Can a expert out there tell me if I need runners on this rig? It has the locations but unfortantly nothing onboard, I'm thinking some spectra on a ratio block? Has a tempery innerfore stay as well. Still have not been up the rig since I brought her! Slack
Thought you expressed contempt for experts. I have some knowledge of rigging but you can get ****ed
Select to expand quotefrant said..
Thought you expressed contempt for experts. I have some knowledge of rigging but you can get ****ed
That's a bit harsh
Regards Don
That's not very nice Rant! I was joking about the experts lighten up! ok some one that has some experience in the field!
Hi Southace,
Rant probably had a bad day but thats still no way to address someone on this forum. Bloody bad form as far as I am concerned. After all, the forum is supposed to be about support and helping each other. It's one thing to take the piss out of each other but to go forth and multiply is not on.
If you have an inner forestay then it needs to be supported where it attaches to your mast.
If your not flying a sail from it then I wouldn't bother but if you do then some form of runner should be applied.
Spectra would be ideal for this as it is easier to remove when not in use.
If you dont intend to use the inner forestay then get rid of it.
I have noted the mast section above the headsail flexes quite a bit when pounding seas with a full main I geuss I should be reefed then With runners.
Select to expand quotesouthace said..
I have noted the mast section above the headsail flexes quite a bit when pounding seas with a full main I geuss I should be reefed then With runners.
You have swept back spreaders which should obviate the need for running back stays.
It is quite a modern and sophisticated rig so I wouldn't muck around with it. It is 3/4 fractional rig with double swept back spreaders and the mast tapered above the fore stay. The tapering is to allow the top section to be flexed aft and thereby flatten the main sail when beating in a stiff breeze. There is a back stay tensioner fitted for this purpose. Learn how to use it, as in how much to apply in different breezes.
It is more of a racing rig than a cruising one so it is worth considering how old it is and how soon it might need replacing. If it is more than 5 years old it will be well worth your while having a professional yacht rigger accustomed to rigging and tuning racing rigs check it over and even do that while sailing in a fair breeze.
If the rig is coming up for replacement in the not too distant, consider your wire diameters and whether it is worth going up a size for a stronger cruising rig.
You mentioned you have a temporary inner fore stay as well. From which point on the mast and to which point on the deck does it run?? That is, what purpose has it? Is it high enough and forward enough to hank a sail on it or is it a baby stay for the purpose of flexing the mast and/or preventing the mast from pumping in a seaway??
Select to expand quotefrant said..
Thought you expressed contempt for experts. I have some knowledge of rigging but you can get ****ed
That's not nice at all
You appear to have a problem
Thanks Cisco I will indulge in a soft rum ",capt morgan or sailor Peter" with you due to your responce next time I'm up your way!
I was trying to work out if it's 7/8th or 3/4 the runner slots from what I can see is just above the foresail/fuller. I would like spectra and possbly some little grinders be hind my self taylors unfortantly the boat builder and my father haVe passed and I have searched Icon and no plans or instalments?
p.s that was not the pic I was looking for! Haha I have one with the reef and a view of the mast!
There is noone in this town that I can pay for decent tune up and advide thats why I post on here?!
Ps Still not the pic I'm looinb for but its gettin closer!
Select to expand quotesouthace said..
There is noone in this town that I can pay for decent tune up and advide thats why I post on here?!
Ps Still not the pic I'm looinb for but its gettin closer!
i,m guessing a bit here , but in that photo it looks like the back-stay is slack . If you are reefed due to a strong breeze, then i think the backstay should be on hard . that should stop the flexing at the top . And flatten the sail.
Southace, Bit hard to tell from the photographs but you might have a "hybrid" rig where the spreaders are swept back but the chainplates are directly athwartships of the mast. In that case runners are probably essential to prevent headstay sag. Do the runners originate at the hound or just below the hound. If so they would be to prevent sag and stop the mast from going over the front when running downwind. The backstay on a 7/8 rig wont hold the mast from going forward and over the front. Where is the strong point on your deck for the inner forestay and how high up the mast does it terminate. The inner forestay is probably used to fly the storm jib and prevent the mast from inverting when sailing deep reefed.
