Association Forum - URGENT: Forestay failure

Assn Members Area · Join

Home.

Association Forum

Ships Store

Cruising

Racing

Technical Tips

Photo Gallery - New

Boat Search - Updated

Manuals & Brochures

Swap Meet

Links

Officer Flag Line & Staff

Bylaws & Constitution

Members Area

Join the Association

Notice:
The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.

Association Forum

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

Catalina/Capri 25/250 Sailor's Forums

Catalina 250 Specific Forum

URGENT: Forestay failure

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Previous Page | Next Page

Author

Topic

Page: of 3

Stinkpotter
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Djibouti
9082 Posts

Response Posted - 06/11/2013 : 07:24:01

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by TakeFive
 I still have concerns over the QRP, because the little balls at the end provide too little margin for sloppy tolerances. A cotter ring or cotter pin would not have slipped through this part.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Exactly. I agree with your observation about the cast toggle--I haven't used or seen one. And I can see how the discrepancy between the angles could make that hole "sloppy."

Edited by - on

Stinkpotter
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Djibouti
9082 Posts

Response Posted - 06/11/2013 : 09:15:30

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Davy J
 The real question is, what causes the toggle to bend in the first place?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I think your photo, showing the angles of the chainplate and the forestay on your C-25, leads to the answer. It looks like the top of the chainplate is going to try to bend toggle at about its middle, or try to spread it. The cast toggle in those other photos appears to be thicker, with perhaps less room for that discrepancy and therefore more tendency to be bent.

Edited by - on

Davy J
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
1511 Posts

Response Posted - 06/11/2013 : 09:28:05

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I think your photo, showing the angles of the chainplate and the forestay on your C-25, leads to the answer. It looks like the top of the chainplate is going to try to bend toggle at about its middle, or try to spread it. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I think if that were the case, then we would all have bent toggles. Mine has looked that way for nine years and has never bent or dis-formed.

Edited by - on

TakeFive
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

2272 Posts

Response Posted - 06/11/2013 : 09:50:42

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Davy J
 
I think if that were the case, then we would all have bent toggles. Mine has looked that way for nine years and has never bent or dis-formed.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I suspect that some of us have bent toggles and do not realize it. It's not immediately apparent unless you look closely and/or attempt to reverse the toggle and realize it needs to be "clocked" to work properly.

In your picture, it looks like you have a larger hole in your chainplate that has enough slop for the clevis pin to tilt. So your toggle sees minimal torque, and therefore does not bend. (There is a little torque, since the toggle is not perfectly parallel to the anti-rotation strap.) I need to check to verify this, but I believe that my clevis pin is a much tighter fit in the chainplate hole, and the mismatch of the direction of the chainplate vs. the forestay leads to a torque on the toggle (and the clevis pin), and ultimately to its deformation.

I spoke to Tom at CDI today and he is awaiting a call from Jared, with whom he has already exchanged several emails. But from my discussion with him, it became clear that this is not a furler issue (although clearly the furler needs to be installed properly with the needed washers). These issues would exist with a bare forestay and hank-on jib. It's all about the geometry of the chainplate and forestay, and the tolerances in the dimensions of the related pins and holes.

But bottom line, there are differences between the C25 and C250 rigs, and potentially significant differences over time in the specific implementations of those rigs. So we need to avoid blanket statements like "everyone would have bent toggles." There will be differences in what we all have, and scientific/engineering explanations for those differences.

Edited by - TakeFive on 06/11/2013 10:27:19

Davy J
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
1511 Posts

Response Posted - 06/11/2013 : 10:42:38

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So we need to avoid blanket statements like "everyone would have bent toggles." <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I'm just saying that this issue would come up a lot more frequently if it were just because of the angle of the stem.

In this photo, it looks like the clevis pin is pulled up tight to the top of the hole, not leaning aft like my photo. And because of the second toggles pivot point, there shouldn't/wouldn't be pressure on the lower toggle.

I think that it must be more of a rigging or equipment issue to have this occur. A cotter pin may have prevented the clevis from coming out, but just as well could have sheared off, with what appears to be a good amount of force to bend the toggle like that.

Edited by - Davy J on 06/11/2013 10:44:50

Davy J
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
1511 Posts

Response Posted - 06/11/2013 : 11:00:57

I just noticed something else in his photo. Without the correct number of washers, the lower part of the forestay has a leverage effect on the toggle. In other words, if the T-bolt portion of the forestay drops down to the strap on the furler, the t-bolt would try to widen the toggle. And possibly spread it apart.

