Do you want to be informed on new Posts on this Thread? (members only)

S&S Swan Maintenance - Running Back-stays Swan 40
13 November 2008 - 23:03
#1
Post Reply
Jason T
Join Date: 03 December 2007
Posts: 22

Running Back-stays Swan 40
I am currently part way through the restoration of a tall rig Swan 40 called Can-can, and have just stepped a new double spreader Selden mast. The original mast had running backstays fitted to anchor points at the cross tree level. Does anybody know if running backstays were originally fitted and where were they secured to. I have looked at many photos and can't find any. We have tracks which run along the top of the toe rail next to the cockpit and think this is where they were secured, however there is also a ring / fairleed further aft and a fitting adjacent to the spinnaker winch on the side deck, however we think the later is a place to secure the spinaker guy. Any feed back on if our assumprions are correct and sailing with them would be most welcome.

14 November 2008 - 18:09
#2
Post Reply
The Professor
Join Date: 02 January 2008
Posts: 1547

Jason

Swan 40 original spars do not have runners, but it needs to be checked whether your new mast need them.

If you can give the dimensions of the new section, or the Selden notification for it - preferably both - this enables a calculation to be made.

Kind regards

Lars

 
18 November 2008 - 18:40
#3
Post Reply
Jason T
Join Date: 03 December 2007
Posts: 22

Hi Lars,

I believe that the section was a C245, When the Selden Agent ordered it we included the running backstays which were included in their calculations, we sailed her for the first time on Sunday and she absolutly flew and was increadably close winded, we used the running backstays which worked well and were much easier to use than i first thought.
20 November 2008 - 21:14
#4
Post Reply
The professor
Join Date: 02 January 2008
Posts: 1547

Jason

C245 is stiffer longitudinally than the original spar, and runners would not really be needed.

Lars
21 November 2008 - 17:14
#5
Post Reply
The professor
Join Date: 02 January 2008
Posts: 1547

An additional comment - it is obvious that S&S and Selden use different norms when determining mast section and runner requirements.

Lars
23 November 2008 - 22:22
#6
Post Reply
Jason T
Join Date: 03 December 2007
Posts: 22

Lars,

Many thanks, i may ask the rigger if he can get Selden to check the calculations without the runners just to make sure.

Many thanks

Jason
04 December 2008 - 13:45
#7
Post Reply
Jason T
Join Date: 03 December 2007
Posts: 22

I have just been speaking with the rigger who is a main Selden agent, he has confirmed that the Selden spec. sheet lists running backstays as a requirement and not optional. Interesting as this was the largest section we could fit through the deck ring.
  • Threads : 1709
  • Posts : 10238
  • Members: 821
  • Online Members: 0