I have a triple spreader rig and am in the process of fitting a dyneema with chafe sleeve removable inner forestay and dyneema runners all luggage tagged to the second spreaders. That is for the storm jib. I can also use the same strong point on the deck to fly a spinacre staysail from the #2 genoa halyard.
I do recommend that you do a rig inspection. Take a magnifying glass with you and inspect every swage in detail. Just judging from the look of the tape on your spreader tips and the spreader tip covers themselves I would estimate that your rig is in quite good condition but if you dont check then you wont know. BTW when at sea/doing an ocean passage I do a visual inspection from deck level with binoculars everyday and go up the mast at least every few days. And I did go up the mast on the weekend for a rig inspection as well.
The chain plates look well aft of the mast to me. looks like a good set up and I would leave it alone. The sails I would be looking at carefully. Main looks too full and the chord on that headsail is just weird.
Select to expand quoteRamona said..
The chain plates look well aft of the mast to me. looks like a good set up and I would leave it alone. The sails I would be looking at carefully. Main looks too full and the chord on that headsail is just weird.
What photo are you looking at? The only one I can see is the sideways top pic. Admitedly a bit of paralax error but don't see that the shroud base is that far aft. Did the original Adams design have swept back spreaders or a masthead rig with backstay?
Select to expand quoteRamona said..
The chainplates look like they are directly under the lower spreader tips.
They look forward to me.
I had a similar rig in my old Jarkan. Which was probably about the same vintage boat
The rig was sound with swept back spreaders and a good section mast. The rig was designed with runners and whilst it was fine in enclosed waters with out them it became very hard to hold the forestay straight with any sort of seaway as it would pump around and sag this allowed the top section to whip around abit as well and fall off sideways.
I had a set of spectra runners made up which could be put on the rig very easily and then she was locked up solid and good in any seaway.
I could take them off to do twilight racing etc and just use them on lengthy ocean passages where weather was unpredictable.
The back stay with the flexible mast will not hold the forestay straight and may lead to over bending of the mast and compression where you don't want it.
The other issue is without runners the chain plates start to take a lot of load and this can then affect the structure of the bulkheads where they attach.
A rigger told me that to be sure the chain plates need to be around 22 degrees aft of the mast to be safe with out runners in a seaway, and then the structure should be engineered to take the loads.
I would get runners for passages and be safe
Hugo
That is the topping lift that is slack the backstay is on tight. The speaders are swept back and chain plates are aft of the rig.
Well, if it is an Adams and the rig is original or close to it, why do you not talk to the possible designer Graham Radford about it?
He is a very helpful gentleman and l am sure if you ask him about the rig he is going to be helpful.
I have an Adams but mine is a mast head rig. I have an inner fore stay and runners in the height of the second spreader which l use with great success when the need arises.
Well, if it is an Adams and the rig is original or close to it, why do you not talk to the possible designer Graham Radford about it?
He is a very helpful gentleman and l am sure if you ask him about the rig he is going to be helpful.
I have an Adams but mine is a mast head rig. I have an inner fore stay and runners in the height of the second spreader which l use with great success when the need arises. Also have an adjustable back stay to play with.
Cruising rig, no doubt, strong and reliable.
Your rig is not a classical cruising rig.
Thanks for your comments , I use to skipper this Adams 52 in the Whitsundays she has swept back triple spreaders and primary runners. Very similar hull lines as my current 42, my 42 I believe was re-rigged after being gutted by fire in the late 80s, I believe she is a Joe Adams design before the Joe/Adams partnership evolved. It maybe possible to get some info from Radford so I will try to contact him about the rig in the future. All is not lost yet!
Southace, are you absolutely sure Icon is an Adams design?? Adams yachts are usually a bit fuller in the stern and the rig you have is not classic Adams.
No matter Adams or not, she is a classic yacht.
Remember the 34 ft yacht in Townsville a while ago that the broker and owner swore black and blue was an S&S but I know for a fact it was a Des Townson 34.
It would be good if you could trace her full history to eliminate any doubts.
Have you been drinking CISCO! You haven't seen my pics and others? nothing more to say!
