, nor the hassle of having to replace it more frequently. If
these reasons do not apply to you, then do not use it on your boat. Good
galvanized rope will out last CRES rope in a marine environment every time. I
have seen thousands of examples of it in my business over the years, and it
never works out the other way around.
1 x 19 rope has become the industry standard for sailboat rigging for several
reasons. It is commonly and easily available for the CRES rope. It is fairly
cheap, since the riggers buy it in large quantities in the smaller sizes
required for sailboat rigging. It is also a very excellent lay for this
particular application. I would use it for any and all rigging on any and all
recreational boats. I would not automatically use it for your application on a
large blue water passage maker. The reason for this is that while it is a very
excellent choice, it is not the only excellent choice; nor is it even the best
choice for this application. I do not know which rope lay I would use in your
case, since I would have several better choices available to me. We can start
another thread and talk about the different lays of rope that would be good for
this application if you like.
If I decided to use CRES rigging on a boat, then I would most likely use the 1 x
19 construction. This is because it is the only suitable rope that is commonly
available in CRES rope. Not only that, but my decision to use CRES would imply
that I was not terribly concerned with long term reliability for that particular
boat rigging. CRES is the generic term for Stainless Steel, which is a brand
name. It means Corrosion REsistant Steel. While it does resist corrosion, it
does corrode over time in the marine environment. The place where it will
corrode the worst is at the fittings, which are also subject to stress corrosion
cracking after a number of years. This type of corrosion will cause cracks in
the swaged fittings, and will also lead to broken wires. This is why I would
always use galvanized rigging instead of CRES for a truly critical long term
application in a marine environment.
A spelter fitting on galvanized rope will last just about forever. In fact, I
have seen them last 40 years in a marine environment with no special
maintenance, and still be as strong as the day they were poured. All that zinc,
both coated on the wires and also poured into the fitting, serves very well to
protect against corrosion. In contrast, if I had a blue water passage maker
with CRES rigging with swaged fittings on it, I would become concerned enough
about it that I would have to replace is after about six years. My nerves
simply would not tolerate pushing it further than that, based upon my
experiences over the years.
I'm sure that this is not the last word on this matter, but it should serve as a
good spring board for additional discussion.
Chuck Woods
Paul and Cindy Kruse
Just for kicks today, I polled several folks I know in the commercial wire rope
rigging business. All have many years experience in the business, and are
familiar with the special considerations of the marine environment. What I
asked them was:
"If you had a 40-50 foot sailboat, and if you were planning an extended world
cruise of at least ten years, what sort of wire rope and fittings would you use
to rig it?"
Without much hesitation at all, the all said that they would use CRES (SS) rope
and spelter fittings. When I asked them if they would consider swaged fittings,
I got a resounding "Absolutely not." The consensus was clearly that swaged
fittings are only for local boats in which the consequence of a failure are not
life threatening; and where it is fairly easy to get the rigging replaced. Even
then, the only really good reason for using them are that they are cheaper.
So far, they half agreed with me, and half disagreed. I was the only one
holding out for galvanized rope; so I asked them all why they did not select
that as their first choice. The first answer in every case was "Stainless looks
better." We then had long discussions on the reliability of CRES rope in a
marine environment, compared to that of galvanized rope. They have almost won
me over with the idea of using CRES 316 rope for even this application.
They point out that all my experience with CRES rope wearing out much faster
than galvanized rope was with swaged fittings. I had to agree that this was
true. They had experience with CRES rope and zinc spelter fittings, and tell me
that in this application the CRES will last as long as the galvanized rope, and
perhaps longer.
The explanation for all this appears to be that the zinc in the spelter fitting
protects the CRES by serving as a sacrificial annode. One even had experience
with very long sections of CRES rope (as in thousands of feet), in which he
attached propeller shaft zincs to serve the same purpose. That apparently also
worked very well, even though that application had painted steel swaged fittings
at both ends of the CRES rope. He said that it is especially important to
attach the zinc near any connection between the CRES wire rope and a copper
grounding wire. Thinking about it, that makes a great deal of sense to me.
When we talked about using galvanized wire for the rigging, all agreed that
would also work well; but it would be ugly. They also do not mind putting it
onto a commercial boat, but would not put it onto their own boat. We all seemed
to agree that 6 x 19 IWRC would be among the better choices for galvanized rope,
since it seems to hold up better than others. It will have more construction
stretch than 1 x 19, but that can mostly be pulled out by the load testing.
Beyond that, the difference in stretch is not significant. This is also perhaps
the most common of all galvanized wire rope, which makes it an even better
choice.
I make this post mostly to say that while I would still lean toward galvanized
rope for my own boat, I am less biased toward it than before. The reason for
this is the addtional data that my friends were able to give me concerning the
long life of CRES rope in a marine environment, when used with spelter fittings.
One way or another, a spelter fitting is the only fitting that I or any of these
friends would use, if a failure could cost me my life.
Anders Svensson
Hmmm...
I take it that your friends were all sailors ? Have you (or your friend)
used spelter fittings on dyform wire or on 1x19 that is just 6, 8 or 10 mm
(in any application) ?
From what I know of spelter fittings, they work because the spelter get a
good grip on a lot of broomed (bent out and made to look like a broom) wire
strands. Will this really work on (relatively) few strands and small
diameter wire?
Now, I get curious!
--
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
Paul and Cindy Kruse <plk...@iu.net> skrev i inlägg
<v_o91.1255$HH4.2...@news1.atlantic.net>...
Graham
Anders Svensson wrote in message <01bd861c$210dca00$8a5af482@zrkciqaa>...
>Hmmm...
>
>I take it that your friends were all sailors ? Have you (or your friend)
>used spelter fittings on dyform wire or on 1x19 that is just 6, 8 or 10 mm
>(in any application) ?
>
>From what I know of spelter fittings, they work because the spelter get a
>good grip on a lot of broomed (bent out and made to look like a broom) wire
>strands. Will this really work on (relatively) few strands and small
>diameter wire?
>
>Now, I get curious!
Anders,
You make a good point about the smaller sizes of wire used on smaller
craft - What works on a 50 footer may not be the best choice on a 25 footer.
If Mr Kruse and his industrial riging friends are correct, I wonder why
spelter type fittings are almost never seen on cruising boats. We did once
use these ourselves on a 45 ft ferrocement boat along with 1x19 galvanized
wire and this was based on cost - the owner did most of the work. However,
we used epoxy instead of zinc.
I believe Mr Kruse is knowledgeable about industrial/commercial
applications, but he mentioned in an earlier post that he had little
experience with Stalok/Norseman type fittings. These are by far the most
common fitting used on larger offshore yachts (other than swage fittings) -
they have an excellent track record and can be installed (and removed)
without the help of a rigger (commercial or yacht type!) and without the
need of any special equipment or materials. They also look quite good. I
don't think I would want to try removing spelter fittings while at sea.
Graham
PS: I would still avoid using poured hot zinc on S/S wire - If anyone really
wants to use spelter type fittings with S/S wire, consider Castlok or
similar epoxy based systems.
Graham
Paul and Cindy Kruse
"Anders Svensson" <andrs.-.eiv...@swipnet.se> wrote:
< I take it that your friends were all sailors ?
Most were. The one that was not has rigged his share of boats over the last 35
years, including tall ships and a replicas of old Spanish gallion. (For that,
he put the wire rope inside of the hemp rope, so it still looked good.)
< Have you (or your friend)
< used spelter fittings on dyform wire
Yes.