ETA. Maybe backwards, because of the lack of washers, the furling strap has the leverage. Pushing the toggle apart.

Edited by - Davy J on 06/11/2013 11:05:29

oregonworld
1st Mate

Members Avatar

USA
68 Posts

Response Posted - 06/11/2013 : 11:01:06

Thanks for the help with this issue.

I've talked with Tom at CDI, and although he claimed not to be a rigger, he told me that there must be a toggle at the top connection of the forestay and mast to give both fore and back and lateral movement. The toggle at the bottom doesn't need to be there and probably shouldn't unless I need length in the stay for some reason.

If this is the case then I would need to keep an eyexjaw toggle at the bottom. The one that bent was bronze.

If anyone has any other comments on the way my stay was rigged to the chain plate, please let me know.

Can anyone tell me a reason not to go to a stainless eye jaw toggle for added strength, add a stainless clevis pin, and the largest stainless ring that will fit in the clevis pin.

So far you there still seems not to be a "unanimous" standard as to how this should be rigged.

I feel that if there had been a clevis pin in it instead of a quick release pin, the stay would not have come loose. Something else may have blown but the mast would not have fallen.

What saved lives was the fixed vang that caught the mast on the gunnel.

In my humble opinion, and having had children and family in the cockpit. Anyone with a quick release pin is beyond crazy. I can't speak for those who single hand but when I get on someones boat I expect the mast to stay up in all but the worst conditions, which these weren't.

I will take some photos of the adjustable backstay tonight and perhaps see what you all think of this setup. I feel that the ability to loosen and tighten easily helped cause this.

Jared

Edited by - on

oregonworld
1st Mate

Members Avatar

USA
68 Posts

Response Posted - 06/11/2013 : 11:20:35

Not sure if your referring to me on not learning a lesson. I hope not. As this is one of the scariest things that has ever happened to me, and although I have average sailing experience, I have triple handed the entire coast of california, I have all the ASA certs up to coastal cruising. I've spent the last 25 years of my life doing thoroughly risky and dangerous outdoor pursuits. I am trained in swiftwater and flood rescue, all the first aids up to wilderness first responder, have guided class 5 white water rafting, done 2 first descent white water kayak expeditions in Tibet, and a whole bunch more. I'm the first one to tell you luck is the combination of preparation and training. That being said and so that everyone who is genuinely interested in helping and giving advice to me as I learn more about the technical hardware and gear of the Catalina 250, I would never in 5 lifetimes rig a boats most critical component with anything less than the most aggressive, burly, and robust components made. With my experience of expeditions, I even feel that a single point of failure on the step masted boats is quite rediculous and I will look into the forestay halyard, (backup) that was mentioned earlier. Finally, I also have enough humility that in a situation like this with near catastrophe would I ever give advice like no brainer. This is akin to asking someone "are you stupid" an emergency or critical situation.

I am looking for smart guidance in something like this never happening again. <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Stinkpotter
 I don't care what some guy with a Swan 50 did, and probably don't believe it--a Swan 50 likely has rod rigging, and is not trailerable. A QR pin is intended for holding up a bimini, not a mast. If you and a few other risk-takers here haven't learned the lesson from your mast coming down,...... never mind.

Edited by - on

oregonworld
1st Mate

Members Avatar

USA
68 Posts

Response Posted - 06/11/2013 : 11:24:20

Totally forgot to say thankyou to all of you and I look forward to continuing to be a part of this awesome forum and hopefully pay back what I gain from all the brilliant sailors here!!!

Edited by - on

Tradewind
Admiral

Members Avatar

USA
531 Posts

Response Posted - 06/11/2013 : 11:35:49

I worked as a rigger for several years back in the 80's and IMO I would never use a QR pin for this application, that's not what it's designed for. I would only use a clevis pin with cotter pin/ring, and the clevis pin should be the exact size to fit the hole it's going through. Nothing wrong with a toggle at the bottom of the headstay if needed, as long as all parts are sized correctly.

Looking at the photo, IMO, it is rigged improperly, using a QR pin. No shortcuts when it comes to keeping the mast up. Are you sure the toggle wasn't bent as a result of the mast coming down?

Edited by - on

Davy J
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
1511 Posts

Response Posted - 06/11/2013 : 12:05:47

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I am looking for smart guidance in something like this never happening again. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
We are trying to help...

