Hola Cape Dorians-
Tonight's question: what to do with a 50 foot mast that is spliced in the middle?
A bit of background: When I bought my 330, I had been looking at boats for a long long time. I'd gotten really good at it. I knew everything to look for in a boat. I had a checklist with each area of the boat and each system listed and subpoints to check off under each. Nevermind that I generally forgot to bring my list or didn't follow it, I spent a lot of time on the boat -- a whole lot of time. I borrowed the old VW Idiot Book approach of meditating on the thing to ascertain its character (hey worked well with the cars). ahHaha! My lists contained no "Is the mast in one piece" checkpoint. The hour or more I spent staring off at the glorious exterior was unscarred by recognition of the seam in the mast . . ..
Yes, I failed to notice that my 330 mast had been spliced just above the spreaders! I take no consolation whatsoever from the fact that the surveyor I paid also did not notice (or at least did not note in his report) this tidbit either. As I moved aboard the boat the following day, I did belatedly notice the (obvious) splice just above the spreaders.
Over the next month or so, I asked at least 20 people, each generally disinterested and qualified in some way or another (short of being a "rigging only" professional), what they thought of the splice. the unwavering consensus was: "it looks to be professionally done; the mast tube is not inherently strong anyway -- its strength comes from the stays; it oughta be fine". Finding no dissenters, and having no money to consider any other option, I prepared the boat as it was and ultimately brought it back here to PA. I must say the boat preformed beautifully on the way back. In winds above 20 with higher gusts and seas on the aft quarter, the rig certainly was tested and performed well for many hours in real (though not extreme) conditions.
Now, having unstepped the mast in preparation to rewire it and replace the standing rigging, I must consider whether restepping this spliced mast tube is, in fact, the wisest course. The crane raised the mast from just below the spreaders so the lengthwise strength of the extrusion was not tested. The mast did deflect a bit in various places, including seemingly at the splice (though not so much as to appear to open the joint). I need to constantly remind myself that aluminum masts do not stay straight when laid on sawhorses!
My choices seem to be: stay the course and prepare the boat for bluewater with a spliced mast; fix the splice (make it "better"); or, consider a replacement. My wallet is screaming: stay the course! My desire to replace the blown out RL70 system with a cool new C90W package tells me: Dude, that mast is fine as is. Finally, that nagging voice I can't stand keeps interrupting to tell me: what's another couple opinions!
So . . .. My fellow Cape Dorians: What do you make of the spliced mast? Any first hand experience? Does anyone happen to know my boat personally (I believe a woman named Suzanne Moody once owned her) and the circumstances surrounding the damage / repair? I am, of course, emailing a few well known riggers to see if they will share their opinions.
Please excuse this excessively long post. Thanks for your thoughts and suggestions!
Matt
What to do with a Spliced Mast
Moderator: Jim Walsh
A couple of pics
Here's the splice:
and the rig:
Matt
and the rig:
Matt
-
Sea Hunt
- Posts: 1310
- Joined: Jan 29th, '06, 23:14
- Location: Former caretaker of 1977 Cape Dory Typhoon Weekender (Hull #1400) "S/V Tadpole"
I am a rookie as everyone well knows. I am also NOT a lawyer and have never played a lawyer on any TV series, although I did watch 2-3 episodes of Perry Mason many, many years ago.
With that background, I ask this question. You say your "wallet is screaming 'stay the course.'" Have you approached the marine surveyor about his glaring mistake and asked him to reimburse you for some portion of the costs to replace the mast or more robustly patch over the fault line, if either of those are solutions offered by folks on this board who know what they are talking about
It seems to me that the seller should have disclosed this to you up front. It is NOT cosmetic. It is not a leaky holding tank. It is not a diesel engine with a bad impeller. It is part of the integral structure of the sailboat. If it snaps in 2, severe damage, holing, etc. are probabilities. If you are in blue water you are in a world of trouble.
I assume the seller does not have a fiduciary or legal responsibility to you (caveat emptor) although I would think he would have a moral and ethical one.