< or on 1x19 that is just 6, 8 or 10 mm
< (in any application) ?
I have never seen a spelter fitting on anything less than a quarter of an inch.
(6 mm). Even on that size, they are extremely rare. They are much more common
on rope 3/8 inch and up. In fact, the larger the rope, the more common the
spelter fittings become.
I do not recall ever seeing a spelter fitting on 1 x 19 rope; but I have seen
them used on bridge strand rope, which would be very similar.
< From what I know of spelter fittings, they work because the spelter get a
< good grip on a lot of broomed (bent out and made to look like a broom) wire
< strands.
You understand it very well.
< Will this really work on (relatively) few strands and small
< diameter wire?
Well, I have seen a whole bunch of them on 6 x 41 IWRC rope, 3/4 inch diameter.
That makes for some very fine wire.
Paul and Cindy Kruse
"Graham" <wind...@cgocable.net> wrote:
< You make a good point about the smaller sizes of wire used on smaller
< craft - What works on a 50 footer may not be the best choice on a 25 footer.
You make a good point. I have never said that spelter fittings were the best
for all boats. In fact, I would only recommend them for a very few boats.
< If Mr Kruse and his industrial riging friends are correct, I wonder why
< spelter type fittings are almost never seen on cruising boats.
I see much the same thing between the large RV crowd and the commercial
truckers. They do not talk with each other. They do not read the same
magazines. Almost no one selling equipment will advertise to both groups at the
same time. Essentially, they are both living in their own respective worlds,
mostly ignorant of each other; yet they are both driving pretty big rigs on our
roads. Things that are common and work very well in the commercial trucking
world are often almost completely unknown in the RV world. This is why an RV is
generally considered "high mileage" at 50,000 miles; but the trucks do not have
any trouble getting a million miles or more.
This is very similar to the difference between commercial boats and recreational
ones. The commercial guys have figured out how to get a whole lot more use out
of their equipment. They do this for a whole lot less money, when you figure
the cost per hour of operation. The questions is, "Why spend a little more
money to make something last longer?" To the recreational guy, that question is
often irrelavant, since his equipment is already lasting "long enough." To the
commercial guy, he jumps at those sort of opportunities.
I have already said that the reasons you do not see spelter fittings on
recreational boats are two fold: First, they do not look pretty. They look
commercial. Second, they are more expensive.
Anders Svensson
Thank you, Paul for the information. You have given me (us all) some
interesting thoughts about alternative rigging methods.
Thanks!
--
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
Paul and Cindy Kruse <plk...@iu.net> skrev i inlägg
<MoD91.1259$HH4.2...@news1.atlantic.net>...
edgar cove
In article <v_o91.1255$HH4.2...@news1.atlantic.net>, Paul and Cindy
Kruse <plk...@iu.net> writes
<snipped>
>
>They point out that all my experience with CRES rope wearing out much faster
>than galvanized rope was with swaged fittings. I had to agree that this was
>true. They had experience with CRES rope and zinc spelter fittings, and tell
>me
>that in this application the CRES will last as long as the galvanized rope, and
>perhaps longer.
Could you define what you mean by 'wearing out' as applied to a SS wire?
Clearly once even a single strand has broken the wire is shot and must
be replaced, but if this did not happen immediately adjacent to the
swaged fitting you can hardly blame swaging for that
>
>
>The explanation for all this appears to be that the zinc in the spelter fitting
>protects the CRES by serving as a sacrificial annode.
<more snip>
Don't like the sound if that at all. In a spelter fixing the zinc is
there to fix the wire to the end fitting, not to dissolve away as a
sacrificial anode because this clearly destroys the strength of the end
fixing even if it does seem to preserve the wire.
>
>When we talked about using galvanized wire for the rigging, all agreed that
>would also work well; but it would be ugly. They also do not mind putting it
>onto a commercial boat, but would not put it onto their own boat. We all
>seemed
>to agree that 6 x 19 IWRC would be among the better choices for galvanized
>rope,
>since it seems to hold up better than others. It will have more construction
>stretch than 1 x 19, but that can mostly be pulled out by the load testing.
>Beyond that, the difference in stretch is not significant. This is also
>perhaps
>the most common of all galvanized wire rope, which makes it an even better
>choice.
<some more snipped>
What do you mean-ugly? Galvanised wire when new looks just as good as
SS but very soon rusts especially at the lower end of the shrouds which
get regularly dunked with salt water. Then you have the difficult
decision as to when the rust has sufficiently weakened the wire to
warrant replacement. The thinner the individual strands which make up
the wire the more serious is the efect of a little rust. IMO you are
seriously misinformed if you have been told that 6 x 19 wire is best for
rigging. This is an ultra-flexible wire made up of 6 wires each of 19
(i.e.very thin) strands arranged around a hemp core and as such is
intended for halliards where its flexibility allows it to go easily
around a sheave. Because of the soft hemp core it stretches quite a
lot. It is quite unsuitable for standing rigging which should either be
1 x 19 (no core 19 strands)which is a smooth wire with minimum
windage, negligible stretch, and thick individual strands or
alternatively use 7 x 7 (7 stranded core round which are wound 6 more 7
stranded wires). This is unsuitable for running round a sheave as it is
too stiff but is intended for standing rigging and has very low stretch
but a little more windage than 1 x 19. The individual strands in 7x7
wire are much thicker than 6 x 19 as might be expected and therefore the
resistance of 7 x 7 to corrosion is much greater than 6 x 19. Don't
know about USA but in UK for generations 7 x 7 has been known as plough
steel rigging wire (don't know how this came about!).
So for standing rigging, whether galvanised or SS you need 1x19 or 7x7.
Keep 6x19 for you halliards and watch out for that rust!
>
>plk...@iu.net (Paul Kruse)
>
--
edgar-(remove nospam from return address for e-mail)
Paul Kamen
Anders Svensson <andrs.-.eiv...@swipnet.se> writes:
>...Have you (or your friend) used spelter fittings on dyform
>wire or on 1x19 that is just 6, 8 or 10 mm (in any application) ?...
I was wondering the same thing. My boat uses 4 mm Dyform (1 x 19 with
wedge-shaped strands, resulting in a tighter packing of the
cross-sectional area and a relatively smooth outer surface).
For that matter, can Norseman or similar be used on 4 mm Dyform? I suspect
that swaging is the only option here.
--
fish...@netcom.com
http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html
-"Call me Fishmeal"-
Graham
Paul Kamen wrote in message ...
>
>For that matter, can Norseman or similar be used on 4 mm Dyform? I suspect
>that swaging is the only option here.
>
Paul, if you have 4mm Dyform , that would most likely be what is called
Dinghy Dyform (1X7) - This is very low stretch stiff wire and the only
recommended termination is to machine swage - Norseman fitttings can be used
with conventional Dyform (using special cone) for sizes of 5mm and up.
The manufacturers even recommend against using Nicopress (Telurit) fittings
with their Dinghy wire.
Hope this helps.
Graham Moss - J-24 # 4260 "Kwela"
Windjammer Sails
wind...@fox.nstn.ca http://fox.nstn.ca/~windjamm/
Anders Svensson
Paul Kruse have given us some interesting info about alternate solutions to
rigging problems. It is most probably true that there are a few ways to
achieve good results here - obviously, spelter fittings and galvanized wire
will work for a number of very serious applications - so using it on boats
(ships?) is quite possible. It is, however, also a fact that it doesn't
seem to be used by "small" boat sailors at all.