Some of us are a little more curmudgeonly about it than others......they know who they are....

I would like to know why it failed too. To just blame the QRP and move on doesn't help.

This doesn't explain why Jared's lower toggle failed/bent, but it might have something to do with the someone else's bending:

Edited by - on

oregonworld
1st Mate

Members Avatar

USA
68 Posts

Response Posted - 06/11/2013 : 12:19:12

Steve-

Is there any reason not to go stainless if I need to replace the eye x jaw toggle for stay length? also, the gap between the t- bolt on the furler and the U toggle - is it essential to add washers to reduce this gap?

Thanks,

jared
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tradewind
 I worked as a rigger for several years back in the 80's and IMO I would never use a QR pin for this application, that's not what it's designed for. I would only use a clevis pin with cotter pin/ring, and the clevis pin should be the exact size to fit the hole it's going through. Nothing wrong with a toggle at the bottom of the headstay if needed, as long as all parts are sized correctly.

Looking at the photo, IMO, it is rigged improperly, using a QR pin. No shortcuts when it comes to keeping the mast up. Are you sure the toggle wasn't bent as a result of the mast coming down?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Edited by - on

oregonworld
1st Mate

Members Avatar

USA
68 Posts

Response Posted - 06/11/2013 : 12:20:40

This makes sense. Anyone know what size washers go in that space?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Davy J
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I am looking for smart guidance in something like this never happening again. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
We are trying to help...

Some of us are a little more curmudgeonly about it than others......they know who they are....

Edited by - on

britinusa
Web Editor

Members Avatar

USA
5404 Posts

Response Posted - 06/11/2013 : 12:27:19

Hoping that you have forgiven my earlier error about the gap...

Have you established the rake of the mast yet?

The additional strap effectively lengthens the forestay, so unless the stay was originally (at time of furler install) too short thus needing the extra, lengthening, strap, then the mast may be raked to far aft.

ie. It could be that the additional strap is unnecessary.

Paul

Edited by - on

Davy J
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
1511 Posts

Response Posted - 06/11/2013 : 12:29:03

Here is the CDI manual. I couldn't find the size mentioned, but page seven shows the installation of them.

http://www.sailcdi.com/sailpdf/FF4& 6%20manual%206_12.pdf

Edited by - on

oregonworld
1st Mate

Members Avatar

USA
68 Posts

Response Posted - 06/11/2013 : 13:12:31

Just got off the phone with the GM of Hayn who makes toggles. His opinion was that the chain plate and the stay are not in alignment as seen in the photo where the toggle is resting on one side of the chain plate and eventually the toggle would or could shear at that point. He suggested that I have the chain plate adjusted to be at the same angle as the stay. However, if the stay is too long, i.e. the unessary toggle, would that create the rake to aft and change the angle of the stay and chain plate?

What do you guys think? <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by britinusa
 Hoping that you have forgiven my earlier error about the gap...

Have you established the rake of the mast yet?

The additional strap effectively lengthens the forestay, so unless the stay was originally (at time of furler install) too short thus needing the extra, lengthening, strap, then the mast may be raked to far aft.

ie. It could be that the additional strap is unnecessary.

Paul
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Edited by - on

oregonworld
1st Mate

Members Avatar

USA
68 Posts

Response Posted - 06/11/2013 : 13:20:42

Ok, upon my last comment from the Hayn he also is very concerned with the chainplate angle. He said that no matter what toggle (he did say that this looked like an adquate bronze part but was quite old) the toggle whethere eye x jaw or strap style would or could bend and be compromised.

His opinion was that the angle of the chain plate should be corrected.

Can others let me know if they're chain plate and forestay have the same angle differences? I'd like to know if this is a Catalina thing or specific to my rig.

Jared

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by TakeFive
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Davy J
 Let me put it another way. If the QRP "fell out" the eye jaw toggles would be intact and not bent. There would have been no force to distort them.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I think it's clear from OP's description that the QRP "fell out":
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by oregonworld
 ...The QR pin slipped out and the mast came down...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The toggle bent because of the stresses and vibration (pumping) that occurred before the pin worked its way out. If the pin just fell out immediately, there would have been no damage to the toggle. But the bending probably occurred before the pin fell out, and the stresses and pumping probably caused the pin to gradually work its way out.

