Forward lowers instead of the babystay on an Oceanranger

Post Reply
Wolfgang
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:16 am
Anti Spam measure: Yes
AntiSpam Text: Westerly
Location: Austria; Boat in Italy, northern Adriatic

Forward lowers instead of the babystay on an Oceanranger

Post by Wolfgang » Thu Oct 15, 2015 12:37 pm

Hello all,

I have to do something about the babystay of my Oceanranger, as the deck is slightly bulging where the babystay chainplate is mounted. If I remember correctly, the backing plate or brackets of the chainplate under deck are glassed in. The area would be tricky to reinforce anyhow, so I thought of changing the babystay for forward lowers as described by John Easteal in an article in the members area.
The only question which remains (for me) is how to mount the additional shrouds to the existing mast fittings, instead of drilling holes into the mast and mounting additional backing plates for the T-terminals. Are there T-fittings to attach two shrouds? And use only one backing plate for two shrouds then. Either using the existing backing plate of the babystay for the two new forward lowers or using the port and starboard backing plate of the existing aft lowers to mount both port and both starboard lowers?
Any ideas about that?
Attached are two pictures about the existing backing plates and T-terminals.
babystay.jpg
babystay.jpg (65.09 KiB) Viewed 1847 times
aftlowersandbaby.jpg
aftlowersandbaby.jpg (82.4 KiB) Viewed 1847 times
Thanks
Wolfgang - s/v Adventure Galley, OR2

Jolly Roger
Posts: 1005
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:08 pm
Anti Spam measure: No
AntiSpam Text: Westerly
Location: Kent, UK

Re: Forward lowers instead of the babystay on an Oceanranger

Post by Jolly Roger » Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:28 pm

My thoughts would be to add a second set of T-terminals under the lower shrouds. The reasoning is currently you have just the baby stay to stop the centre of the mast from pushing aft, but a forward pair of lowers will double that capacity. The current holes are correctlt supported and I very much doubt two additional holes will weaken the mast. The slightly lower position will have little or no effect on the support provided. I presume you have a Kemp mast, so would suggest contacting them for correct technical advice.

On another note about your deck bulge. The shrouds on my Fulmar have a slight bulge on deck and this was picked up on survey. However the advice I was given was it was caused by a small geometric error in design and could be fixed at some considerable expense by removing the mast, removing the existing shroud fittings, and shortening the tie bars by the thickness of the new enlarged backing plates. The best advice was it had stood for 43 years and it was very unlikely to move any more, so leave well alone. Maybe this advice could apply to your Oceanranger.
Roger
Concerto Fulmar FR38
Photos at http://s1294.photobucket.com/user/Conce ... 2/library/

Vegable
Posts: 305
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:27 pm
Anti Spam measure: No
AntiSpam Text: Westerly
Location: Abersoch; N.Wales, Boat back in Arisaig.

Re: Forward lowers instead of the babystay on an Oceanranger

Post by Vegable » Sun Oct 18, 2015 2:26 pm

On my Oceanranger I got a matching above deck fitting and through bolted the two fittings, one above deck and the other below deck. And to the below deck fitting I connected a specially made up stay running vertically down to the keel "channel" (for the want of a better word, it's like an inverted fibreglass "u") and fitted that to the channel with a through bolted stainless steel saddle.
There is just enough room so that it runs close to the angled "wall" of the forward heads in the for'd cabin so it doesn't get in the way. I have a bottle-screw on this stay for fine adjustment. It doesn't completely remove the bowed deck but it does reduce it.
I've had it for 4 years now and in lots of bouncy seas without any problems. I had to cut a hole in the lift-up floor panel so I made paper template and from that a thin plywood template and have a neat slot and hole in the floor panel.
I'm not going back to the boat till March so can't send a piccy but hope the written word describes it well enough.
Mike
"There is nothing worse than running ashore, unless you are uncertain as to which continent that shore belongs"

mikebuggy
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 5:42 pm

Re: Forward lowers instead of the babystay on an Oceanranger

Post by mikebuggy » Sun Oct 18, 2015 6:05 pm

I have done exactly the same as the previous poster. Make an internal stay down to a tang on a stainless steel 'saddle' over the internal 'keel' moulding under the forecabin floorboard. My 'saddle' has 2 through bolts through the moulded 'keel' and the whole fitting is also strongly epoxied over so that the fixture is well bonded in place. I also have an upside down deck fitting inside the boat under the deck fitting. A very thick internal wire stay and bottle screw runs between the deck and the floor 'keel' fitting, very close to the cabin bulkhead. Very stiff and strong and has lasted 2 Atlantic crossings, 2 Azores trips, and much more.

Wolfgang
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:16 am
Anti Spam measure: Yes
AntiSpam Text: Westerly
Location: Austria; Boat in Italy, northern Adriatic

Re: Forward lowers instead of the babystay on an Oceanranger

Post by Wolfgang » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:31 am

Thanks guys for your valuable input. I appreciate this very much. Next weekend I'm going to the marina and will have a thorough inspection. After that I will decide which way to go.
On one hand 2 forward lowers instead of the babystay have some clear advantages (for me), like
  • a free fore deck,
  • better handling of the spinnaker/genny pole,
  • better spread of the load on 2 shrouds
Whatever I'll be doing, I'll change all lowers and will go for 8mm instead of the current 7mm wire.