The surveyor clearly has a fiduciary obligation to you. It was certainly the job and obligation of the marine surveyor to see this and report it. With that information you could have negotiated a lower price or walked away.
I have no idea what costs are involved in replacing a mast or in more robustly securing it (if that can even be done). From your post, the surveyor is apparently some distance from where you are now. If it were me, I would approach the surveyor about his fairly blatant omission and try to get him to pay for some significant portion of the costs. Absent a satisfactory response a certified letter to him with the suggestion of legal action may shake loose his/her conscience and persuade him/her to do the right thing.
A long post I know, and not much help on your real question. But a thought on getting funds to pay for whatever is recommended by the people on this board who know what to recommend.
With that background, I ask this question. You say your "wallet is screaming 'stay the course.'" Have you approached the marine surveyor about his glaring mistake and asked him to reimburse you for some portion of the costs to replace the mast or more robustly patch over the fault line, if either of those are solutions offered by folks on this board who know what they are talking about
It seems to me that the seller should have disclosed this to you up front. It is NOT cosmetic. It is not a leaky holding tank. It is not a diesel engine with a bad impeller. It is part of the integral structure of the sailboat. If it snaps in 2, severe damage, holing, etc. are probabilities. If you are in blue water you are in a world of trouble.
I assume the seller does not have a fiduciary or legal responsibility to you (caveat emptor) although I would think he would have a moral and ethical one.
The surveyor clearly has a fiduciary obligation to you. It was certainly the job and obligation of the marine surveyor to see this and report it. With that information you could have negotiated a lower price or walked away.
I have no idea what costs are involved in replacing a mast or in more robustly securing it (if that can even be done). From your post, the surveyor is apparently some distance from where you are now. If it were me, I would approach the surveyor about his fairly blatant omission and try to get him to pay for some significant portion of the costs. Absent a satisfactory response a certified letter to him with the suggestion of legal action may shake loose his/her conscience and persuade him/her to do the right thing.
A long post I know, and not much help on your real question. But a thought on getting funds to pay for whatever is recommended by the people on this board who know what to recommend.
Fair winds,
Robert
Sea Hunt a/k/a "The Tadpole Sailor"
CDSOA #1097
Robert
Sea Hunt a/k/a "The Tadpole Sailor"
CDSOA #1097
-
fenixrises
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Feb 13th, '05, 08:01
- Location: SunShine S2 11c
- Contact:
Hi Matt,
Much ado about nothing.
Since stayed masts are designed to operate as columns under compression load, the splice primarily keeps the two parts in column.
Many newer boat designs use masts that are bent by using the rigging. The masts are bendable to assist in shaping the sails usually the main. Some also use fractional rigs for a variety of reasons. And the fractional rigs can also be bent for the same reasons as masthead rigs. Think 12 meters here. Provided all is engineered for the normal loads expected, no problems should arise.
I prefer a straight mast on a masthead rig, mostly because it is simpler. Others like Dashew do not. There are many production boats out there and some are sailing just fine with a variety of rigs. Good rigging is a must and since you are replacing yours you should not expect any problems.
When sailing Larry Pardey used to examine his rig daily with binoculars. This is practical on a smaller boat but on a larger boat not as good. Just imagine trying to see the masthead with a pair of 7X50s when it is 70 or more feet up in the air. So regular rigging checks and normal care for wear and tear should take care of any problems before they happen.
All masts that are longer than about 44' are spliced because the people who make the extrusions do not make them longer. I do not know why 44' is the magic number but it seems to be. It may be because of the machinery used. Although some longer masts may not appear to be spliced it is because the are welded not fastened, the weld hidden by paint.
Your mast is keel stepped which helps to keep the mast in column. If you were ever to loose one of the rigging wires that goes to the masthead the mast might fold at the splice but do not bet on it. In fact that might be an advantage, leaving a goodly stub with which to jury rig a temporary sailplan.
A free standing spar, according to engineering standards, needs to be buried to a depth equal to five times its diameter. A glance at your splice shows that the overlap in the joint is about that amount or a bit more. Most likely this joint was properly engineered, not put together by a weekend boatbuilder.
