Paul Paris wrote:
> Has anyone considered the use of the non-swaged/nico-compressed terminal
> fittings (Sta-Lok, Norseman, etc.) in lieu of the OEM (I think?)
> thimbles on their P-19 stays and shrouds? <snip> They are beautiful pieces of equipment, and probably highly
> reliable, but given the considerable expense are they worth it to
> install? Opinions, recommendations, comments, and experiences would be
> most appreciated.
They are beautifuyly made, but expensive. If you'll be replacing your
rigging every five years, as cruising boats in the tropics often have
to, they may be worth it, as it allows you to do the work yourself. My
1982 P-15 has the original rigging, still in good shape. It'll probably
outlast me at the present rate of wear.
> Speaking of standing rigging, I have come across a few references
> (Henderson, 1991, Understanding Rigs and Rigging. Revised Ed. in
> particular) which scorn the practice of wrapping 1x19 around small
> thimbles as is done on the P-19 (or at least it is on my 1988 vintage
> P-19.) This is seen as possibly compromising the strength and ultimately
> the reliability of the wire to sufficient degree to be: "not entirely
> safe." If it is in fact "not entirely safe" to terminate the wire
> components of the standing rigging in this manner why are our boats
> configured as such? Is this information better suited to larger boats
> and best not extrapolated down to boats of the Potter class, or should
> such statements be heeded? Any opinions on this one?
In a heavily loaded rig of an offshore boat, maybe true. What happens
to us if we did lose the rig over the side? It's light enough to heave
on board and motor home. Most dingies I've seen are rigged like the
Potter.
-- Ron Force rforce@belle.lib.uidaho.edu Dean of Library Services University of Idaho Moscow, ID 83844 (208) 885-6534