If I'm going to 2 forward lowers instead of the babystay, I think I'm leaving the babystay backing plate and get me a custom made t-fitting with 2 holes for the top forks of the forward shrouds. I guess the single backing plate is strong enough to support the 2 shrouds.

@ Roger: the bulge is new, so it isn't anything I can leave alone.
@ Mike V. and Mike B.: A friend from Oz has also made a rod from the chainplate down to the keel. He just replaced the hollow keel mold by a longitudinal, glassed in piece of hardwood and mounted the "saddle" on that.
Wolfgang - s/v Adventure Galley, OR2

mikebuggy
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 5:42 pm

Re: Forward lowers instead of the babystay on an Oceanranger

Post by mikebuggy » Mon Oct 19, 2015 10:24 pm

One other point. Although, strengthwise, 2 forward lowers instead of a single babystay is quite a good option (I didnt go for it myself though) you will not gain as much advantage as you think for the spinnaker pole. People who have done it say you will not be able to get the pole back as far as you would like on the beam if you have 2 forward lowers. The need for a pole to be on or close to the beam is much more frequent than the need to do a pole gybe in front of the mast. In any case Ive never really found the babystay to be a problem when changing the pole over.

Jolly Roger
Posts: 1005
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:08 pm
Anti Spam measure: No
AntiSpam Text: Westerly
Location: Kent, UK

Re: Forward lowers instead of the babystay on an Oceanranger

Post by Jolly Roger » Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:08 pm

If you fitted the underdeck support suggested, then made the baby stay removeable, this would give a perfect solution. My initial thought was to fit a Highfield Tensioner at the base of the baby stay, so I did a quick Google. This turned up an interesting discussion on ybw.com forum (http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.ph ... -tensioner). The idea I like is to have a 4 part block and tackle led back to a winch in the cockpit, with the lower block having a snap shackle. Then the baby stay could be kept out of the way when necessary with spinnaker work.
Roger
Concerto Fulmar FR38
Photos at http://s1294.photobucket.com/user/Conce ... 2/library/

mikebuggy
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 5:42 pm

Re: Forward lowers instead of the babystay on an Oceanranger

Post by mikebuggy » Fri Oct 23, 2015 11:42 pm

Making the babystay on this rig detachable would be highly dangerous. The 2 lowers and the babystay form the ONLY stabilisation for the whole mast below the masthead. The babystay and the lowers are designed to counterbalance each other and all should be at full tension. This is not a lightweight tunable race rig. In a blow, the downward pressure on the mast head may cause the mast to invert aft if there is insufficient babystay tension. Your insurance company would then have some serious questions to ask about any rig modifications.

Wolfgang
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:16 am
Anti Spam measure: Yes
AntiSpam Text: Westerly
Location: Austria; Boat in Italy, northern Adriatic

Re: Forward lowers instead of the babystay on an Oceanranger

Post by Wolfgang » Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:25 pm

I was at the marina last weekend and found the following, after removing the ceiling board.
babyunderdeck.jpg
babyunderdeck.jpg (99.45 KiB) Viewed 1732 times
babyunderdeck2.jpg
babyunderdeck2.jpg (112.65 KiB) Viewed 1732 times
So I knew I was lucky not to rip a part of the deck out.
BTW, the laminate looks like it didn't bond very good with the deck.
Forward lowers are not an option any longer, as on closer examination I did see that with lowers I would not be able to move the boom far enough back (thanks for the hint, Mike!!). So I will get me a custom made backing plate with a ring to mount a stay down to the floor construction. Perhaps the hollow, longitudinal floor beam will be strong enough, as on knocking on it, it did sound quite sturdy. But perhaps I will have to think about reinforcing the beam.
Wolfgang - s/v Adventure Galley, OR2

User avatar
rhumlady
Posts: 678
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:26 pm
Anti Spam measure: No
AntiSpam Text: westerly
Location: Clyde area

Re: Forward lowers instead of the babystay on an Oceanranger

Post by rhumlady » Wed Oct 28, 2015 6:00 pm

I thought I had seen some horror sites on my old Konsort but that takes the biscuit. The deck should never have been left to take the loads and glassing over in that was is not acceptable. It doesn't even look well wetted out.
Derek
Konsort 'Rhumlady' KT213

rogerball0
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:35 am
Anti Spam measure: Yes
AntiSpam Text: westerly
Location: In the canyons of your mind
Contact:

Re: Forward lowers instead of the babystay on an Oceanranger

Post by rogerball0 » Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:52 am

I've never understood why Westerly glassed over all the boats fastenings. FWIW That attachment detail isn't a million miles away from the main shrouds on my Centaur - 2 x 50mm penny washers on each side and...................nothing else.

Post Reply