Another consideration is the fact that the inner sleeve of the splice adds to the crush resistance of the mast section in the y(athwartships) axis. So the splice reinforces the mast whereas an unspliced mast would be weaker at the high load point.
So keep your mast straight and inspect your rigging regularly and put your concerns to rest. BTW my new boat has a spliced mast which I noticed before I bought the boat. It did not cause me any concern at the time and does not concern me for any future voyaging.
Take care,
Fred
Much ado about nothing.
Since stayed masts are designed to operate as columns under compression load, the splice primarily keeps the two parts in column.
Many newer boat designs use masts that are bent by using the rigging. The masts are bendable to assist in shaping the sails usually the main. Some also use fractional rigs for a variety of reasons. And the fractional rigs can also be bent for the same reasons as masthead rigs. Think 12 meters here. Provided all is engineered for the normal loads expected, no problems should arise.
I prefer a straight mast on a masthead rig, mostly because it is simpler. Others like Dashew do not. There are many production boats out there and some are sailing just fine with a variety of rigs. Good rigging is a must and since you are replacing yours you should not expect any problems.
When sailing Larry Pardey used to examine his rig daily with binoculars. This is practical on a smaller boat but on a larger boat not as good. Just imagine trying to see the masthead with a pair of 7X50s when it is 70 or more feet up in the air. So regular rigging checks and normal care for wear and tear should take care of any problems before they happen.
All masts that are longer than about 44' are spliced because the people who make the extrusions do not make them longer. I do not know why 44' is the magic number but it seems to be. It may be because of the machinery used. Although some longer masts may not appear to be spliced it is because the are welded not fastened, the weld hidden by paint.
Your mast is keel stepped which helps to keep the mast in column. If you were ever to loose one of the rigging wires that goes to the masthead the mast might fold at the splice but do not bet on it. In fact that might be an advantage, leaving a goodly stub with which to jury rig a temporary sailplan.
A free standing spar, according to engineering standards, needs to be buried to a depth equal to five times its diameter. A glance at your splice shows that the overlap in the joint is about that amount or a bit more. Most likely this joint was properly engineered, not put together by a weekend boatbuilder.
Another consideration is the fact that the inner sleeve of the splice adds to the crush resistance of the mast section in the y(athwartships) axis. So the splice reinforces the mast whereas an unspliced mast would be weaker at the high load point.
So keep your mast straight and inspect your rigging regularly and put your concerns to rest. BTW my new boat has a spliced mast which I noticed before I bought the boat. It did not cause me any concern at the time and does not concern me for any future voyaging.
Take care,
Fred
You should always have an odd number of holes in your boat!
fenixrises makes a good point about the loading conditions present on the mast. There actually is some fore and aft and side loading that comes from the luff of the mainsail but this is not extremely high. The major loading is compression from the standing rigging.
There are two things that I would be particularly worried about. First, there should be no gap between the two halves of mast at the splice. If there is a gap, you are putting the insert in compression which will put a shear force on all of the rivets. Second, if the insert was not properly done, it can create a stress concentration. The insert should be the same material (you don't want steel there) and it should loose a little stiffness at the ends of it so that there is not a stress concentration there. This isn't that easy to inspect so carefully inspect the outside of the mast where the insert ends and make sure that there are no bulges/deformations.
There are two things that I would be particularly worried about. First, there should be no gap between the two halves of mast at the splice. If there is a gap, you are putting the insert in compression which will put a shear force on all of the rivets. Second, if the insert was not properly done, it can create a stress concentration. The insert should be the same material (you don't want steel there) and it should loose a little stiffness at the ends of it so that there is not a stress concentration there. This isn't that easy to inspect so carefully inspect the outside of the mast where the insert ends and make sure that there are no bulges/deformations.
-
Lang
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Jun 26th, '05, 22:56
- Location: CD Typhoon Weekender #749 Eleanor, Singapore
- Contact:
spliced mast
Replacing a mast is alot more complicated than I thought.