No. I have been off the grog for over a month. Yes I have seen all the pics you have posted of Icon and I have to say I have not seen another Adams yacht like her.
Do you know of any sister ships to Icon??
Only iceberg ironicly! Which is a 52 And fin keel rather than the shoul draft, and Adams 40s my mate owns the radford/Adams 40 centre cockpit still not launched 10 years I known him. I think they are all the much the same hull just stretched and different configurations on keels and rigs?
Select to expand quoteHG02 said..frant said..
Thought you expressed contempt for experts. I have some knowledge of rigging but you can get ****ed
That's not nice at all
You appear to have a problem
Touch of 'Murphy's Dog' syndrome maybe.
There was the classic Adams 40 most of which were built in steel, predate Radford joining up with Joe and had a reputation as really fast yachts.
When Radford came along the design office had a fairly radical departure from the classic Joe Adams designs to the "Metre Designs" of which there was the Adams 8 (Sonata), Adams 10, Adams 11, Adams 12 (centre cockpit, what your mate has ???) and the Adams 13 centre boarder. There were many keel and cabin variations as well as custom designs too.
I am looking at the Adams Yacht Design book and I reckon it is a fair bet that Icon is the classic Adams 40 hull (pre Radford) extended 2 ft in the stern, cabin trunk extended forward and a more modern fractional rig fitted instead of the cruising mast head rig. May be further aft or forward too. You did say you had a bulkhead a couple of feet in front of the transom didn't you??
Being glass construction, therefore lighter, she should be faster than the steelys and not need the heavy mast head rig. Did you post any pics of her on the slip or hard?
What do you think??
I think AloaHugo has it right. Just going off the spreader angle, it does appear as if your sweep is comparatively low for a rig of this type, and the topmast is not stiff enough to allow the backstay to provide significant support. As Aloa says, when you bend a rig like this with the backstay the distance from the mast base to the hounds reduces, which therefore increases forestay sag.
Chucking on some simple runners shouldn't be a big problem. However, some riggers note that if taken to the rail at the quarters, they can exert a twisting force on the mast that can be problematic for aft-swept rigs. You may be better off taking them to the stern at the centreline, but that does put them in the way to a greater extent.
A set of jumper struts is another possibility - they will transmit backstay tension to forestay tension quite effectively.
There's nothing necessarily wrong with the topmast pumping in a seaway - on some boat the mast is meant to flex in each gust to depower the main, and such rigs may also pump when they hit a wave. It's all a matter of tuning the rig tension to achieve the effect you prefer.
While some may not like them for cruising, these swept spreader rigs actually seem to be extremely reliable in use (although I'm only judging from what I've seen and the reasons that boats pull out of offshore races, not from any proper statistical data). Sure, they can bounce a bit but that's probably working as a form of shock absorber.
One thing about these rigs is that the tension on just about every stay has a considerable effect all through the rig. So if you increase the tension on the lower diagonals, you will need more backstay tension to bend the mast to flatten the mainsail. That MAY stop the mast from pumping and MAY tighten the forestay, but those factors can depend on the stiffness of the topmast. Many older boats had long topmasts (like yours and mine) and often on these rigs when you increase backstay tension the mast just bends at the top and no significant extra force passes to the forestay and lower mast. In contrast, modern swept-spreader fractional rigs normally have shorter and stiffer topmasts, which means that the backstay tension affects the forestay tension more accurately and directly. Modern racing yachts also tend to have flatter sails in low-stretch film, which means that they can be set up for a smaller range of mast bend since you are not trying to compensate for sailcloth stretch. So techniques that work for modern rigs may not work for this rig.
Thanks Chris for that opinion and CSICO Im thinking along the same lines. They must have pumped out a few glass Adam 40 in the early 80s with the shoal draft keel and used internal ballast rather than the drop keel like the metal models.
I totally believe that in the re-build the previous owner added a couple of feet on the stern as the rear bulk head resemables a solid transom at 40 feet.
Being a shoal draft I'm very happy that she has a light fractional rig as to my last yacht which I over-rigged. All good I think I will add some spectra runners just for peace of mind in the future.
Cheers
