Norsemans even badly done!
 

Just checked over a boat today.... tayana 42....norseman fittings both ends (eye to stud on 10mm) of the D1's. Fitted by the owner in the Marquesas, cone in the correct place, but only tightened enough so 5 threads were buried, then 'sealed ' in with silicone. On the check saw there was way too much thread showing, so removed them.. unscrewed them by hand (easily), found that the wire had'nt even formed around the cone, and the like that had done the trip around the pacific islands and on to nz!!
Just goes to show that the reforming of the wire around the cone is the 'belt n braces', as all the load is held in the taper... Quite interesting.... That said i find many 'correctly' assembled norsemans arrive at the shop, undo with only hand pressure, (no loctite.. obviously!).

Oh the reason the D1's got replaced was because the top bolt of the Selden Seltang they were attached, failed... muntered the tang and the stay. (Professionally intalled apparently! New ones fitted)..Equally interesting!!

Any thoughts/similar experiences?:)

It depends
 

Hello,
I've seen things like this before, once on a boat that had come through a hurricane. And note that, on Hayn fittings, which have the highest break test numbers of any of this type of terminal, the ends are never bent over. Having said that, what you found was not a good thing, but just a bad thing that didn't break. Given a good factor of safety in the wire size (and for all I know it might have been very high), the maximum possible sustained load on the wires might have been no more than 40% of the rated wire strength. And it is unlikely that the actual sailing loads that the rig saw were less than 20% of the wire's strength. Even if we were to discover that the terminal as you found it would pull out at 60% of break, it doesn't look like a problem.
But we have safety factors for good reason. What if the boat were to experience a shock load, or a series of shock loads that exceeded the design max? Unlike Hayn's, Norseman's are designed to be maximally efficient with the wire bent over. I don't know how much of a difference it makes to either strength or security, but I'm not about to assume it is an optional step.
As a separate point, not engaging all the threads is just another, completely different way to weaken the terminal, so we might ask how close to the edge this boat has been sailing, given the combined deficiencies you saw.
As for the absence of Loctite, there are seldom forces that act to unscrew terminals significantly; the point is that there sometimes are, so we glue those threads down.
Fair leads,
Brion Toss

I can't remember how many times I've taken apart a mechanical fitting and been amazed that it hadn't failed. Like all rigging, thankfully, they seem to be very forgiving.
Unfortunately, the sea isn't .
That is one of the problems that I have with the perpetuation of the belief that mechanical fittings are superior to swages. Too many unqualified installers.
While a StaLoc or Norseman isn't really difficult to install, as many of us know, it's easy to screw them up. Unless a person has had a little training or watched a video or something, they don't know what to look for.

Speaking of silicone, what do you recommend for caulking the fittings?

Sealant for machanical fittings
 

thanks chaps for the replies.
Silicone is not ideal as a sealant on mechanical fittings as many brands emit acetic acid on curing (they smell vinegary). This apparently is not that good on the stainless.
I belive stayloc stipulate 3M's 101, and norseman is 'polysulfide' caulk.
Regards:)

I've read the same thing about the acid in silicone. Do you have any idea if that continues to be an issue even after the material has cured?

Another question/thought I'd like to run by you, (not to hijack the thread) is about using sealants, caulks etc. in swages.
When I first started in business years ago, I had a habit of melting beeswax into the wire above the swage fittings and letting it seal the top.
Later, I began the practice of using different products on the wire before swaging. Such as locktite or 5200.
What are your thoughts about that?

We generally swage 'dry' unless the wire was cut using a angle grinder, then we dip the cut end in lanacote, just on the off chance that the heat generated in the cutting has affected the "stainlessness" of the wire. Any how when pull tested there was no reduction in the strength when compared to a 'dry' swage. Don't know about any more complex caulks etc, as lanacote is only mineral + fish + wool oil mixed!
I think on just about any boating site there are people who have strong veiws in all directions.
My 2 cents is : Dry is the go, we should reallywork under the instructions of the people that make the swagers we use; and as far as i know that means 'dry'.
Cheers

use the search on this website, just above and to the right a bit, and enter - swaging questions - check out the 3 page posting there.

We fill 'em up.

Thanks brian, a very interesting thread. As i said we generally use lanacote in swages cut with a grinder, this is about 85% of our work. (this is mostly cos i'm a 60kg weakling, and can't just use my weight on the falco's to get through the wire:D).
I'm sure we're directed to use the lanacote over other substances, because of the extra cost and also the extra time for the clean up. Even a small splodge of lanacote on the end of the wire, most of it seems a to get squeezed out, so i guess if the lanacote's there then there's no air voids. We have never, as far as i know had a return on any swagework.
cheers

A very informative thread indeed.
I've spent many hours pondering all the questions addressed there.

It seems that there are those that agree that the corrosive characteristics of silicone are not of concern after the product has cured. Is that the consensus?

One thing that I have a little problem with is the conclusion that a rotary swager is superior to a good roller swager.

For my own boat, I would choose a swage done on a WireTeknic over a rotary.
There is no hollow area created at the end of the wire so you have that much more grip and much less trapped air. And as you know, they don't heat the fitting up nearly as much so I am assuming that they don't fatigue the metal as much.

Am I off base here?

Not sure i've only experience using wireteknic (6mm+) or small roll swagers, (for less than 6mm). Maybe the collective fonts of knowledge out there will have the answer....