The mast on our BCC was severely damaged in the tsunami 2004. We contacted forespar for a replacement mast, and they wanted $8000 for the mast, mill finish. Which means we have to pay $5000 to ship over to Asia and then $2000 to paint. There will pay boat yard charges and other stuff to pay for as well.
Anyway, we then decided to extrude our own mast in Singapore and have been trying to complete the whole mast fabrication at Sebana.
In our research on this subject matter, we found alot of things that Forespar and the riggers didnt do right. For example, welding reduces the aluminium strength by 50%. Our old mast was most damaged at the welded on spreader bases area.
Also discovered that there were welded joints in the tube, and we could see corosions starts right there at the joint. When you weld and sand smooth and paint over, the joint is totally not visible to the eye, but on the inside of the tube is where the corosion starts and will eventually creep out to under the paint surface.
In our new mast, we want to be totally free of welding and painting. So our mast will be spliced in 2 places and each length is less than 20ft, which will fit the anodizing tanks here. We hear that anodizing long lengths is very difficult for a good finish. Much time is spent redesigning the fittings for bolting on. Seriously no welding, for us.
BTW, our mast is 45'. Write to me if like to know more..
The mast on our BCC was severely damaged in the tsunami 2004. We contacted forespar for a replacement mast, and they wanted $8000 for the mast, mill finish. Which means we have to pay $5000 to ship over to Asia and then $2000 to paint. There will pay boat yard charges and other stuff to pay for as well.
Anyway, we then decided to extrude our own mast in Singapore and have been trying to complete the whole mast fabrication at Sebana.
In our research on this subject matter, we found alot of things that Forespar and the riggers didnt do right. For example, welding reduces the aluminium strength by 50%. Our old mast was most damaged at the welded on spreader bases area.
Also discovered that there were welded joints in the tube, and we could see corosions starts right there at the joint. When you weld and sand smooth and paint over, the joint is totally not visible to the eye, but on the inside of the tube is where the corosion starts and will eventually creep out to under the paint surface.
In our new mast, we want to be totally free of welding and painting. So our mast will be spliced in 2 places and each length is less than 20ft, which will fit the anodizing tanks here. We hear that anodizing long lengths is very difficult for a good finish. Much time is spent redesigning the fittings for bolting on. Seriously no welding, for us.
BTW, our mast is 45'. Write to me if like to know more..
-
RichS
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Sep 18th, '09, 10:42
- Location: Bristol Corinthian, "Mojito"
Marshfield, MA,
Member #1213
Mat Splice
I would have a good welder who has the ability to x-ray your mast at the splice look at it for you. A certified welder will be able to tell you if it can be welded and what the life of that weld would be. This is not cheap but a great deal cheaper than a new mast. A good Tig welder can make the weld all but invisible. He can also explain what might or might not happen inside the tube as to corrosion.
I work for a welding supplier and am a welder, so I do have some experience here. I have seen a couple of small masts repaired this way. It is important that you get a certified welder from a good company not the guy who drives around looking for work. TIG welding aluminum is a specialty that is learned after time not something for the amateur.
I work for a welding supplier and am a welder, so I do have some experience here. I have seen a couple of small masts repaired this way. It is important that you get a certified welder from a good company not the guy who drives around looking for work. TIG welding aluminum is a specialty that is learned after time not something for the amateur.
"The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails."
-William Arthur Ward
-William Arthur Ward
-
Matt Cawthorne
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Mar 2nd, '05, 17:33
- Location: CD 36, 1982
Hull # 79
mast loads
The mast does, in fact, carry bending loads. Don't let anyone tell you that it doesn't. The stays and shrouds reduce this bending to the point where a mast can handle the rest, provided that it is not damaged. Your job is to figure out if the joint is strong enough. My mast is welded just above the deck (keel stepped).
I beleive that the problem with a splice such as yours, is that if the splice is cracking inside the mast you will never see it. Perhaps you should start by un-splicing it and taking a look!
Matt
I beleive that the problem with a splice such as yours, is that if the splice is cracking inside the mast you will never see it. Perhaps you should start by un-splicing it and taking a look!