I think the reasons for professional (or "industrial" - boat riggers are
IMHO just as professional) riggers to use spelter fittings is mainly
because they can be reused and that they are comparably easy to make in
large dimensions without moving the wire or bringing a (heavy) swage press.
Usually, all commercial rigging and lifting gear is controlled and
certified periodically, and a questionable terminal will be corrected (must
be) before a clean bill of inspection is issued.
This is different on boats. Longevity and maximum strength is very
important, and the emphasis may well be on good looks, cleanliness and
performance (less stretch, small diameter, low windage, compability with
other hardware) and other possible considerations.
The cost of swaging equipment is not such a big problem for the relatively
small diameter wire rope we use. There are even portable swaging presses
available.
I share the view of Edgar and Graham, that stainless 1x19 is a good choice
for standing rigging and also Edgars opinion that multistrand hemp core
wire rope is only suitable as wire halliards. The hemp core is a good oil
magazine, and in "old times" the recommended maintenance for steel wire
rope was to soak it in linseed oil. Linseed oil have quite good
rustproofing propertys, BTW.
This oil also help to lubricate the rope when it passes over sheaves - this
helps tremendously to make the wire rope last longer in moving
applications.
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
edgar cove <ed...@nospam.demon.co.uk> skrev i inlägg
<qcDNLOAF...@coves.demon.co.uk>...
Paul and Cindy Kruse
It would appear as if Anders and I are coming to more or less of an agreement.
None-the-less, I still have a few comments:
"Anders Svensson" <andrs.-.eiv...@swipnet.se> wrote:
< Paul Kruse have given us some interesting info about alternate solutions to
< rigging problems. It is most probably true that there are a few ways to
< achieve good results here - obviously, spelter fittings and galvanized wire
< will work for a number of very serious applications - so using it on boats
< (ships?) is quite possible. It is, however, also a fact that it doesn't
< seem to be used by "small" boat sailors at all.
I must agree with you, that I would not put galvanized rope nor spleter sockets
onto most "small" boats; but then this is the cruising group and cruising boats
are not "most small boats." I would find this to be a perfectly acceptable
alternative on most cruising boats, but certainly not the only alternatives.
< I think the reasons for professional (or "industrial" - boat riggers are
< IMHO just as professional) riggers to use spelter fittings is mainly
< because they can be reused and that they are comparably easy to make in
< large dimensions without moving the wire or bringing a (heavy) swage press.
< Usually, all commercial rigging and lifting gear is controlled and
< certified periodically, and a questionable terminal will be corrected (must
< be) before a clean bill of inspection is issued.
Being able to reuse the fittings is one of the advantages of spelter fittings to
a cruising sailor; but in the industrial world I have rarely ever seen them
reused. Most times, rigging that has failed its inspection is sent to the weld
shop and gas axed; and then put into the scrap metal bin. I guess that it is
just not worth the current labor rates in the USA to reuse these fittings. On
my own boat, however; I would re-use them. This could come in especially handy
for emergency repairs.
< This is different on boats. Longevity and maximum strength is very
< important, and the emphasis may well be on good looks, cleanliness and
< performance (less stretch, small diameter, low windage, compability with
< other hardware) and other possible considerations.
Agreed. You have just listed most of the objectives that a sailor would
consider when selecting a rigging type. Unfortunately, they often conflict with
each other, so that some trade-off's must be made. If the longevity and maximum
strength objectives are most important to you, then go for the spelter fittings.
When the other objectives become more important, especially the cosmetic ones,
then go for something else. You certainly have many options. The only reason
that I brought this up in the first place was that this is the cruising group,
where longevity and strength would often find themselves on the top of the list.
< The cost of swaging equipment is not such a big problem for the relatively
< small diameter wire rope we use. There are even portable swaging presses
< available.
The smallest press normally used for a proper cold weld swaged fitting is 500
tons, which would normally weigh about twenty tons and be wired 480, three
phase. You are right, this is much cheaper than the larger presses. (BTW, five
dollars per pound is not a bad estimate for these presses.) I am also familiar
with portable swaging equipment. We use them all the time for temporary
applications, but never for anything that will still be in service next week.
These are not proper cold weld swages.
< I share the view of Edgar and Graham, that stainless 1x19 is a good choice
< for standing rigging
I agree. It is a good choice, especially if using CRES rope.
It is not, however; the only good choice.
< and also Edgars opinion that multistrand hemp core
< wire rope is only suitable as wire halliards.
Fiber core rope really does not belong on a boat. I know of no good use for it.
Multistrand rope, on the other hand may be used for standing rigging very
nicely. We can get into a discussion on which multistrand wire ropes might be
suitable if you like, since clearly only some of them would be suitable.
< The hemp core is a good oil
< magazine, and in "old times" the recommended maintenance for steel wire
< rope was to soak it in linseed oil. Linseed oil have quite good
< rustproofing propertys, BTW.
Actually, an "oil magazine," is only a side benifit of fiber core rope. It
should never be the reason for selecting it. You use fiber core for
applications where speeds are high and where maximum flexibility is a must; as
with elevator rope. It is not even used in most cranes anymore. None of this
applies to a boat.
I have never used linseed oil on wire rope, though I have heard from the old
timers that it served well in the old days. If you need lubrication on your
wire rope, then much better lubricants are available these days.
< This oil also help to lubricate the rope when it passes over sheaves - this
< helps tremendously to make the wire rope last longer in moving
< applications.
In the industrial world, lubricant is considered mandatory for all running wire
rope. For as little running as the rope on our boats does, however; I would
just as soon do without it. This will not significantly reduce the life of our
rope.
Anders Svensson
Well, Paul, the agreement part is up to you, I still think your advice is a
little bit off. I do think that a different view is important and valuable
sometimes, but don't get me wrong - I will not endorse use of spelter
fittings for boat rigging. But I readily agree (and think) that your
knowledge and experience is refreshing, interesting and valuable.
Spelter fittings may work allright, I will not take upon me to prove that
they don't. But recommending them over stainless cold swaged terminals made
of the same material as the wire, preferably 316, is not something I would
do. I know of no modern sailboat that use spelter fittings, and I think
there must be other reasons than aestetics for that. Combining 19 strand
stainless wire, poured zink, steel in the socket and seawater just
doesn't seem right to me.
I think your definition of cruising boats differ (greatly) from mine, and
that may be a reason for our differing views. However, some of the most
respected boatbuiders over at my (small) part of the world, like Swan,
Baltic yacht, Hallberg Rassy, Najad, Sweden Yachts and a few others build
boats up to 70 feet, and AFAIK, no one uses spelter fittings. Roll swaged
terminals are one common solution, as is reusable screw and cone terminals
of different makes.
I also suspect that you mix up press swaging with roller swaging when you
relate to wheight and cost of equipment. For those really interested in
this issue, there are a few sites, among them
http://www.wireteknik.se/history.htm to look at. These presses wheigh in at
about 80-150 lbs in dimensions for boats, and even a press able to swage 1
inch wire wheighs "just" 770 lbs.
As for industrial usage vs recreational, the comparisons are always
interesting. "Industrial strength" is something that many boaters want, but
could it be that rigging sailboats may be so specialised that the rest of
the wire rope industry have relatively little to contribute ?
--
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
Paul and Cindy Kruse <plk...@iu.net> skrev i inlägg
<l2Sb1.104$%o1.3...@news1.atlantic.net>...
