BYYB Forums

Yes, it is really near. If there weren´t the old trees I could see it from my window.

The red arrow is where I live and the workshop is obviously the blue one



The building is protected by code and it will be fixed. And because the fire hazard was obvious already when it was built it has been compartmentalized (is that a word?) and the fire only destroyed one compartment. As soon as the electricity is fixed the boat shop is back in business.

Compartmentalized is a nice word and accurately describes the practice of dividing up buildings, as well as boat interiors to localize damage potential.

I have been thinking (and studying) different way to rig fidded topmasts and I start liking the idea. At the end of the day they might not be any more hassle than topsails with a club if rigged wisely.

What is you opinion Paul, would the main and fore sail be the same as now drawn if the topsails would be added or would it be better to lower the the gaffs and "move" some of the area into the topsails?

If I was to own a traditionally rigged (hand spliced wire, thumb cleats, etc.) I would go with fiddled tops. The reason is the tops don't need standing rigging, they can also be removed if you elect to sail in a stiffer wind areas, for an extended amount of time. You don't have these options with a pole mast and a Cornish topsail arrangement.

The main and fore don't need to be changed, but for aesthetic reasons. The gaff angles currently are typical of a craft that normally doesn't fly topsails. If tops where fitted, ideally, the angle would be reduced several degrees. This permits more area for the topsail. The fore currently has about 41 degrees to the mast and the main about 37 degrees. This would change to about 48 for the fore and around 44 for the main. The net result would be a few more sq. ft. in the topsail and a few less in the fore and main. If the main and fore are left the same, the topsails would be 16 and 14 sq. ft. respectively, which doesn't seem like much, but hoisted to the top of the rig, literally over the masts, then a lot of additional leverage in light air. If the main and fore where reshaped to fit bigger topsails, the main would reduce to 91 sq. ft. and the top up to 18 and the fore down to 78 and the it's top up to 16.

What does this all mean? If the working sails remain the same as drawn then the tops will add around 12% to the total exposed sail area (this doesn't count overlaps). If the gaffs are rearranged a trifle, the tops will represent about 15% - 16% of the total area. This is significant enough to consider, if you sail in predominantly light air locations (which it seems you will Timo).

Now, to add more fuel to the fire, the tops as drawn are safe, reliable and resultantly small. With a jack yard and other topsail contrivances, the tops area could be increased by as much as 50%, meaning you could sport a 20% increase in total sail area with the tops hoisted. I got to tell you, these types of topsails are a bitch to fly well and are notorious for fouling the rig. To function well, they often require someone climb the rig, stand at the hounds or atop the tree and work the top during tacks, jibes, hoisting and dousing operations. Frankly, though it's not very far to climb and you could easily rig a spare halyard to leverage you up there, it's not something I'd recommend the modern sailor try, without lots of experience.

What most sailors discover is topsails are great, so long as it's someone else's boat flying them. I have toyed with the idea of a roller furler topsail, but haven't come up with a reasonable way of handling the clew yet (without fouling). This could be an option if it was sorted out. The topsail, with it's furler drum would be hoisted on the side you want to deploy. Once dogged at the masthead, it's drawn up tight, then "spun" out. It has some benefits and some draw backs, but I haven't given up on the idea yet. It's a sin Phil Bolger passed, as I bet he would have an interesting take on this one.

Back to the top masts. By their nature you can let them free stand, but if you want bigger topsails, they should have stays and shrouds. A triadic stay between the sticks, another headstay and probably one shroud per side, per stick. This complicates the rig a good bit and makes housing the tops more difficult, but typical for this type of rig. The pole mast would use the same rigging, though possibly could live without the shrouds.

As to the masts. I think the masts as drawn can tolerate tops being added without sectional changes. The tops of the mast, where the hardware attaches, the rigging lands and additional bits and pieces would need to be worked out for the fiddled aspects. If stays and bigger topsails desired, the whole of the rig should be recalculated and scaled for the load increases. Currently the rig generates about 4.5 HP, which will drive the boat nicely. With the topsails added she'll have enough additional power (~.4 more HP) to warrant a good look at the sail plan mechanics and dynamics.

When viewed side by side, you can see the difference between the tops with optimized area and lower gaff angles. It doesn't seem like much, but this high up in the rig it's a very effective power gain in light wind strengths.