Matt
Perhaps it may be worthwhile to contact your surveyor and politely tell him/her about the problem, note your concern and see what they say. If they are local they may be willing to come out and look at it - if that would mean anything I don't know, but at least they are vested in having a satisfied customer.
I don't know if I would go in demanding either more work of money back, just seek more information and ask if there would be anything more he could do. Otherwise the splice does look good to me and I would not worry too much unless planning on big weather and remote trips.
Good luck,
I don't know if I would go in demanding either more work of money back, just seek more information and ask if there would be anything more he could do. Otherwise the splice does look good to me and I would not worry too much unless planning on big weather and remote trips.
Good luck,
-
Sea Hunt
- Posts: 1310
- Joined: Jan 29th, '06, 23:14
- Location: Former caretaker of 1977 Cape Dory Typhoon Weekender (Hull #1400) "S/V Tadpole"
Paul:
You guys in Minnesota are apparently very kind, forgiving folks. I would want you as a friend.
That said, I am not sure Matt should be asking the surveyor who missed such an obvious issue what he thinks about the repair, etc. It would be kind of like me taking you scuba diving and dumping you in the water with your tank, BC and regs on ass backwards. I am not sure you would want to go diving with me again or listen to anything I had to say about diving.
The "splice" may well be OK. I have no clue. With the exception of Fred (who clearly has a literal world of experience and whose posts are often based on personal experience) just about everyone else seems to suggest Matt should have an expert look at it because there are potential unseen serious issues.
My initial post, and this post again, suggest that Matt should talk with the surveyor solely about getting some compensation for the costs that most folks seem to think he needs to spend - xray of mast, or "unsplicing" to look for corrosion, etc.
My reasoning is simple. If Matt had been told about this mast issue by the seller or the surveyor he could have decided to get his deposit back and walk away, or reduced his offer based on the mast issue, or tried to find out who did the splicing, welding, etc. to see if they could shed light on what was done, or hired his own welder to inspect (take x-rays, whatever) or just gone forward with the purchase. By not "discovering" this splicing issue Matt was denied all these options except the last one.
In my book that is not fair. As a consumer of goods and services, over the past several years I have become much more attentive to ensuring that I get what I paid for. I do not object to paying "top dollar" for a product or a service so long as I get a "top dollar" product or service. However, I will not abide paying someone good money and getting a bad product or service.
I am guessing Matt paid $850 - $1,000 for his survey (33 ft x $25-$30 per foot). To me that is a lot of money. Unless he accepts Fred's thoughts (which may well be accurate) he must now shell out money he did not plan to spend for something the surveyor should have told him about.
It seems to me the surveyor should at least have to compensate Matt for some of these unexpected costs. I would certainly be polite and courteous with the surveyor in any conversations or correspondence but I would also be firm in my position.
Sorry for the longwinded post. Spent the day at the sailing club - volunteer weekend for club members to help "spruce up" the club bldg, club sailboats, etc. I now know more about Lasers than I ever thought I would know, especially how to clean, wax and polish their bottoms.
Got home, took a long nap and now I am wide awake 
You guys in Minnesota are apparently very kind, forgiving folks. I would want you as a friend.
That said, I am not sure Matt should be asking the surveyor who missed such an obvious issue what he thinks about the repair, etc. It would be kind of like me taking you scuba diving and dumping you in the water with your tank, BC and regs on ass backwards. I am not sure you would want to go diving with me again or listen to anything I had to say about diving.
The "splice" may well be OK. I have no clue. With the exception of Fred (who clearly has a literal world of experience and whose posts are often based on personal experience) just about everyone else seems to suggest Matt should have an expert look at it because there are potential unseen serious issues.
My initial post, and this post again, suggest that Matt should talk with the surveyor solely about getting some compensation for the costs that most folks seem to think he needs to spend - xray of mast, or "unsplicing" to look for corrosion, etc.