Paul and Cindy Kruse
"Anders Svensson" <andrs.-.eiv...@swipnet.se> wrote:
< I will not endorse use of spelter
< fittings for boat rigging.
Suit yourself.
< But recommending them over stainless cold swaged terminals made
< of the same material as the wire, preferably 316,
Part of the beauty of a spelter fitting to me is that it eliminates the 316
fittings. I have seen too many of them used for sailboat rigging eventually
fail due to stress crosion cracking. I have also had to remove 316 from other
high stress marine appications as will, for the same reason.
< Combining 19 strand
< stainless wire, poured zink, steel in the socket and seawater just
< doesn't seem right to me.
Once again, suit yourself. As for me, I have seen it work very well in this
application many times.
BTW, why do you keep coming back to the 1 x 19 wire rope?
Why do you think it is so much to be prefered over the other structural and
bridge strand constructions?
< I think your definition of cruising boats differ (greatly) from mine, and
< that may be a reason for our differing views.
Apparently so. I split cruising boats into two groups: 1) The local short
duration local cruiser, also called a coastal cruiser. These I would treat just
like any other recreational boat for rigging purposes. 2) The long distance
blue water cruiser, which should be capable of a world circumnavigation if the
captain so desires. What I have said about spelter fittings would really only
apply to this second group.
< I also suspect that you mix up press swaging with roller swaging when you
< relate to wheight and cost of equipment.
I am very familiar with roller swaging machines. They use the same fittings as
my presses; and they also weigh about the same, if not a little more. They make
exactly the same product, but they do it much more quickly for production
applications. Their other advantage is that they do not require a large
collection of expensive dies to operate.
< For those really interested in
< this issue, there are a few sites, among them
< http://www.wireteknik.se/history.htm to look at. These presses wheigh in at
< about 80-150 lbs in dimensions for boats, and even a press able to swage 1
< inch wire wheighs "just" 770 lbs.
Thanks for the tip. I have requested much more detailed information from them.
If I get it, I'll report back after I have a chance to evaluate it.
< As for industrial usage vs recreational, the comparisons are always
< interesting. "Industrial strength" is something that many boaters want, but
< could it be that rigging sailboats may be so specialised that the rest of
< the wire rope industry have relatively little to contribute ?
Nope, I doubt it. An industrial rigging fabrication shop can make very
excellent rigging for recreational sailboats, and also for the blue water
cruisers. Generally the cost will be less and the reliability higher.
Jean Somerhausen
remarking on "socket" terminals with zinc filling (which I suppose is
"spelter" terminals), may I again quote from Illingworth's "Offshore" ?
(1963 edition) "The combination of stainless steel rigging with swaged
ends is generally accepted as being superior to other arrangements. It
is in less general use in England, particularly on account of its high
cost. But its long life offsets much of this.... Another system, which
has Admiralty approval, is the "Talurit" where the wire is calmped by a
sleeve after being passed round a thimble. This has been used on "Maica"
for three seasons with success... A further alternative to the swaged
terminal is one of the several systems in which the strands are
splayed out beyond the terminal and secured by running in solder. This
work can be done locally in the yard, but one of the dangers is that
when heating up the terminal with the wire in place, the temperature is
allowed to rise too high and the temper of the wire strands is affected.
It is probably quite safe if the rigger-turned-coppersmith is careful
and in practice, but I have seen some fair circuses as a result of doing
the job on boartd with a portable forge in a breeze". A bit further,
Illingworth says: "A fairly recent development...is the preforming of
the strands" and "Of recent years, there has been a general move twoards
the use of bigger individual wires in the strands, and in many cases, in
spite of it being almost impossible to splice, use is often made of
monitoron (sic) wire of 1 x 19".
From that one can deduce that the socket and zinc ("spelter" ?) was
mostly used with 7 x 7 non-preformed wire which could easily be splayed
out before pouring the zinc ("solder" ?). This was the standard rigging
method which I saw in 1966-69 in Rio de Janeiro on board the Sparkman
and Stevens 1940 built "Brazil" class sloops ( very closely related to
the NY 32's).
John
Anders Svensson
The reason for coming back to 1x19 is that it seems to the overwhelmingly
preferred choice for sailboat boat standing rigging applications - from the
point where I am looking at it, at least. Without being an wire rope
expert, it also seems to be a good combination of flexibility, low stretch
and strength for sailboat mast rigging.
--
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
Paul and Cindy Kruse <plk...@iu.net> wrote:
>
> BTW, why do you keep coming back to the 1 x 19 wire rope?
>
> Why do you think it is so much to be prefered over the other structural
and
> bridge strand constructions?
>
>
> plk...@iu.net (Paul Kruse)
>
>
Paul and Cindy Kruse
"Anders Svensson" <andrs.-.eiv...@swipnet.se> wrote:
< The reason for coming back to 1x19 is that it seems to the overwhelmingly
< preferred choice for sailboat boat standing rigging applications - from the
< point where I am looking at it, at least. Without being an wire rope
< expert, it also seems to be a good combination of flexibility, low stretch
< and strength for sailboat mast rigging.
It is a good choice. I was just wondering why you kept
talking about it as if it were the only choice, which
clearly it is not. I believe that the reason it is used
so extensively has more to do with the fact that it is a
commonly stocked rope that you can buy without waiting
for a back order to be filled, even at a small shop. I
guess that is at least partly because it is also
commonly used in the aviation world.
Who is using Dyform out there?
If so, what type and how do you like it?
Paul and Cindy Kruse
Jean Somerhausen <diplo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
< To rekindle the discussion on this subject, to which I contributed by
< remarking on "socket" terminals with zinc filling (which I suppose is
< "spelter" terminals), may I again quote from Illingworth's "Offshore" ?
< (1963 edition)
Wow!!! You really hang onto those reference books.
Lots has changed in rigging since 1963, but the spelter
sockets are still much the same.
BTW, if you look up "spelter" in the dictionary, you
will find that it is a synonym for "zinc."
< "The combination of stainless steel rigging with swaged
< ends is generally accepted as being superior to other arrangements.
What sort of swaged ends was it talking about? In the
industrial world, it is very common to put carbon steel
swages onto CRES wire rope. That works very well, but
must be painted regularly if used in the marine
environment.
< Another system, which
< has Admiralty approval, is the "Talurit" where the wire is calmped by a
< sleeve after being passed round a thimble.
This is also a very excellent practice, when used with
Flemish Eyes; but is not as strong as a socket
fitting--either of the swaged or the spelter type. This
is OK, as long as you take this into account when you
design the system.
BTW, a Flemish Eye with a couple of wire rope clips will
have at least 75 percent of the strength of the wire
rope, more in many cases. (Depends upon the diameter of
the rope, and I do not have the specific references in
front of me right now.) This makes an excellent quick
repair.
< This has been used on "Maica" for three seasons with success...
And now doubt. I would expect any good swage to last at least this long.
< A further alternative to the swaged
< terminal is one of the several systems in which the strands are
< splayed out beyond the terminal and secured by running in solder.
Be very careful of that one. No doubt that there is
something here that I do not understand due to
incomplete information. Using solder in place of zinc
is extremely dangerous, if we are talking about common
solder and common poured fittings.
< "A fairly recent development...is the preforming of
< the strands"
I like that. You would be hard pressed to find wire rope that is not preformed
these days.
< and "Of recent years, there has been a general move twoards
< the use of bigger individual wires in the strands, and in many cases, in
< spite of it being almost impossible to splice, use is often made of
< monitoron (sic) wire of 1 x 19".