The top image is the optimized topsails, with lower gaff angles. The top masts, gaff lengths, fiddles, trees, lowers are the same in both images. The sails all are different between the two images as are the location of most of the hoisting tackle.

The gaff angles (optimized drawing) have changed to 46 for the main and 49 for the fore, so I guessed fairly well yesterday morning.

The full up rig with new gaff angles.

The rig with jackyard tops, triadic, new jib and fore stay. A good bit more area and rig complication.

The rig with doused topsails.


Runners are shown taken up, but you will likely never need them. They will remain slack and tied against a shroud 99% of the time you sail, but one day you'll wish you had them, so it'll be a good thing if they're there. Not shown are jackmasts, which could increase the topsail areas a slight bit more. They're like the jackyards, but live on the luff side of the topsail. "Jacked" topsails are notorious for coming down in a broken mass, but these were often on delicate racers looking for the last ounce of wind pressure.

This is getting interesting  8)

If I got it right, we could have the optimized topsails without additional shrouds or stays as long as we won´t start fooling around with any yards, cornish or jackyards, is that right? Only the shrouds in the current plan, two pairs for foremast one pair for the main?

If that is the case I would be willing to go for it. That would give me the max easily achivable area when flying everything plus the advantage of having slightly less area in the lowers when I strike the topsails. That would probably be all the reefing I will need on the lakes before I venture into the Baltic.

The runners are shown in your pictures and I wonder if they are there as leftovers from something you used as a template or something really belonging there.

Chain plates for the runners are in the plans and you'd be wise to install them. One day you'll be blasting along, looking up at the wild bend in the mast and wondering if you should cinch them up.

Honestly I haven't run the numbers for the topsails yet. Going from judgment, I'd say there's a strong possibility that you wouldn't need additional standing rigging, if the small topsails were employed. Of course this means you better get them down before wind strengths threaten the ship, rig or crew. You have to remember they have a huge affect on the boat, even though they're not very big, they live at the very end of 20' poles. That's a lot of leverage trying to capsize this little yacht. The prudent skipper reefs early and bring home the vessel intact.

My plan was indeed to install at least the backing plates but maybe even the chainplates could live there. Something else could attach there as well while the runners are absent, maybe the bracket for the Torqeedo.

I just picked up the new timber for the gaffs and bowsprit. Might be enough for the topmasts as well, but when negotiating the 4.5m 50x240 into the shop I proved that 5m is the absolute maximum length that can be transported in or out. And probably it can be max 80mm thick, because it needs to be squeezed vertically through the slot between the rails to get it down the staircase. The masts are almost 6 meters and 10cm in diameter so they need to be made elsewhere. I think that I can make the staves there, though, because they can be slightly bent to get them out of there  ;D

If you look at the sail plan Timo, you'll see the runner tackles are tied to the shrouds. The wire portion of the runner is in line with the shroud and the tackle dogged down where ever it's handy. When you need them, you just "break" them out of their bindings and cinch up the tackle. The masts are 19' 6 3/8" (5953 mm) on the main and 17' 10 9/16" (5450 mm) on the fore.

On the bow sprit, I've noticed the original "Spar Plan" (RYD-14.11), nor the updated "Spar Dimensions" (RYD-16.10) drawings, do not indicate the eyes for the whisker stays on the bow sprit's crance iron (outboard end band) and they don't appear on the "Construction Plan" profile as well. This update has been made to the plans, but you have not received a copy. This would be a good location to install a set of stubby catheads. They aren't necessary for the whiskers, considering the loads on the headstays, but they are a darn fine and very traditional way of stowing an anchor. Of course these aren't shown in the plans either, but very common on 19th century ships. Naturally they look best if a big 'ol fisherman is lashed there. Just a thought.

So the runners would be like extra not-so-taught shrouds until the going gets rough and then I attach them into the chainplates further aft? I am not at all familiar with the runners and their use as you can see. How much purchase would I need for the runner tackle?

Earlier we discussed the bowsprit and you said that 25% wall thickness would be needed without the whiskers. Since the topsails are now in the picture, would that be enough or do I need the whisker stays? I would prefer leavin them out, no need for the anchor stowage either. My anchor will most probably live below the after deck, because the normal routine when gunkholing on the lakes is to drop the anchor from stern and tie the bow on the beach.

The ugly hunch you can see on the back of our motor cruiser is a box for the anchor. Very convenient but an eysore for a boat stern.