SparTalk
EDUCATION CATALOG RIGGING CONSULTATION HOME CONTACT US

Go Back   SparTalk > SparTalk
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #1  
Old 01-10-2017, 06:31 PM
k7cej k7cej is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 16
Default Ring hitch strength reduction

For the last 15 years I have used jib sheets, one piece with a loop in the middle, ring hitched onto the clew on our Outbound 44 Sequoia. For the 660 sq. ft. genoa, I use 5/8" Regatta braid with a somewhat awkward lock spliced loop; for the 350 sq. ft. staysail, 5/8" Sta-set double braid with a 4" stitched section. Both have worked fine in all conditions, although the ring hitch pulls very tight on the clew ring--it takes 15 minutes with a spike to remove it.

Since I am redoing the lines, I am curious as to the adequacy of the stitched loop. I strongly suspect the load on the stitched joint is less than 100% of the sheet tension, due to the ring hitch. But does anyone know:
1. the strength reduction for this large line ring-hitched to a 3/8" diameter ss ring?
2. the amount of load transferred into the unloaded sheet that must be supported by the stitched joint?

For what it is worth, I do not plan to lock splice the new Regatta braid lines, but plan to stitch them as well, as the old line showed a fair amount of wear at the lock splice where the line exits the splice. (I could, of course, cut the new line in two, splice eyes, and use a soft shackle to connect, and although this would be easy to remove, it seems less secure.)

All thoughts appreciated
Craig
__________________
Craig Johnston
s/v Sequoia
Reply With Quote
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.