It is amazing to hear something that is so common place
today referred to as if it were new and innovative. I'm
glad you keep your reference books so long.
< From that one can deduce that the socket and zinc ("spelter" ?) was
< mostly used with 7 x 7 non-preformed wire which could easily be splayed
< out before pouring the zinc ("solder" ?). This was the standard rigging
< method which I saw in 1966-69 in Rio de Janeiro on board the Sparkman
< and Stevens 1940 built "Brazil" class sloops ( very closely related to
< the NY 32's).
The most common ropes that I have seen spelter fittings
on are 6 x 19 IWRC and 6 x 37 IWRC, all preformed, of
course. I have seen many of them on 6 x 41 IWRC, also;
but they are also used on bridge strand and structural
strand rope extensively. (1 x 19 is one of the
structural strand ropes.)
BTW, it occurs to me that I have used the acronym "IWRC"
many times in this thread without explaining it. It
means "Independent Wire Rope Core." That is essentially
a seventh strand that runs straight down the center of
the rope.
You can pretty much assume that any rope you buy today
is preformed.
Paul and Cindy Kruse
Much has transpired in this thread in rec.boats.cruising
concerning wire rope rigging, so that I felt it
profitable to summarize it all into one note. We have
been addressing the value of different types of wire
rope terminations, and to a lesser degree different
types of wire rope.
I have seen this entire subject from the perspective of
a commercial/industrial rigging engineer; whereas others
who have participated in this thread have seen it from a
perspective of a more typical recreational boat rigger.
I worked with wire rope first in a job as a design
engineer for a company that designs and builds
airplanes. Then I got a job as a engineer designing
special lifting equipment and rigging for the US Navy.
For the last ten years, I have worked for a commercial
heavy equipment company. We have a number of mobile
cranes up to 300 tons, and overhead cranes a little
bigger than that. We have rented mobile cranes up to
900 tons; but we also do a lot of smaller work with
quarter and three-eights inch wire rope. To support all
this lifting work, we have our own wire rope rigging
fabrication shop. (We only do rigging for ourselves;
but our rigging shop keep seven people employed pretty
much full time.)
I am also familiar with many other commercial rigging
shops in Central Florida, since I have bought much
rigging from them over the years in my various jobs.
Being a sailor, I am also familiar with sailboat
rigging. The point that I have been debating in this
thread is that commercial rigging shops can fabricate
very excellent sailboat rigging, which is more reliable
than much of the rigging often used on them, and that
they can often do this at a lower cost than conventional
recreational marine rigging. I was careful to throw the
word "recreational" in that last sentence, since for the
most part the commercial marine world already buys their
rigging from the same places that I do.
Central Florida has a booming construction industry. We
also have a number of commercial ports. The rides at
Disney and Universal have many hundreds of miles of wire
rope rigging between them. All this supports a larger
than normal number of rigging shops in Central Florida.
All these shops that I am familiar with also do a very
high volume of business on the recreational sailboat
market. Many of our marinas do not have their own
rigging facilities, since it is much more cost effective
to simply have the rigging fabricated at a commercial
shop. We have always had commercial rigging on our
sailboats. I know of two commercial rigging shops that
contract to fabricate sailboat rigging for sailboat
manufacturers. I say this only to point out that this
is not a new idea that originated with me.
I have intended everything that I have said in this
thread to apply to cruising boats only, since this is
the cruising forum. If you race your sailboat, or if
you have a day sailer that you take out occasionally on
nice days, then what I say here may not apply to you. I
am only addressing boats that people live on and cruise
with. Even these I divide into two different
categories: Those that cross oceans, and those that do
not. If you are never more than a day or two from a
safe anchorage, or if you can reasonably call for a tow
and have it within a day, then your rigging is not
nearly as critical as someone who is crossing oceans, at
least not in my mind.
I know of only two different types of wire rope
terminations that will reliably give you 100 percent of
the strength of the wire rope. These are swaged sockets
and poured sockets. (Well, OK, I'll mention a third
later.) A poured socket is most frequently called a
"spelter socket," since they are most commonly poured
with molten zinc. Spleter is another name for zinc. In
recent years, various epoxy compounds have become
available to replace the zinc, but they all use exactly
the same terminal fittings. All these are perfectly
acceptable fittings for a cruising boat.
When I speak of a swaged fitting, I am talking about a
cold welded swage. The cold weld it achieved by using
so much pressure in the swaging press that the metal in
the wire rope and the metal in the swage fitting flow
together and become one. If you cut this fitting in
half, it will look exactly like a solid bar of metal.
You will not be able to see the individual wires
anymore. For the sizes of rigging common to cruising
boats, this would require a 500 ton press, which would
typically weigh about fifteen to twenty tons.
No one can afford the equipment to make these cold
welded swages, unless they have enough work to keep the
presses busy. You will find many other types of swages
and fittings on the market. For the most part, they are
all cheap work arounds for shops that cannot afford the
equipment for a proper swage. I find all other types of
swages to be completely unacceptable for cruising boats
of any type. They are in fact illegal in my industry,
or in any other industry in which very high reliability
is demanded from the rigging. A cruising sailor should
demand no less from his rigging.
Many companies sell wedge and cone type fittings, which
are screwed together with hand tools. These have the
advantage of being re-usable. They also make great
temporary emergency repairs, if you choose to carry them
in your emergency rigging kit. These are also illegal
in my industry for the same reason as cheap swages.
Non-the-less, I have used them for many non-critical
applications. They work great in places where
reliability is less important than convenience.
A slight variation of the wedge and cone is a very
excellent choice for cruising rigging. Up until now, we
have not talked about it in this thread. This is the
type of fitting that incorporates an epoxy compound,
which is squeezed though the wires as the fitting is
screwed together. I have tested these, and found them
to be as strong as the wire rope. They have also proven
to be very reliable. The only reason that I would not
use them on my boat is that other options offer equal
strength and reliability for less cost. If you are
interested in them, check with your local commercial
rigging shop. Most also sell these fittings, or at the
very least they should have catalogs available to order
them from.
The spelter socket is the only other fitting besides a
cold welded swage that I would consider for my own boat.
I much prefer the zinc to the epoxy compound. This is
because I know that the zinc will last for forty years,
but the epoxy has only been around for a few years, so
that I have no idea how long it will last in the marine
environment. I also like the fact that the zinc in the
spleter fitting will act as a sacrificial anode, so as
to extend the life of the wire rope. Spelter sockets
can be used on any rope type that you might use on your
boat, stainless or galvanized, large wires or small
wires, pre-formed or not.
Several different types of eyes are also acceptable wire
rope terminations. Just be aware that none will offer
you 100 percent of the strength of the wire rope, though
some come close. The Pardey's are lovers of the hand
eye splice. They like it because it is easy to inspect,
and because they can do it themselves. (I like the
spelter for the same reasons.) This splice is also
about the least efficient in terms of strength, but it
is very reliable. As long as you take the reduced
strength into account when you design your rigging, the
eye splice is perfectly acceptable for cruising rigging.
Personally, I do not like them.
The turn back eye with a cold welded duplex swage is
another option. I do not like it nearly as well as the
swaged Flemish eye, since the Flemish eye will retain
most of its strength even after a swage failure. While
we are talking about Flemish eyes, it is good to point
out that a Flemish eye with a couple of wire rope clips
is nearly as strong as a swage. Naturally, any eye
should also have a thimble in it to protect the rope.
