26x spreaders

[Chip Hindes]

At the risk of provoking a whole bunch of people who seem intent on fixing something that I don't consider broken, as far as I can tell the stock aluminum spreaders work just fine and don't need to be upgraded.

My '01X is now over four years old with the stock spreaders, has seen some pretty stiff winds, and probably has more trailering miles on it than most at 8000+. It's only one owner's anecdotal evidence, but it's my experience (just as is everyone else's).

I keep my rig quite tight, and this might be the key; in fact with the exception of Billy G. mine is the about the tightest I've seen on a boat that is regularly trailered.

I do notice as others have noted that my spreaders are bent slightly aft where they exit the sockets, but I've inspected them and other than the bends there appear to be no adverse effects and no signs of imminent failure. I didn't notice it until others mentioned it, so I have no way of knowing if the aft bends are because the sockets are manufactured at the wrong angle to begin with, or because the spreaders have sustained some damage. Maybe because of the many trailer miles? It's also possible that if there is a long term fatigue problem, my boat's still too new or hasn't seen hard enough use to show it.

In any case, so called "rigid" PVC isn't, and I don't believe its addition will make a bit of difference in the strength or stiffness. Wooden dowels (hardwood hickory, ash, oak, but not standard birch dowel stock) would be better, though not great.

If you're convinced it's necessary, there's no doubt you can do it with stainless; in rough numbers you can triple the stiffness at triple the weight for the same wall thickness, and triple the price if you buy it at West Marine. Besides the weight aloft penalty this will impose way higher loads on the sockets and mast attachments during trailering.

As an alternative, note that the bending loads are maximum at the sockets and decrease in linear fashion to zero at the tip ends. You can accomplish eveything positive that is to be accomplished a lot easier, cheaper, at a lower weight penalty and almost no additional load on the sockets, with an internal stiffening insert in your stock spreader limited to maybe 6-8", closest to the socket ends. I further recommend that your insert be aluminum tubing (<.2 lb and <$4/ each). Or if you can't find 7/8 x .065" tube, solid 7/8" aluminum bar (<1/2 lb and <$8/ each) rather than PVC or wood.

Also, if it's a long term problem, for free you could double the life by simply reversing the stock items end for end.

It's a separate subject, but I believe it is unwise to trust push button extenders with the kind of loads the spreaders need to handle. Those are designed for biminis, not spars.

[Moe]

This is just my opinion, but I see the spreaders being bendable as a good thing. I would prefer to have them, as relatively inexpensive, and sometimes more importantly, readily obtainable, items, fail before something like their sockets cracking or pulling out of the mast.

Speaking of the sockets, are these common off-the-shelf items, or are they produced solely for MacGregor? If so, are they currently used in 26M production, or are they out of production?

--
Moe

[Duane Dunn, Allegro]

The sockets on the 26x are very different than the ones on the 26M due to the rotating mast. As far as I know both are a custom Mac casting, not off the shelf.

They are not hard to replace. They just through bolt with the bolts crossing from one to the other in a X pattern.

When I bought my boat it had the orginal hinged folding spreader mount used on all the previous mac classics. It was easy to drill a few holes in the mast and mount the fixed sockets. What I did find interesting is the instructions that came with the sockets had me attach the spreader tips above the two swages in the upper shrouds rather than in between them where they were with the hinged spreaders. This puts some upward tension on the spreaders even when the mast is not stepped. I've had them that way for 4 seasons now with no problems or broken/bent spreaders. I think having the tension even when the mast is down has helped avoid spreader problems as it keeps them tighter all the time.

[Moe]

There aren't any marks, such as swages, in the upper shrouds of the later models. The spec says that the spreader should be 12' from the top of the upper shroud. That put it with a lot of slack on mine, so I moved the spreader up the shroud a bit, so there's a little upward tension on the spreader. I was afraid that once the adjuster was tightened, there would be downward pressure on the socket from the spreader. This way, the spreader should be about halfway through the slop when tensioned.

--
Moe

[Don T]

Hello:
Here is how I look at it:
1. I consider the spreaders to be a major structural member of a rig that, if it fails, could threaten the safety of everyone on board.
2. Needing to replace them after 4 years shows an inherant weakness. I still have the old ones if anyone wonders how bad they are.
3. Waiting until they fail completely is folly.
4. Any time I am confronted with premature failure of any part that threatens safety, I will ascertain what is causing it to fail and look to improve it's design.

