[C320-list] Backstay too short, extend it

[Jeff Hare]

Hi,

The Forestay has a turnbuckle that will most likely give you enough
extension.  Don't forget you'll have to loosen the forward lower shrouds a
bit.

Here's the Schaefer Roller Furling Document.  
http://www.catalina320.com/filemgmt/index.php?id=172


Here's a picture of the turnbuckle.  I made this adjustment several years
back in My photo album on the C320 site.  
http://www.catalina320.com/mediagallery/album.php?aid=67&page=1

The process was pretty easy (the Schaefer doc is for replacing the drum.
Don't need to do very much of what is in that doc)
The one thing that is key is ensuring that when you lower the foil/drum back
down that you put the set screws in to control how far down the foil will
sit.  Just be sure that the foil doesn't slide down into contact with the
turnbuckle connectors or you'll find that the furler doesn't spin easily.
If you reassemble and it doesn't spin freely, the foil probably is down too
far.

It was an easy project and gives you a good look at how the drum assembly
works.  No bearings will spill out or anything.

If the problem is simply not being able to connect the aft shrouds, we
simply use a halyard attached to the aft cleat and winch the mast back until
the turnbuckles reach.  We do one side, then the other.

-Jeff Hare
Woodbine II #809

-----Original Message-----
From: C320-list [mailto:c320-list-bounces at lists.catalina320.com] On Behalf
Of guyhenry222 at gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 12:09 PM
To: C320-List at Catalina320.com
Subject: Re: [C320-list] Backstay too short, extend it

2 of these should extend your back stays and make it easier when stepping
the mast.

C.S. Johnson Rigging Toggle 
Item # : 611892 
3/8"D X 1-5/8"L X 3/8"W 

http://search.defender.com/?expression=611892&x=0&y=0

Guy
MoonShadow #115


-----Original Message----- 
From: tharrison at innovations-plus.com 
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 8:31 PM 
To: C320-List at Catalina320.com 
Subject: Re: [C320-list] Backstay blocks... question for youengineering
types 

Since we are talking back stays - mine are 2 inches short. I have adjusted
the forestry. Has anyone had this problem? 

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 19, 2014, at 3:36 PM, "Descher, Chris" <cdescher at cedtulsa.com>
wrote:
> 
> I've considered this upgrade as well, but my backstay runs through holes
in my bimini.  Are you modifying the bimini to make this work?
> 
> Chris Descher
> #500
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: C320-list [mailto:c320-list-bounces at lists.catalina320.com] On Behalf
Of Jon Vez
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 1:47 PM
> To: C320-List at Catalina320.com
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] Backstay blocks... question for you engineering
types
> 
> Hi Tony,
> 
> Still a lurker here...the SWL for the ratchet is for the cam portion and
is more than enough to handle any load you can put on it. If it were
anywhere near the 300 lb breaking strength there is no way you would be able
to release it. I use the same SWL on the ratchet/cam for my jib furler on my
355.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: C320-list [mailto:c320-list-bounces at lists.catalina320.com] On Behalf
Of Tony Murphy
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 12:11 PM
> To: C320-List at Catalina320.com
> Subject: [C320-list] Backstay blocks... question for you engineering types
> 
> I'm working on pulling together the parts to assemble the backstay
adjuster as described on the C320 website.  Thanks to Jon Vez for the
wonderful writeup and illustrations.
> 
> I am wondering about one thing. the triple blocks that Jon described on
the starboard side all seem to be rated for a SWL of at least 1800 lbs.
> Likewise, the single wire blocks (3 of them) are all rated for SWL of
about
> 2000 lbs.  The 5/16" lines all seem to have well over 3000 avg tensile
strength.  However, when I'm looking for a single racketing block with cam
for the port side, all I seem to be able to find online are ones with a SWL
in the 300-600lb range (if I stick with the matching 57mm Harken carbo
blocks). I realize this block isn't absolutely necessary if you don't want
"coarse" adjustment as Jon mentioned in his writeup.
> 
> Am I missing something? Maybe I'm making it too complicated.  Does anyone
know the typical loads that will be placed on these components?  If I could
reduce the SWL requirement for the triple blocks, I could definitely shave
off a hundred or more of the total cost, but I'm afraid to do that without a
better working knowledge of what loads I should expect to see.
> 
> Tony Murphy
> Bella Sol #886
>