This thread got started talking about 316 CRES swages.
I do not like 316 CRES for use in any marine
application, especially in swages. Die penetrant
inspection will begin to show stress corrosion cracks in
a 316 CRES swage used in a marine environment after
about three or four years. By the time six to eight
years have passed, the cracks are generally large enough
to see with the naked eye. If I were to use a swage on
a cruising boat, I would use either a carbon steel one
and keep them painted, a common practice in industry; or
else I would simply perform regular periodic die
penetrant inspections and plan to replace the rigging
when the cracks begin to show up.
These cracks will always be parallel to the axis of the
rope. I have never seen them any other way. If your
swage is a proper cold welded one, you will still have
most the strength of the swage left; so that you should
have plenty of time to order your replacement rigging
and install it before a serious problem develops.
We have mentioned many rope types in this thread. By
far the most common in sailboat rigging is 1 x 19 CRES.
This is an excellent choice for most sailboats, but I
would not use it on a long distance cruising boat. I
understand the objectives that it is intended to meet in
most boats that use it, but my objectives in a cruising
boat would be different. The single biggest factor in
my decision is that if I break one wire in this rope,
then I have lost more than five percent of my strength.
If I have more wires, then I can afford more broken ones
before I have to replace it. In this way, once the rope
wears out and the wires start to break, I would have
more time to make it to a port where replacement would
be easier. For 6 x 19 IWRC rope in the lifting
equipment world, for example, I am allowed five broken
wires in one lay, or three broken wires in one strand in
one lay. In other words, I could have a bunch of broken
wires and still have most of my strength left.
The only thing that I would lose in going with more
wires that are smaller is that my rope will stretch more
than the 1 x 19 rope. In some cases, the overall
strength of the rope will be slightly less, which must
be accounted for in the system design. So I would be
willing to accept slightly more stretch, and perhaps a
slightly larger rope in order to have the higher
reliability of having more wires.
If you stay with a structural strand rope, of which 1 x
19 is a type, then you will minimize any additional
stretch. Perhaps a 1 x 49, a 7 x 7, or a dyform type
rope would be a good alternative to 1 x 19. Personally,
I would buy 6 x 19 IWRC, which is not a structural
strand, simply because it is the most common and least
expensive; and for the type of cruising that I would
like to do I would never be able to see any difference
in performance. This is the most common rope that I
have seen used as structural stays on commercial boats.
If you have your ropes fabricated at a commercial
rigging shop, then have them proof load them to forty
percent of breaking strength. That will take out most
of the constructural stretch anyway.
As for the comparison between Corrosion REsistant Steel
(CRES) and galvanized rope; that is mostly a matter of
personal preference. The galvanized rope will be a
little stronger, if you watch what type of rope you buy.
If you use swaged fittings, then the galvanized rope
will far out last the CRES in a marine environment; but
they seem to be about equal in life if you use spelter
fittings on the rope. This is because the zinc in the
spelter fitting will protect the CRES wire rope from
corrosion. Really, the only justification for using
CRES rope on a cruising boat is cosmetics.
I'll close with an example that came to me this last
Saturday. I was contacted by someone who has just
completed the first leg of a seven year world
circumnavigation in a 75 foot catamaran. They had a
rigging failure, and now find it necessary to replace
all the rigging on the boat. They contacted me with the
idea of using galvanized rope and spelter fittings. I
told them that this is the perfect rigging solution for
their application, and also gave them a bunch of
information concerning their choices in different ropes
and fittings. If this were my boat and I were making
that trip, then I would put nothing else on the boat;
and I would rest assured that I had the strongest and
most reliable rigging available.
On the other hand, if I were mostly cruising the Eastern
coast of the USA, with winter excursions to the Islands,
then I would most likely have CRES wire rope with CRES
swages. All this rigging would be fabricated in
commercial rigging shops with cold weld type swages. I
would monitor them for cracks, and replace all the
rigging when I found them. Replacement really would not
be a problem, since I would never be more than a day or
two away from a good commercial rigging shop.
We have spent a great deal of time debating this issue,
which I will not do anymore. There is no profit to it.
If, however, anyone can come up with some new questions
and comments that we have not yet covered; then I would
be happy to continue this thread.
Anders Svensson
Just like Paul, I contacted friends in the business (a well known Swedish
rigging company) and got some comments that I recite informally:
Swaged stainless terminals is considered to reach about 90 % of the wire
strength - not 100 %. That is because the swage "locks" the wire and makes
it less strong than in its optimal, free state. So dimensionwise, it is
propably correct to count on the breaking strength of a wire-swaged
terminal combo to be 90 % of the nominal wire breaking strength.
This person also verified that cone and screw terminals may be slightly
better in strength, but cost more, and also that the scope for "user
errors" is a little higher. However, they use them for their roller furlers
because that is a perfectly good and practical solution where a swaged
terminal won't be practical.
The gradual opening of the swage's outer end is important, as not to give a
sharp edge and induce wire strand breakage, but is recognized as a
potential opening for crevice corrosion. A (part) solution to this problem
is to protect the opening from rain and salt spray as much as possible.
After comprehensive tests, they are under the firm opinion that the
standard 316 composition is a little on the low side. The molybdenium
content is the most important, and should be at least 3 percent, something
that the (Swedish) SIS2343 standard recognizes. Their specified terminals
and wire material is therefore held as slightly "better" than standard 316
alloy, corrosionwise.
Carbon steel is stronger than stainless in general. The problem with
galvanized wire is hidden rust, that weakens the individual strands.
Galvanizing counteract the rust, but only for a short period of time and if
the wire strands are not stripped of zinc due to excessive "working" -
something that very flexible wire can be prone to do. But, until the
galvanization is gone and rust starts, this wire may be "stronger" in all
respects.
Life lenght of a stainless rig of "proper quality" (observe that they were
not completely happy even with 316 alloy) is considered as "forever" for
coastal cruising. They also said that a properly designed and dimensioned
rig would last a world cruise, without problems. They emphasize that a
correctly designed cruising rig would have very large safety margins.
The first warning signs are broken wire strands. A loss of one strand is
(as correctly stated by Paul) meaning a loss of over 5 % (1of the 1/19
strands equals 5.27 %). This is invariably the first warning of metal
fatigue - often a function of "sloppy" rigging dangling about. If such a
thing happens, the wire need to be changed.
So, in short:
If you want to use stainless rigging, buy quality, and check on
specifications. 316 is IMHO a minimum, and there are better alloys
available. The lower terminals (open upwards) are the ones that may
corrode, and sloppy rigging will make metal fatigue happen earlier, not
later.
Anders
Graham
Paul and Cindy Kruse wrote in message
<5pIc1.12$Lr2.2...@news1.atlantic.net>...
Section snipped
>
>
>No one can afford the equipment to make these cold
>welded swages, unless they have enough work to keep the
>presses busy. You will find many other types of swages
>and fittings on the market. For the most part, they are
>all cheap work arounds for shops that cannot afford the
>equipment for a proper swage. I find all other types of
>swages to be completely unacceptable for cruising boats
>of any type. They are in fact illegal in my industry,
>or in any other industry in which very high reliability
>is demanded from the rigging. A cruising sailor should
>demand no less from his rigging.
The type of swage fitting commonly found on North American boats are put
together using a machine such as a Loos Locoloc - These machines are not
overly expensive nor heavy and they conform to Military specs - MIL-S-6180
to be precise - This is the machine often referred to as a Kearney in the
sailing industry The European Wire-Teknic uses a similar swaging principle
and is I am sure equivelent if not better. These machines were developed for
and are commonly used for the production of aircraft cables but are also the
standard in the sailing industry. Swages done with this type of machine are
also approved by Lloyd's Register of Shipping.
