Sta-lok and toggles

[seawolf]

I have a single spreader rig with single lowers connected to chainplates at midmast.
I purchased all sta-lok eye terminals when deciding to re-rig my old 1962 Columbia sloop.
After viewing Brion's informative dvd on rerigging your boat, I have decided to install toggles at the tangs for the upper attachment of the lower shroud. I know you can buy the Sta-lok with toggle, but since this is an after thought, I found some nice used older bronze toggles that are one piece, with the eye on one end and the fork on the other.
My question is with this type of toggles eye portion going into the mast tang end and the eye of the Sta-lok connected to the fork of the toggle, will this give results as good as a Sta-lok fitting with a built in toggle?
The Sta-lok eye terminal seems to fit nicely in these used toggle forks.

The turnbuckle attachment at the chainplate is toggled but not the upper turnbuckle. Just a forked stud going into it. I figured with a toggle above, it would not be required to toggle at the upper turnbuckle.
Any and all advise welcome.
Seawolf..

[Brian Duff]

You really do not need to have a toggle at the top of your lower shrouds on that boat type. As long as the tangs on the mast line up with the load of the cable (this is a must anyway) no toggles will be needed. Especially with the sta-lok terminal. There will only be more weight and parts and pins and windage with no real advantage.

That said, the Eye/Jaw type of toggle you describe will work just as well as a Jaw/Jaw type toggle, which is what comes on the sta-lok fitting. Your mast , from your descrition, has a pair of tangs which accept an eye in between them, and the sta-lok toggle terminal is designed to fit to a single tang at mast (really its designed to fit to a lug on a mast for a sail carrying stay) , so won't really work in your app anyway.

If you want a toggle there, you are doing it the right way with an eye/jaw toggle.

[seawolf]

Brian,
Thanks for your response.
Makes sense. No need to have more weight aloft if not needed.
Since I have the toggles already, and the turnbuckles for the lower shrouds are not toggled at their upper end, would it help or just be more hardware with no effect to toggle at the sta-lok eye/turnbuckle fork connection of the turnbuckle?
All my other turnbuckles are toggled at both ends.
Fair Winds.
Seawolf

[Brion Toss]

Hi there,
Articulation is a good thing, in that it reduces fatigue from lateral loading. But some places require more articulation than others. The wire moves laterally more alow, from the effects of wire weight, as well as things like people swaying on it. The attachment at the chainplates is the most vital spot, with the upper end of the turnbuckle a fairly distant second, and the tangs, on most boats, a radical third. So while there is something to be said for toggling the upper part of the turnbuckle, it's generally not a good cost/benefit proposition, which is one reason why you don't often see toggles at both ends. Another reason is that doing so adds another level of complexity needlessly
Fair leads,
BrionToss

[seawolf]

Brion,
Thanks for the additional comments.
Since I have bought the turnbuckles with toggles on both ends, I will go ahead and use them even though it maybe redundant.

I am now working on how to compute the constructional and working elasticity for my new wire. I was looking at your examples in The Rigger's Apprentice. I do not have a scientific calculator, and pretty poor at math,, and I was wondering if there is a table for different lengths and diameters of 1X19 SS wire for this computation.

I have tried some interpolation and must admit it is pretty random, but using the example in the book as a starting point with 50' 5/16 1X19 SS tuned to a working load of 25%, showing a working stretch of 1.5 inches and about 5/32 of an inch for construcitonal stretch.
For my uppers that are 7/32 1x19 SS around 32 feet in length, I would think that the constructional stretch would be nominal, possibly 1/16 of an inch and if given around 3/4 of an inch for working elasticity I should be in the ball park?

Again this is just my throwing out some interpolation than that of actually crunching numbers. I just don't want to guess to much stretch and end up with to short of a wire.

With lowers of 1/4 inch 1X19 SS of only around 15 feet, would it be possible to omit any stretch calculations all together?
Thanks for all the great advise.
Fair Winds.