Anecdotal, imperical or whatever this philosophy applies to everything I own. And yes, this means I hate our "throw away" society trend.

[Duane Dunn, Allegro]

I think its is really a matter of how much care you give them. Mine are the original spreaders from 1996, they are still in perfect shape. They are pure stock, no extra reinforcement. I am very careful to never let them touch, snag, or be pulled on. Still, we do pull the rig off and on numerous times a year when we go out mastless in addition to the usual raising and lowering for each normal trip. This exposes them to even more chances for damage. We pay close attention to the spreaders throughout the whole process. I also think using he mast raising gear helps a lot. It allows you to go much slower up and down and tend to any snags that might cause them to get bent. I don't feel they are under built when cared for, they just won't take much abuse.

[argonaut]

I'm sailing with Don and the others here who think some added durability in the spreader area is worthwhile.

Whether the stiffening needs to be the tubing itself or internal bolstering to prevent the tube from bending is another question, maybe both wouldn't hurt.

If you're the original owner and and/or meticulous about raising and lowering the mast your spreaders probably look fine. If you slip your boat they probably look fine because you don't raise and lower your mast and you can't really see them well from down in the cockpit. If you're the boat's third owner like me, or someday have someone helping raise your rig who don't understand the physics of spreaders, or God forbid your mate forgets your "don't handle the mast by the spreaders" lecture after a long weekend sail, you could end up with spreaders that look as crappy as mine and apparently Don's. Hopefully yours won't fail underway and lead to demasting.

The spreader design like the rest of the boat most likely has more to do with economics than marine engineering. MacG usually employs the most cost-effective material to do the job. On a static paper model I'm sure that 1" OD aluminum tubing with 1/16" wall thickness will take the forces it's designed to handle in tension without collapsing longitudinally within good margins. Was anybody at Mac concerned about how the spreaders would hold up twisting under pounding seas or after getting hung or handled stepping the mast over time... I doubt it.

I also doubt aluminum tubing spreaders were designed to collapse to "protect" the rest of standing rigging. The original spreader problem on 26 boats was that the aluminum spreader sockets failed. MacG changed the design to stainless, and retrofit kits to replace aluminum cups with stainless cups for older boats became available. Now we see the spreaders themselves failing on boats using the newer stainless cups, at the same socket joint, but the tubing fails now instead of the socket, and tube scoring from the casting has been noted. I can see where the next reasonable step might be to upgrade the tubing itself. Some of you don't, fine, your rigs are fine and your objections are noted.

Since others have already documented problems with the spreader cup socket joint and because my spreaders are bent as heck, I'm going with the extra fraction of a pound of weight and in the same time I could slap alumimum up there I'll spend a bit more and use stainless. Some things are best fixed the first time.

Thanks Don and others for going to the trouble to pass on what you're learned.

If my chainplates rip out of the hull as a result I'll let ya know.

[craiglaforce]

The original spreaders on my 97 are still working fine. Tight rig and kept in slip. Trailered 200 miles/year to and from slip.

I did buy some aluminum tube from Loews as spares however, after reading all the concerns out there.

I would like to remove them from the sockets to inspect them, but it will involve cutting the bolts off that attach the spreaders to the sockets. Looks like the nuts were either staked on or they gaulded.

[Greg]

If the spreaders are under compression only when properly installed, the concern of damage to them should be minimal. That would mean that any damage to them would either come from too loose a rig or rough handling.

From what I have read on this BB and what I have learned about rigging, many rigs on often trailered boats are set up loose for easy setup which causes more stress from hammering the rig as the load shifts from side to side. I can see how that would damage the spreaders. On a properly adjusted rig, both sides should be tight, no matter which side the load is on. The loaded side is just tighter.

On the other hand, if the spreaders are mishandled (or used as handles) they would bend before damage to the sockets or mast would occur. If something has to break while on on a trip, I would rather it be something I can get at a local store than a special order item like a socket or worse yet damage to the mast.

I am curious if there have been any failures of the ss socket or mast using the factory spreaders with no reinforcements.