If this type of swage is acceptable to Lloyd's, the military and the
aircraft industry, it is puzzling why Mr. Kruse would feel that they would
not be acceptable for a sailboat.
>Many companies sell wedge and cone type fittings, which
>are screwed together with hand tools. These have the
>advantage of being re-usable. They also make great
>temporary emergency repairs, if you choose to carry them
>in your emergency rigging kit. These are also illegal
>in my industry for the same reason as cheap swages.
>Non-the-less, I have used them for many non-critical
>applications. They work great in places where
>reliability is less important than convenience.
Once again, Mr. Kruses' opinion is puzzling. The type of fittings referred
to are those made by Norseman and Stalok and others. Once again, these
fittings are approved by Lloyd's Register of Shipping . They are also the
fitting of choice of most large long distance cruisers - If anyone doubts
this, walk around the docks in Fort Lauderdale and do a survey.
>
>This thread got started talking about 316 CRES swages.
>I do not like 316 CRES for use in any marine
>application, especially in swages. Die penetrant
>inspection will begin to show stress corrosion cracks in
>a 316 CRES swage used in a marine environment after
>about three or four years.
Actually, we have found that dye penetrant does not show the cracks until
they reach the outer surface - The cracks appear to start from the inside at
nodes formed between the wire and the fitting and work their way outwards -
Taking a section through a cracked fitting will show many cracks that have
not yet reached the surface where they could be detected - It is sometimes
possible to see these cracks at the edge of the swage and these cracks can
often be seen with a magnifying glass. Testing of swage fittings is not
easy and if anyone can suggest a practical method, I would be interested.
Otherwise, have the ends inspected regularly and replace in salt water at
regular intervals (We are not in salt water or the tropics, , so would
suggest a company like Sailing Services in Miami for actual recommended
frequency)
>We have spent a great deal of time debating this issue,
>which I will not do anymore. There is no profit to it.
Let's leave it at that - Mr. Kruse has some interesting ideas that are
different from established practice in the sailing world - Each of us will
make our own evaluation - I will go with the recommendations of Lloyd's and
use Stalok/Norseman for heavy duty offshore applications and continue to use
machine swaging for smaller boats and fresh water applications up to the
limits of our equipment.
Graham
Graham
Paul and Cindy Kruse wrote in message
<5pIc1.12$Lr2.2...@news1.atlantic.net>...
>Spelter sockets
>can be used on any rope type that you might use on your
>boat, stainless or galvanized, large wires or small
>wires, pre-formed or not.
Just a word of caution here - If anyone considers using spelter fittings
with stainless wire, it may be wise to use epoxy instead of zinc. I did
mention this before but think it is worth emphasizing again.
When hot zinc contacts stainless steel under stress (as in a wire), the zinc
can form a weak zinc rich alloy at the crystal boundaries and failure under
load is likely. I do not have any evidence of this happening in wire rope,
but it has happened in other applications - for example splatter from
welding galvanized steel landing on stainless pressure piping.
The wire within the zinc "cone" may not matter, but breakage is possible
just as it exits (where full strength is required)
Graham
Paul and Cindy Kruse
"Anders Svensson" <anders.-.ei...@swip.net> wrote:
< Swaged stainless terminals is considered to reach about 90 % of the wire
< strength - not 100 %. That is because the swage "locks" the wire and makes
< it less strong than in its optimal, free state.
So now I guess we know at least part of the difference between the swages that
you use, and the ones that I use.
Jordan Bigel
Paul Kruse wrote:
>If, however, anyone can come up with some new questions
>and comments that we have not yet covered; then I would
>be happy to continue this thread.
Paul,
I have only one question. I think it has been asked,
but I don't recall hearing (reading) your reply on it.
>environment. I also like the fact that the zinc in the
>spleter fitting will act as a sacrificial anode, so as
>to extend the life of the wire rope. Spelter sockets
You *like* the fact that the zinc will act as a sacraficial
anode - but doesn't that mean it disintegrates thus
weakening the fitting? If not, please say WHY not.
Thanks!
Jordan.
Jean Somerhausen
of a lightning strike. Epoxy loses all its strength at about 400
degrees F. and melts. Temperatures in lightning strikes are much higher
than that.
John
Anders Svensson
Maybe not.
The recommendation/opinion (I hesitate to call it "fact") is based on a
cautionary rule, not on the actual experience. It is just as proper to
reason: "The swage must be stronger than the wire because the wire
invariably breaks before the swage does" - but according to my informer,
the swage (all swages) interfere with the wire.
I am reasonably sure that any cold swage, wether rolled or pressed, that
cold flows and makes the wire "solid" will have this effect.
I think that this "debate" has gone far enough. The "(my) Bluewater boat
(is cruisier than yours)" was quite enough, and a similar one that goes on
forever along the lines of "my wire fittings are cruisier than yours" seem
quite unneccessary. Falling masts and broken rig wires is not a big
cruising problem, in spite of what you may think when reading this thread.
I am sure Pauls rigging experience is great, but there is a proved and
working solution available. If Paul, who is both (he says so himself) a
rigging specialist and a sailor, his solutions and alternatives may work
very well - but they are alternatives to what is considered as "standard"
for sailing boats.
--
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
Paul and Cindy Kruse <plk...@iu.net> skrev i inlägg
<u7_c1.74$Lr2.7...@news1.atlantic.net>...
> "Anders Svensson" <anders.-.ei...@swip.net> wrote:
>
> < Swaged stainless terminals is considered to reach about 90 % of the
wire
> < strength - not 100 %. That is because the swage "locks" the wire and
makes
> < it less strong than in its optimal, free state.
>
> So now I guess we know at least part of the difference between the swages
that
> you use, and the ones that I use.
>
>
Paul and Cindy Kruse
Jean Somerhausen <diplo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
< Somebody once raised the question of socket fittings with epoxy in case
< of a lightning strike. Epoxy loses all its strength at about 400
< degrees F. and melts. Temperatures in lightning strikes are much higher
< than that. < John
Thanks for bringing that up, John. I'm very glad that you did, since I have
never thought of that potential problem myself. I'll present that for
consideration to the folks on the ANSI B30 subcommittee for slings and wire
rope, and see what they have to say. I'm planning to bring several other issues
to them anyway, so I'll just add this one to the list.
In doing extra homework for this thread, I have found that some mobile crane
boom pendants have these resin filled sockets, so I guess that they must have
figured out how to resolve this concern. Perhaps the stuff is conductive?
Whatever the answer, it should be interesting.
Paul and Cindy Kruse
Yes, Anders, it is time to bring this line of discussion
to an end. It has been fun, and I have enjoyed it. You
have also forced me to go do a fair amount of additional
homework. The result is that I have learned much. That
is what is so great about this forum. You cannot ask
for a better peer review than this; and I do consider
you to be my peer. You have argued your side of the
matter well. Anyone who has followed this thread has
learned much. You and I represent two different
perspectives on the issue of rigging recreational boats;
and it is good for folks to see both sides.
You are also correct that the recreational sailboat
rigging industry has evolved its own set of rigging
hardware and procedures. It has not always been this
way. If you go back about thirty years or a little
more, recreational boats used the same rigging as
commercial applications for the most part. It always
puzzled me as to why this was so, since the commercial
rigging is more reliable, it is stronger, and most times
it is less expensive. Then I took a job as an engineer
with a commercial rigging shop, and I understood why.