My reasoning is simple. If Matt had been told about this mast issue by the seller or the surveyor he could have decided to get his deposit back and walk away, or reduced his offer based on the mast issue, or tried to find out who did the splicing, welding, etc. to see if they could shed light on what was done, or hired his own welder to inspect (take x-rays, whatever) or just gone forward with the purchase. By not "discovering" this splicing issue Matt was denied all these options except the last one.
In my book that is not fair. As a consumer of goods and services, over the past several years I have become much more attentive to ensuring that I get what I paid for. I do not object to paying "top dollar" for a product or a service so long as I get a "top dollar" product or service. However, I will not abide paying someone good money and getting a bad product or service.
I am guessing Matt paid $850 - $1,000 for his survey (33 ft x $25-$30 per foot). To me that is a lot of money. Unless he accepts Fred's thoughts (which may well be accurate) he must now shell out money he did not plan to spend for something the surveyor should have told him about.
It seems to me the surveyor should at least have to compensate Matt for some of these unexpected costs. I would certainly be polite and courteous with the surveyor in any conversations or correspondence but I would also be firm in my position.
Sorry for the longwinded post. Spent the day at the sailing club - volunteer weekend for club members to help "spruce up" the club bldg, club sailboats, etc. I now know more about Lasers than I ever thought I would know, especially how to clean, wax and polish their bottoms.
Got home, took a long nap and now I am wide awake Fair winds,
Robert
Sea Hunt a/k/a "The Tadpole Sailor"
CDSOA #1097
Robert
Sea Hunt a/k/a "The Tadpole Sailor"
CDSOA #1097
-
S/V Necessity
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Jun 13th, '06, 23:38
- Location: 1981 CD28 #305
Columbia, MO
dissassembly/reassembly might be comforting.
I have to agree with Matt, especially if it worries you. From the appearances of that splice it should be feasible to remove and replace those fasteners. I would think that there would be much peace of mind in taking it apart and evaluating everything. Until you can actually see the inner sleeve it's all conjecture.
If you consider the importance of your mast, and then the age of the splice, it might warrant a careful examination regardless of how well it was done originally.
If you consider the importance of your mast, and then the age of the splice, it might warrant a careful examination regardless of how well it was done originally.
-
Sandy D.
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Mar 16th, '05, 12:53
- Location: CD27 #60....BLIND FAITH....
Grosse Pointe,Mi
So is the mast shorter now?
If the splice was made as the result of damage wouldn't the damaged material have to be removed before the splice was made? I just wondered if your mast was now shorter than original? I would think one would have to cut back until they had good material to splice.
-Sandy
-Sandy
Hi folks -
Thanks for the various opinions. Paul and Robert, the surveyor is about 800 miles south of me (I bought and surveyed the boat in FL and sailed it back to PA). I made a decision long ago that I had received all the effort from him that I was likely to get and that I would not press him over his shortcomings. Based on the distances, the time passed and the characters involved, litigation or the threat of it is unlikely to advance a constructive resolution here. I'll give some renewed thought to whether there is any value in discussing the situation with him. Thanks.
Hopefully the splice itself is satisfactory. There is no obvious gap around the spliced joint, although it seems that the joint can be bent off to either port or stbd to produce a gap about the width of match pack material (the fwd and aft aspects of the joint are uniformly tight). Whether or not this is improperly loading the rivets is a useful question to ask and have answered -- thanks.
It's never easy sifting through viewpoints on a subject with which you lack sufficient experience to weigh opposing opinions. Fred's opinion matches the opinions I received from highend boatyards in FL and up the east coast -- so I am hopeful! Still, there is solid information in both the encouraging posts and the skeptical views. The idea of taking it apart for inspection is attractive until I begin to contemplate resplicing it. I am still waiting to hear from a number of riggers (who may tell me this is more common than I thought). I am finding a lot of useful information on mast splicing practices on Brian Toss' website (he has a rigging discussion board). Since I am replacing all of the standing rigging it may be that I can coerce a visit from an annapolis area rigger this winter.
In the meantime, this has fueled my interest in tracking down some of the past owners to try to determine why and when the splice occurred. I've been making some progress there.