Assorted
 

Hello all,
First, yeah, silicone is only mildly acidic, barely enough to "blush" the surface metal. And that is only until it cures. But it's a moot point, as there are much better sealants out there, like 4000.
Next, wax does no good dripped into a finished swage, as anywhere it can go, water can get past it. Not much better to wax pre-swaging, as moisture will soon dissolve/displace it. But I'd be curious to hear about the details and protocols of the break tests with coated wires; Navtec did some a while back, and found significant loss of grip with at least some of the sealants they used.
As for the Wire-Tecnic, because the cams are not powered, as I understand it, they can have far larger, tougher bearings, and less distortion than conventional roll-swage machines. Done correctly they appear to be more fatigue-resistant than those machines, right up there with rotaries. I have never heard of heat being an issue with any swage; never seen a swage get so hot from forming that it might affect the metal's characteristics. Do you have some data on this? In any event I still prefer rotaries, if only for their smoothness...
Fair leads,
Brion Toss

When I applied wax, I used a heat gun to thoroughly heat the wire and melt the wax into it. I agree that dripping it would be worse than usless.

I don't have any data on the effect of work hardening or metal fatigue as a result of using a rotary swager. I have just noticed that the fittings get a lot hotter and it made me conclude that it must be more traumatic on the fitting.
I think the main reason I like the WireTeknic better is the extra grip on the wire and the lack of the hollow area where the swage grows off the end of the wire using the rotary.

But whatdoIknowI'mjustarigger? :D

if anything, the 'lack of grip' at the end of the swage makes for a less stressful transition from flexible cable to fixed swage sleeve.

The even manner in which a rotary swage is formed will lead to more even stresses in the fitting as well, as opposed to the ovals formed by all other machines.

oy

I don't understand at all how having a hollow area between the end of the wire and the bottom of the hole bored into the end of the swage fitting specifically meant to accommodate said wire, makes a less stressful transition from the cable to the fitting.
In my opinion, any flexibility that the wire has, ceases about 1/4" (at the most) inside the open end of the fitting. It is pretty much a solid piece of steel from there to the end.

No disrespect intended, but as far as your last point goes. Unless you have some test results that back it up, that is pure speculation as well.

oops, i misunderstood your previous post.

Oh, and like most riggers, we have nothing but 'real world' testing to back anything up.... and testing done by manufactures....


The observations i have made about the failures of wire tecknic or kearny drawn swages as opposed to rotatry swages have been a result of the crease, fold, or ridge left by the rollers - this site has been the beginig of corrosion on the fitting by my observation.

Not Lab Tested - i am just a rigger

Yeah, me too.
Too bad some well respected rigger with connections and a website doesn't take it upon himself to oversee some real tests and put some of these misconceptions to bed, Huh?
;):D

thats on my list

I have one of those lists too.;)

Please forgive me, but do you mind if I ask one final follow up question?:)

I agree with this;

But I can't truthfully say that I have noticed that the rotary swages last longer. I do lots of inspections, as I am sure you do. I live in Florida and I would say that the average life span of a rig is between 12 and 15 years. I really don't think that one method of swaging has shown to have a longer life than the other. At least here.

The die marks from Kearny or roller swagers sometime will look like a swage crack, but often aren't. Many times, upon closer inspection, they are just little creases, like scratches in the surface that start showing surface corrosion first.

I think that I read earlier somewhere in this thread or the one we were linked to, about swage cracks starting on the outside and moving inward. That doesn't make sense to me.
In my experience, stainless always corrodes where it doesn't get ventilation. Where do chainplates or u-bolts usually fail?
My understanding has always been that as the corrosion builds in the interior of a swage, it acts similar to a rusting piece of re-bar in a brick wall. Swelling with the corrosion (rust) until the internal pressure cracks the wall. Or like a stainless bearing race in an aluminum housing. The corrosion builds up and pushes on the outside of the races thereby increasing pressure on the balls until it seizes up the bearing.

My question is this; Are you convinced that swage cracks show up earlier in a swage made on a good roller swager than they do on a good rotary?

Bump.Bump.

Okay, I see how it is.
I guess you feel that I am so full of crap that I don't even deserve a response to my question.
Message received.
Thanks for the stimulating conversation.

More
 

Hi again,
It depends. In the South, corrosion tends to kill things before fatigue does, so the difference in longevity between swage types will not be as marked. But I have observed that roller swages are more vulnerable to fatigue than rotary, and for two reasons: the rotary machine is much less likely to produce deformations and localized stresses that can lead to fatigue; and in the real world, roller swage machines are far more likely to be out of spec or unskillfully employed than rotaries. The latter point has to do with price; roller swages are much, much cheaper, and tend to end up in the hands of people that don't care as much about quality. Yes, I know that there are riggers out there with Kearney's who are utterly skillful and utterly responsible. But that's not the way to bet. In addition, as I understand it a roller is much easier to knock out of spec, particularly when swaging larger diameters.
In my experience, "12 to 15 years" is more than a little pushing it for rigs in warm climates. Partly this is because I think that crevice corrosion will act faster than that, and partly because it occurs simultaneously with fatigue- and chloride-corrosion, as well as galvanic corrosion. Crevice corrosion on the wire works from the inside out, and the the other three types work from the outside in (though there will also be some crevice corrosion going on in fatigue cracks and chloride pits, as well as the corrosion cracks caused by the expansion of the wire in the terminal).
In the North, fatigue tends to kill rigs before corrosion, though again all the forms tend to work in concert. So in both places the longest-lived rigs tend to be the shiniest, strongest, best-tuned, and appropriately-scantlinged ones that also have their terminals' interiors sealed.
Fair leads,
Brion Toss

Hi Knothead,

I do not use silicone sealant very much anymore, but more from a "disappointed in overall performance" standpoint. I don't buy into the acetic acid causes corrosion argument. The industry I work at has 25 year old S/S 316 pipes (stick welded!) carrying 93% sulphuric acid and the leaks are at gaskets and non-316 alloys.
A bit o' acetic acid, that is less than a bag of Salt & Vinegar chips stuffed into the mouth, better not cause damage to our precious rigs!

Cheers, Russ

Thanks for the bone guys.