I can tell you that the original toggle that comes with the furler drum is also subjected to significant aftward stresses that cause it to bend over time. The C250's stem chainplate points more vertically than the direction of the forestay, and as a result the clevis pin is not perpendicular to the forestay. (You can also see this in the picture of your C25 chainplate shown above.) So the clevis pin puts a significant torque on the toggle, and causes it to bend over time (although no such bending is apparent in your picture). I will re-inspect mine this evening to verify this, but I believe from past inspections that my toggle has bent over time to a point where it is no longer symmetrical. Every year when I raise the mast it is very clear which direction the toggle should be installed. I had assumed that this is normal wear and work hardening, but now I am concerned.

Could other C250 owners with the CDI FF4 please inspect their toggles and post here whether they have bent over time? If my bending is not normal, I would want to figure out what the problem is on my boat.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Edited by - on

TakeFive
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

2272 Posts

Response Posted - 06/11/2013 : 14:25:24

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by oregonworld
 Ok, upon my last comment from the Hayn he also is very concerned with the chainplate angle. He said that no matter what toggle (he did say that this looked like an adquate bronze part but was quite old) the toggle whethere eye x jaw or strap style would or could bend and be compromised.

His opinion was that the angle of the chain plate should be corrected...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
OK, I know that we're all skeptical of the suggestions that don't match up with our pre-conceived notions. I'm just as guilty as everyone else. So here goes:

You've got over 6000 C25's and a over a thousand C250's with this "problem" (as demonstrated by pics on this thread showing both C250s and C25s). I've heard of two forestay failures in the past year - your C250 and a C25. Both used quick release pins. How many toggles have failed when normal clevis/cotter combination was used? This is not a rhetorical question. I'm hoping someone else will chime in with any other examples.

You need to realize that with something as deadly as a demasting, liability concerns will be paramount. So the toggle manufacturer is going to blame the chainplate, and the chainplate manufacturer is going to blame the toggle.

So I am skeptical. But if someone can provide some unbiased data to raise a concern about the angle of the chainplate, then maybe someone should call Frank Butler and tell him he has made 7000 defective boats (perhaps more when you consider the other sizes).

I will try to take some pics of my boat's stem fittings if I can get to the boat before dark.

Edited by - TakeFive on 06/11/2013 14:26:42

Arlyn Stewart
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
2980 Posts

Response Posted - 06/11/2013 : 15:08:44

It is possible that the rigger/PO installed the bronze toggle to facilitate the use of the quick pin (being more confident in the hole integrity of the toggle to hold the quick pin compared to the supplied stirrup of the CDI furler). If that indeed was the thinking... it was another good intention gone bad. Most of us have seen or experienced enough good intentions gone bad to know they happen.

Given the decision not to use a quick pin (good decision) then eliminate the toggle as well. Yes it is a bit of a pain to pin the stay but safety sometimes dictates.

You will need to reposition the furler spool guard 90° but that is no shake as is setting the height of the guard with washers and re-adjusting the forestay. Someone cautioned to be certain to reinstall both cotter pins on the turnbuckle... be certain to heed that caution.

Last... someone reminded to have spare pins... also good advice.

Edited by - on

oregonworld
1st Mate

Members Avatar

USA
68 Posts

Response Posted - 06/11/2013 : 15:44:14

From an engineering standpoint the mis-aligned chainplate creates a vector that undoubtably creates tension on whatever hardware is attaching it. In Theory the hardware is designed to handle a straight load and nothing more. I am very curious to know if all or most Catalina's have this problem.

If whoever can send me pics then at least I will know whether I need to do an expensive chain plate modification and decommision my boat or this is the norm and a clevis pin and updated toggle situation followed by yearly inspection is sufficient.

thanks

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by TakeFive
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by oregonworld
 Ok, upon my last comment from the Hayn he also is very concerned with the chainplate angle. He said that no matter what toggle (he did say that this looked like an adquate bronze part but was quite old) the toggle whethere eye x jaw or strap style would or could bend and be compromised.

His opinion was that the angle of the chain plate should be corrected...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
OK, I know that we're all skeptical of the suggestions that don't match up with our pre-conceived notions. I'm just as guilty as everyone else. So here goes:

You've got over 6000 C25's and a over a thousand C250's with this "problem" (as demonstrated by pics on this thread showing both C250s and C25s). I've heard of two forestay failures in the past year - your C250 and a C25. Both used quick release pins. How many toggles have failed when normal clevis/cotter combination was used? This is not a rhetorical question. I'm hoping someone else will chime in with any other examples.