Thanks again! (Sandy: I haven't measured the mast. I assume that it is original length because the rigging appears original and the sails are original and fit as such -- but I will check next time I am at the boat. It snowed yesterday!)
Matt
Thanks for the various opinions. Paul and Robert, the surveyor is about 800 miles south of me (I bought and surveyed the boat in FL and sailed it back to PA). I made a decision long ago that I had received all the effort from him that I was likely to get and that I would not press him over his shortcomings. Based on the distances, the time passed and the characters involved, litigation or the threat of it is unlikely to advance a constructive resolution here. I'll give some renewed thought to whether there is any value in discussing the situation with him. Thanks.
Hopefully the splice itself is satisfactory. There is no obvious gap around the spliced joint, although it seems that the joint can be bent off to either port or stbd to produce a gap about the width of match pack material (the fwd and aft aspects of the joint are uniformly tight). Whether or not this is improperly loading the rivets is a useful question to ask and have answered -- thanks.
It's never easy sifting through viewpoints on a subject with which you lack sufficient experience to weigh opposing opinions. Fred's opinion matches the opinions I received from highend boatyards in FL and up the east coast -- so I am hopeful! Still, there is solid information in both the encouraging posts and the skeptical views. The idea of taking it apart for inspection is attractive until I begin to contemplate resplicing it. I am still waiting to hear from a number of riggers (who may tell me this is more common than I thought). I am finding a lot of useful information on mast splicing practices on Brian Toss' website (he has a rigging discussion board). Since I am replacing all of the standing rigging it may be that I can coerce a visit from an annapolis area rigger this winter.
In the meantime, this has fueled my interest in tracking down some of the past owners to try to determine why and when the splice occurred. I've been making some progress there.
Thanks again! (Sandy: I haven't measured the mast. I assume that it is original length because the rigging appears original and the sails are original and fit as such -- but I will check next time I am at the boat. It snowed yesterday!)
Matt
-
Como No Cruising
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Sep 17th, '07, 10:42
- Location: CD40, Hull #8
COMO NO
Spliced Mast
I agree with Fred of Fenix from the standpoint that I owned an S-2 11 meter( mine was the aft cockpit version) and the mast was spliced originally. We never considered it a problem and did some hard sailing with it in the Gulf of Mexico from Florida to Texas. BTW Yves Gellina, the designer and manufacturer to the Cape Horn wind vane spliced the mast on his Alberg 30 when it was broken in the Roaring 40's on the way to Cape Horn. He repaired the mast with a splice and went on to complete his solo circumnavigation, including rounding the Horn. Check out his video, Jean DuSud around the world.
Will La Fleur
Como NO
CD-40 #8 Presently in St. Lucia, W.I.
Will La Fleur
Como NO
CD-40 #8 Presently in St. Lucia, W.I.
-
Bill Cochrane
- Posts: 212
- Joined: Feb 5th, '05, 13:42
- Location: Cape Dory 36 #114
s/v Phoenix
I can't help remarking that none of the responders own a CD 330 (at least according to the data accompanying the posts).
It may well be that the boat came from the factory that way...you may wish to query other 330 owners to check.
Like Matt Cawthorne, I have a CD36 and the mast, like his, is spliced (with a weld) just above the deck. I believe this is common if not universal to this model.
I have seen another boat (I believe a Bristol 38.8) with a splice in the same position and done the same way as yours...The Bristol has a high-aspect rig, so the length of the extrusion may have dictated a 2-piece mast. The boat has been to Bermuda and the Carribean and the owner is not concerned.
It may well be that the boat came from the factory that way...you may wish to query other 330 owners to check.
Like Matt Cawthorne, I have a CD36 and the mast, like his, is spliced (with a weld) just above the deck. I believe this is common if not universal to this model.
I have seen another boat (I believe a Bristol 38.8) with a splice in the same position and done the same way as yours...The Bristol has a high-aspect rig, so the length of the extrusion may have dictated a 2-piece mast. The boat has been to Bermuda and the Carribean and the owner is not concerned.