Greg

[BK]

Since I already put the PVC inside the tube, I am sure a smaller dowel could slide inside the PVC. You woiuld have the both the PVC and the dowel.

[ALX357]

......after considering the process of loosening the lifelines or at least one, and having the spreaders in the way when the mast is down, i decided to make them easily removable. At a local Boater's World store found a 1/4" quick pin of the right length and used a large heavy ring-ding. For storage against the mast, glued and bound two pvc tubes together side by side, and strap under mast with bungees.... slide the spreaders into tubes without unrigging them from shrouds.... just have to deal with the loops of wire perpendicular to the mast over the deck.....
Note that the spreaders have to be taken off before the mast is all the way down, of course, and put in after the mast is raised enough to clear the lifelines.... also have to make sure not to get halyards and forestay/furler on the wrong side of the spreaders also.. still it seems worth it to me...

[dclark]

The spreaders are not nearly strong enough to hang by and the won't do well when bumped into the side of the garage. They wont support your weight while you're up there rigging the boat and they are a poor choice of things to grab as catch yourself from tripping. But they were not made to do any of those things. They were made to get the shrouds out from the mast and the were made to take about all the tension you want to give it AS LONG AS IT'S ALONG THE LENGTH and not lateral stress. I seriously doubt that a PVC pipe will do much to improve any of that. I'm sure SS adds strength, but nothing you need and it's about as heavy a material as you could use. I don't see the need, just carry a spare if you're worried about it.

[Don T]

Hello:
The addition of pvc pipe is meant only to inhibit deformation of the tube. Aluminum is pretty strong until it gets bent the first time. After that it gets weak fast with every bend or deformation of the tube. In tests on my spreaders the outer ends had 45% more lateral strength than the socket end. I did not have a means to test compression strength. For those of you with aftward bends in your spreaders, you will be ok for a while but if your rig gets loaded heavily (aftwards as the mast bends forward) and the centerline of compression force moves outside of the tube, it will deform or buckle. This isn't something that happens in light or moderate winds or if you spend 95% of your time motoring. How your rig is doing depends on many things like tension, rake, bend, water / wind conditions, trailering and raising / lowering practices.
I am not suggesting that everyone needs to do this mod.
I am saying: for the way I use my boat and the performance under sail that I expect from her, this was something I needed to do.
I am aware of the "weight aloft" penalty and now that I have a TIG welder I may go ahead and make new SS sockets and install aluminum spreaders with a wing like crossection

[Frank C]

Pulling mine apart, ID at shroud tip was .87" or 56/64s (7/8").

... which exactly agrees with the dimensions posted at top of this thread, .062 wall thickness. Double that means one-eighth inch of material within the OD of one-inch.

I bent a spreader while towing mast-up from ramp to parking area ... caught a shroud in a passing tree. Rather than wait for a factory spreader, I went to the local Metals Supermart for some stock, mill-grade tubing. Chip's correct that the anodizing is the only difference.

I recall that my original spreaders were less than the standard one-sixteenth wall thickness (probably a shipping error by the supplier) but I think that standard is ample for the task. If I wanted more strength, I like the idea of a PVC inner-liner for it's light weight. If I've stressed a spreader to the point of relying on a dowel's memory, I'd rather replace the spreader anyhow ... at the same time I examine the socket and end-tie.

Caveat - mine is a MacX, don't know about the rotating mast. Resting the spreaders on the lifelines must be the most abnormal stress they endure. I added a quick-link at mid-stanchion that permits me to slack the starboard lifeline, thereby eliminating my mast-stepping two-step. I too don't trust the idea of a click-button collapsing spreader to hold my rig aloft, especially when it's even easier to slack the lifeline. In fact, I'd sooner shorten the spreaders w/ hacksaw than impose the rig loads on a click-button just to clear the lifelines. BK's right ... it's probably time to pull them apart for their bi-annual safety check.

[kmclemore]

....I still have the old ones if anyone wonders how bad they are....

Don, I don't see anything wrong with my original '96 spreaders, but then my boat had hardly ever been sailed when I bought her last year. Can you post pictures of the failures on yours so we can see the sort of damage you're describing? I think it would be very useful to help us understand what to look for on ours. (thanks!)

Fair winds - Kevin