Rig Surveys

Back to Fairleads Index

We are almost done with a very difficult job, and almost all of the difficulty came from the lack of a rig survey. The owner brought the boat in, told us about the few pieces he wanted replaced, and we told him how much it would cost. Simple so far. The trouble is that a rigging system never breaks down in little, isolated chunks; it is, after all, a system. And one of the reasons we can call ourselves riggers is that we have seen enough systems over the years that we tend, at least, to be able to see more of what needs to be done than non-riggers.

This sounds self-aggrandizing and pretentious to me, even as I write it, let alone when faced with people who own a large sailing vessel, are deeply experienced, and are confident that they know what their boat needs. After all these years, I still tend to defer to such people. And after all these years, I always come to regret it.

In this case, a straight-ahead replacement of some of the standing rigging expanded into: all of the standing rigging. new mastheads on both masts; new tangs; new halyard arrangements; relocated bowsprit shroud chainplates; new topping lifts, running backs, genoa cars; and a host of other items, all of which required consultation, head-scratching, multiple assemblies and disassemblies, and accommodating other people's schedules, so that the owners spent a lot more money, lost some major charters due to inevitable delays, and got generally frustrated by the experience. Oh, it would have been a difficult, costly job in any event, but a thorough survey would have made such a difference to expectations, logistics, and the finished price.

Now, our surveys don't always, or even usually, turn up reams of scary items, but they consistently result in the revelation of serious problems that the owners weren't aware of, the kinds of things that make for really interesting, expensive stories if left unattended. Or, to put it another way, surveys are cheaper than dismastings. And because we look so close, and because fixing problems do cost something, we've known people actually to avoid having us look at their rigs. As one fellow put it, "Brion, if I let you aboard, I know it's going to cost me $20,000." Not a great deal of logic there, but I understand, I understand.

In a similar vein, some clients will come in with a highly-detailed list of pieces to make, based on their own survey. We recently made up most of a gang for a schooner by this method, with just a bit of consultation based on photographs ‹didn't see the actual boat ‹, and shipped it off. We heard nothing more until months later, when I was addressing a yacht club, and got to talking about why I don't like double backstays. I laid it on really thick, with great emphasis about how stupid they are (see April Œ99 Fair Leads). As I was winding down, a man in the front row raised his hand and said, "My boat has double backstays, why didn't you tell me this before you rerigged it?" I had no idea who he was, having only met him briefly, and not recently, and couldn't imagine what he was talking about. So I stood up there having a goldfish experience (you know, looking vacant while silently opening and closing your mouth), finally mumbling something about how some boats leave you no alternatives, and suggesting we meet after the talk. In due course he did, and we went to look at his boat, nearby. And of course the moment I saw it I remembered it, and him, as it was a most unusual form of stays'l schooner rig, with what was essentially a jibstay and forestay on the main, as well as the fore, with some of the loads from all of those stays being delivered to the main backstays. The stern configuration was also in the mix, as it involved a boomkin, and the resulting stay legs were so close together that a fork wouln't have made sense, among other considerations. So the original rigger had apparently felt it were better to bring the load down to two anchor points instead of one massive, inconveniently-placed one, and I concurred. This really was a place for double backstays, no question, but this past client had to ambush me in front of dozens of potential clients in order to understand this.

But wait, there's more. As long as I was aboard, I had a brief look around, paying special attention to the pieces that the client had not chosen to replace, because in his opinion they had been in fine shape. What I found, to my horror, were sail-carrying stays made of very elastic, very corrosion-vulnerable halyard wire, and a bobstay setup up that was grossly undersized and already showing signs of failure. So what we had was about half of a decent rig, problems that should have kept the boat chained to the dock, and an owner determined to leave for Mexico in a few days. Not a nice combination, and it gets worse: in similar circumstances, we have heard of rigs failing because of components we never even touched. But our name was on the rig, and how can you explain to people, "yeah, but not that part," without sounding really lame? As a result we are emphatically leery of partial rerigs that aren't based on our own surveys.

Yesterday we were aboard a large, beautiful catamaran, about 14 years old. The current owners had recently sailed it here from Panama, and had sailed it extensively in the Caribbean before that. They love the boat, are justifiably proud of it, but hadn't noticed that the years had had an effect on the rig. They weren't aware that the upper end of the jibstay had multiple broken yarns, that the chainplate throughbolts were latticed with corrosion, that the crossbeam had been damaged by an ill-designed bowsprit addition, or a few dozen other alarming items. We went over things very carefully, and were still stumbling over deformed snatch blocks and corroded fasteners when we left. When Peter writes the report up, both the current and the prospective owners will know that making the rig once again seaworthy will be a spendy proposition, and a difficult job. But they'll know, and can respond accordingly. Sometimes our surveys condemn a rig, sometimes they just point out areas that can be upgraded, but they're always a picture of the system, always a way to minimize surprises. They're not a guarantee that all potential problems have been spotted ‹ I wish they were ‹ but they are the best means to discovering the state of the rig, so that the work that usually follows makes coherent sense.