Any boating decision will be a trade off between many
conflicting objectives. Rigging decisions are no
different. The more important objectives in the
recreational marine world are less weight, more
eye-appeal, the ability to effect repairs onboard with a
minimum of training, and perhaps near the top of the
list, the ability to install with low cost tools that
are easily portable. In order to attain these
objectives, the recreational marine market for the most
part is willing to trade away lower cost, higher
reliability, and higher strength. The thing that has
made recreational marine rigging most attractive to boat
builders and owners is that within the last few years,
the industry has improved the recreational rigging
significantly enough so that the actual difference in
cost, strength, and reliability is fairly small.
I would be very willing to put recreational rigging onto
any recreational boat that I might own. In my mind,
however; a true cruising boat is not a recreational
boat. It is a home into which I am willing to risk
everything that I own, including my own life and the
lives of my family. With that in mind, I am not willing
to make the same trade-offs in a cruising boat that I
would be willing to make in a recreational boat. This
is a decision that each of us must consider for
ourselves.
Having said that, I'll make only a few comments
concerning some of the things you have raised here:
< The recommendation/opinion (I hesitate to call it "fact") is based on a
< cautionary rule, not on the actual experience. It is just as proper to
< reason: "The swage must be stronger than the wire because the wire
< invariably breaks before the swage does" - but according to my informer,
< the swage (all swages) interfere with the wire.
This is true, and it has always been a problem with
swaged fittings. Fortunately, the industry has done an
excellent job of mitigating this problem for socket-type
swages. Efforts have not been as successful for other
types of swages. I have tested many to failure. When a
cold welded socket type swage is used, the rope will
break at random locations on the entire length of the
rope. I have never seen a sling like this break at less
than the breaking strength of the rope as published by
the wire rope manufacturer. Again, this is not true of
other types of swages, even if they are of the cold
welded type.
< I am sure Pauls rigging experience is great, but there is a proved and
< working solution available. If Paul, who is both (he says so himself) a
< rigging specialist and a sailor, his solutions and alternatives may work
< very well - but they are alternatives to what is considered as "standard"
< for sailing boats.
Agreed.
When things become standardized to the point that we
accept them with little or no thought, then that is when
I get concerned. Standards should be a help to us; but
they often become a serious impediment to further
progress when they cause us to quit thinking about the
reasons that we do things.
I am reminded of the lady who always cut her turkey in
half when she baked it in her oven. Her husband wanted
to know why, but all she could say is that is the way
her mother taught her to cook a turkey. She really had
no idea why her mother did it that way, so her husband
called his mother-in-law and asked her.
The answer: "My oven was too small. The only way to
fit a turkey into it was to cut it in half."
I'm concerned that we may be cutting our turkeys in
half, even though our ovens are now large enough to fit
a whole turkey.
Paul and Cindy Kruse
Jordan Bigel <jbi...@BIX.com> wrote:
< You *like* the fact that the zinc will act as a sacraficial
< anode - but doesn't that mean it disintegrates thus
< weakening the fitting? If not, please say WHY not.
You bring up an excellent point.
The plug of zinc in a spelter socket is a large hunk.
It would take quite a while for enough of it to corrode
away to become a problem. Besides this, the corrosion
will only occur on the surfaces that are easily
inspected. After a number of years, when you have lost
a significant amount of zinc, then it would be time to
re-pour it or replace it.
When a poured zinc fitting is used with galvanized rope,
this is no concern. The surface area of zinc is great,
since zinc covers the entire rope as well as the
fittings. These fittings will last for many decades in
a marine environment.
I really do not know how long it would take for the
spelter fitting to degrade significantly when used with
CRES rope in a marine environment; but I do that it is
many years. When I was working with Navy rigging,
spelter sockets on CRES rope were common.
I have learned just yesterday that Crosby, the world's
largest manufacturer of rigging of any kind, now
recommends against using spelter fittings with CRES rope
in a salt water environment. I do not know why that is,
but I suspect that the lawyers have gotten involved in
it. I know a PE in their research department, and plan
to ask him the reason. A person I know on the ANSI B30
subcommittee on wire rope and rigging has referred me to
a person from the American Wire Rope Fabricators
Association who has done much testing on the longevity of
rigging in the marine environment. I plan to call him tomorrow.
When I know more, I will post it.
Graham
Interesting posting Lauri!
Lauri Tarkkonen wrote in message <6l4kap$l...@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>...
>rigging in cruising boats are not very frequent they happen and if the
>boats wold not spend some 80% of their lifetime in the marinas, there
>would be more of them.
Good Point!
>I have lost a mast because of the keyhole supporting a T-terminal
>busted, when the stainles steel plate reinforcing the aluminium
>type was broken into two
I lost a mast on a 30 footer (racing) because the T-terminal itself
fractured - The fittings were from a well known British firm, but I believe
they had a design defect because they were notched on the inside of the
bend - this would cause a stress concentration and in fact all of my upper
T-fittings were cracked. I replaced them on my new mast with a different
type that was more curved and I polished them to ensure that there would be
no stress intensification. I also added a second set of spreaders and a more
bendy mast!
>I asked my mast maker, why does he use this sort of fitting, and
>he told me that the people like them, because it saves them some
>minutes and they do not have to mess with the cotter pins.
It is more likely that they are quicker to install and need fewer parts,
therefore cheaper. They also are a bit more streamlined - less windage.
>I have lost a spreader as the aluminium foot welded to the mast
>suddenly broke. This time I did not loos the mast as I tacked imme-
>diately after I heard the bang and noticed the loose spreader.
I had a similar thing happen on the same 30 footer! The spreader bases were
riveted to the mast - Again, the design was inadequate - The rivets pulled
out - We later doubled up on the rivets which worked until we lost the whole
rig (see above)
>Some riggers use aluminium ferrules pressed by a talurit press to
>make an eye to the end of a shroud.
We call these Nicopress or Oval sleeves - Aluminum sleeves are available
from industrial sources, but none of our marine sources even stock these - I
have seen thin wall sleeves used on rope halyards - Seems to work, but not
too neat.
>For some people loosing a mast is smaller disaster than some stain
>on the sail.
Nice ending! :)
Graham
Jean Somerhausen
Paul and Cindy Kruse wrote:
>
>
> < Somebody once raised the question of socket fittings with epoxy in case
> < of a lightning strike. Epoxy loses all its strength at about 400
> < degrees F. and melts. Temperatures in lightning strikes are much higher
> < than that. < John
>
> never thought of that potential problem myself. I'll present that for
> consideration to the folks on the ANSI B30 subcommittee for slings and wire
> rope, and see what they have to say. I'm planning to bring several other issues
> to them anyway, so I'll just add this one to the list.
>
> In doing extra homework for this thread, I have found that some mobile crane
> boom pendants have these resin filled sockets, so I guess that they must have
> figured out how to resolve this concern. Perhaps the stuff is conductive?
> Whatever the answer, it should be interesting.
>
> famous for losing Usenet articles. If you reply to
> this posting, please also route a copy to me via E-mail.
>
> Have a great day,
>
> plk...@iu.net (Paul Kruse)
insulators used in electronics, amongst others for "potting" electronic
components.
John
Ian Wright
Please, I beg of you, find out how to edit your submisions.
Thank you.
Ian.
Ian Wright. UK.