vizwhiz wrote:...<<snipped>>
I searched and most of the discussions I found related to main sheets were for X's and M's, which don't apply to my S boat...but I also saw many discussions of travelers and such which got me thinking...
(1) can this strap eye be replaced with a folding pad eye, or maybe even a small stainless pop-up cleat (for strength) so that it can go flat (or at least flatter) to the surface??
(2) would it be worthwhile to mount two others, one port, one starboard, to use as a traveler of sorts? I have a spring-clip on the lower main sheet block already, so can easily unsnap, move, re-attach...
Anyone else done this on an S or D boat??
Thanks, as always...
Hello Vizwhiz,
I'm not super familiar with the rigging on the 26S, but here are my thoughts after a little reflection. I'm working from memory of the 26S and pictures rather than actual measurements, so please cut me a little slack when it comes to the engineering calculations....
given the size of the mainsail, and my estimate of where the mainsheet attaches on the boom (looks like about 7' from the mast in the pictures I've got), I calculate the static load on the mainsheet at about 825 pounds (using Harken's loading formulas) and 500 pounds using Lewmar's guidelines for a 25 foot boat (and reducing the load by 20% to reflect the fact that the Mac26S carries only about 80% of themainsail area of most 26-27 foot cruisers). Those are static loads, and dynamic loads might be 8-10 times larger, so if you use a folding padeye, you should use hardware with a breaking strength of 4-5,000 pounds.
Option 1: Replace the eye strap with a folding padeye.
A folding padeye with a breaking strength of 5000 pounds, won't be hard to find, because that's about the required breaking strength for a padeye that would be used as an anchor point for a safety tether. It will, however, be a lot more expensive than an eyestrap is.
Option 2: Replace the eyestrap with a piece of line forming a bridle.
From the point of view of a rigger and sailmaker, a single attachment point would be preferable to a short bridle. There would be a performance cost associated with using a piece of line spanning the companionway as a bridle. It would adversly affect mainsail shape when pointing. With a short bridle, you'll be pulling the leech of the mainsail tighter than before, and tighter than you want, when you're sailing close hauled. That will reduce twist in the mainsail, which in turn will cause you to be overpowered more easily in the gusts. If you want to use a bridle, you'd want to design the mainsail with more "twist" in it than for a single attachment point.
Option 3: Add a cabintop traveller.
The poptop would get in the way of a cabintop traveller, and you would probablly need to re-engineer how the mainsheet attaches to the boom due to increased loads mid-boom.
Option 4: Add a mid-cockpit arch, a la Hunter.
This would be VERY slick, and work beautifully
, but be expensive
Option 5:
Switch to end-boom sheeting. Get a much longer boom and put a traveller on the transom somehow. This would work very well from a rigging and sail-shape perspective, but you might not like having the long mainsheet getting in your way in the cockpit. (My 27 footer is rigged this way and I'm very happy with it that way. I care alot about getting sail shape right, and don't mind having a lot of mainsheet in the cockpit when we're running downwind.)
Option 6
Doh! I can't believe I didn't think of this right at the beginning.
I must need another cup of coffee!
Put a traveller on the bridgedeck!!!
. It'll cost you a couple of hundred $, get that butt-pokey eyestrap out of the way, AND improve your sail shape so you can point higher!!!
I love it!!!. When you're relaxing in the cockpit, slide the traveller car out of your way. Slick.
From a performance and cost/benefit perspective Option #6, a traveller on the bridgedeck is the clear winner.
Option #1 (a folding padeye) is cheap and performance-neutral.
Option #5 (Hunter-style arch) is a **very** elegantly engineered solution but over-the-top cost-wise. If money were no object, I'd go with #5 -- it's elegant: there are no performance compromises and it makes the cockpit more comfy and usable.
I vote for either #1 or #6
If I can be of any further assistance, please contact me.
Judy B