You need to realize that with something as deadly as a demasting, liability concerns will be paramount. So the toggle manufacturer is going to blame the chainplate, and the chainplate manufacturer is going to blame the toggle.

So I am skeptical. But if someone can provide some unbiased data to raise a concern about the angle of the chainplate, then maybe someone should call Frank Butler and tell him he has made 7000 defective boats (perhaps more when you consider the other sizes).

I will try to take some pics of my boat's stem fittings if I can get to the boat before dark.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Edited by - on

Ian Brisbane
1st Mate

Members Avatar

Australia
37 Posts

Response Posted - 06/11/2013 : 16:04:07

Hi Jared

Thanks for having the guts to share your story, it is easy to write about how smart we are - much harder to talk about it when something goes wrong but that is how we all learn! it is certainly going to make me go and check my rigging thoroughly - I suppose I have been a bit blase' with it myself.

Thanks Ian

Edited by - on

oregonworld
1st Mate

Members Avatar

USA
68 Posts

Response Posted - 06/11/2013 : 16:12:17

That's nothing. I had 4 children under 7 and 4 adults in the cockpit when my mast came down. None of them were sailors. The rigid vang was keeping the mast up and hanging onto the gunnels ready to toppel over in 10 knot winds with both sails up. Saving that mess was challenging and had to happen in less than a couple minutes.

Figuring out what the hell went wrong and sharing it with you is quite easy.<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Ian Brisbane
 Hi Jared

Thanks for having the guts to share your story, it is easy to write about how smart we are - much harder to talk about it when something goes wrong but that is how we all learn! it is certainly going to make me go and check my rigging thoroughly - I suppose I have been a bit blase' with it myself.

Thanks Ian
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Edited by - on

TakeFive
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

2272 Posts

Response Posted - 06/11/2013 : 19:35:09

I also want to thank oregonworld for posting about this issue. We can all learn important lessons from discussing this. Some of us may have strong opinions, but please don't let that deter anyone from sharing their differing opinions. It's all good.

I promised pictures, so here they are. Comments at the end:

Some of my prior recollections were inaccurate, and taking these pictures refreshed my memory. First, you can see clearly that the hole in the chainplate is much larger than the clevis pin. However, a larger clevis pin is not viable because it won't fit though the toggle.

The toggle is bent, but not in a way that suggests that it was due to rig stresses. I really don't know what the 3+ owners may have done to bend it. You can see that it's shaped in a way that the clevis pin is almost perfectly horizontal. I know from experience that reversing the toggle made it impossible to insert the clevis pin.

The most significant thing that I noticed is that I only have one washer. I recall having to disassemble and reassemble the drum and T-bolt several times with different number of washers. My problem was that the forestay was too long (too much mast rake) and I had tightened the turnbuckle down so much that it "bottomed out" in the furler drum with the 3 or 4 washers that were on it originally. By going down to one washer I was able to reduce my mast rake the appropriate amount, yet still have just enough room to get the clevis pin through. (Note that the anti-rotation strap comes into gentle contact with the chainplate.) This trial and error process took hours, and required me to secure the mast with the jib halyard while I constantly unattached and reattached the forestay. It was a total pain, and I had one last idea that might have shortened the forestay further and allowed an additional washer for more space, but I was out of time and energy (and daylight), so I left it as good enough. I will have to try my one last attempt at improvement next time I have the mast down. I will also consider replacing the toggle, but considering how sensitive all the adjustments are because of the mast rake issue, I might be reluctant to open that Pandora's box.

Edited by - TakeFive on 06/11/2013 19:35:46

Davy J
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
1511 Posts

Response Posted - 06/12/2013 : 07:05:39

Thanks for taking the photos. The strange thing is that your clevis pin is angled opposite from mine. Maybe because of the slight bend in the toggle? That length of clevis pin would really have to work it's way out for you to have a failure.

Wouldn't adding more washers result in you having less mast rake? The T-bolt would be closer to the bottom of the anti-rotation strap.

Edited by - on

TakeFive
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

2272 Posts

Response Posted - 06/12/2013 : 14:35:59

There was a question about how I store my bimini when not in use:

Edited by - on

Page: of 3

Topic

Previous Page | Next Page

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Jump To:

Association Forum

Notice: The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.