Re: [Cal_Boats] External chain plates?

You would need to extend the spreaders. Buy going outside the toe rail you would need different sails or add inboard tracks. The mast is super sturdy. You would loose pointing ability. The idea is to be 1st to an anchorage to get the best spot and having a beer or glass of wine while everyone else is anchoring. The existing chainplates have endured a lot. It would be easier to replace them or just increase thickness if absolutely need be. The boat is so balanced as is, why mess with perfection? Randy Cal 2-29 Out Patient Channel Islands Ca Brad Bates <br… [at] gmail.com> wrote: Good Evening All, A few question for the group: Has anyone changed to external chain plates on their Cal? (I am especially interested in Cal 29 owners who have external chain plates.) Do any of you have any thoughts regarding moving to external chain plates that you are willing to share with me? Has anyone had any negative experience with external chain plates? Thank you for your answers. BTW -- I am building a web site that documents my refurbishing project. I hope to have it ready by the end of next week. I will post a note to the group when it is ready for viewing. Bradley A. Bates Play Mate Coffee Springs, AL Br… [at] gmail.com

Moving shrouds inboard, would require shortening the spreaders and adding inboard tracks inside the lifelines. On a reach you would have your sails fighting the life lines. These boats were designed to bear off in heavy weather. They do not point good in 6 ft plus seas. They like to ride over the crests at an angle. I think that is why they came with a short hoist mule vice the blade. In flat water light chop a blade is killer. But add swell and they need power of sail area. Randy Cal 2-29 Out Patient Channel Islands Ca Jim Englert <sa… [at] gmail.com> wrote: If you are referring to attaching the chain plates to the hull skin, the biggest drawback I can think of would be you couldn't trim the jib in as tight going up wind because the shrouds would be further outboard. If I had a clean slate, I would move shrouds inboard a bit , not out. Jim Englert On Sep 28, 2013, at 7:11 PM, Brad Bates <br… [at] gmail.com> wrote: Good Evening All, A few question for the group: Has anyone changed to external chain plates on their Cal? (I am especially interested in Cal 29 owners who have external chain plates.) Do any of you have any thoughts regarding moving to external chain plates that you are willing to share with me? Has anyone had any negative experience with external chain plates? Thank you for your answers. BTW -- I am building a web site that documents my refurbishing project. I hope to have it ready by the end of next week. I will post a note to the group when it is ready for viewing. Bradley A. Bates Play Mate Coffee Springs, AL Br… [at] gmail.com

Leave them where they are. Mine are on the rail and it is very limiting. Allen L-36 #5 On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Randy <sa… [at] yahoo.com> wrote: > ** > > > Moving shrouds inboard, would require shortening the spreaders and adding > inboard tracks inside the lifelines. On a reach you would have your sails > fighting the life lines. > > These boats were designed to bear off in heavy weather. They do not point > good in 6 ft plus seas. They like to ride over the crests at an angle. I > think that is why they came with a short hoist mule vice the blade. > > In flat water light chop a blade is killer. But add swell and they need > power of sail area. > > Randy > Cal 2-29 > Out Patient > Channel Islands Ca > > > Sent from my Samsung Epic™ 4G > > > > Jim Englert <sa… [at] gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > If you are referring to attaching the chain plates to the hull skin, the > biggest drawback I can think of would be you couldn't trim the jib in as > tight going up wind because the shrouds would be further outboard. > > If I had a clean slate, I would move shrouds inboard a bit , not out. > > Jim Englert > > > On Sep 28, 2013, at 7:11 PM, Brad Bates <br… [at] gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Good Evening All, > > A few question for the group: > > 1. Has anyone changed to external chain plates on their Cal? (I am > especially interested in Cal 29 owners who have external chain plates.) > 2. Do any of you have any thoughts regarding moving to external chain > plates that you are willing to share with me? > 3. Has anyone had any negative experience with external chain plates? > > Thank you for your answers. > > BTW -- I am building a web site that documents my refurbishing project. I > hope to have it ready by the end of next week. I will post a note to the > group when it is ready for viewing. > > Bradley A. Bates > > > Play Mate > > Coffee Springs, AL > > Br… [at] gmail.com > > >

With our Cal-40, the "blade" is like a magic sail in anything over 14 kts True Wind Speed (tws) upwind. But, to make this magic happen you must be able to sheet the sail inboard such that the sheeting angle would be approximately the same as the sheeting angle would be for the 155 (which we also sheet inboard). With the Cal-40, all we had to do to sheet the "blade" inboard was to eliminate the forward lowers. This was easy for us, as the original Lapworth drawings for the Cal-40 did not include forward lowers. Somewhere in the production run new boats were launched with forward lowers, but this was well before the time that anyone had considered the benefits of the "blade". To repeat, the only way to make reduced-sized headsails work is to sheet them inboard. otherwise, the sheeting angle from the head stay to the area on the rail near the shrouds starts to look like 30 degrees .... Which will never get you up-wind. Fin Beven Cal-40 # 24 Radiant San Pedro, ca On Sep 28, 2013, at 7:36 PM, "Randy" <sa… [at] yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Moving shrouds inboard, would require shortening the spreaders and adding inboard tracks inside the lifelines. On a reach you would have your sails fighting the life lines. > > These boats were designed to bear off in heavy weather. They do not point good in 6 ft plus seas. They like to ride over the crests at an angle. I think that is why they came with a short hoist mule vice the blade. > > In flat water light chop a blade is killer. But add swell and they need power of sail area. > > Randy > Cal 2-29 > Out Patient > Channel Islands Ca > > > Sent from my Samsung Epic™ 4G > > > > Jim Englert <sa… [at] gmail.com> wrote: > > > If you are referring to attaching the chain plates to the hull skin, the biggest drawback I can think of would be you couldn't trim the jib in as tight going up wind because the shrouds would be further outboard. > > If I had a clean slate, I would move shrouds inboard a bit , not out. > > Jim Englert > > > On Sep 28, 2013, at 7:11 PM, Brad Bates <br… [at] gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Good Evening All, >> >> A few question for the group: >> Has anyone changed to external chain plates on their Cal? (I am especially interested in Cal 29 owners who have external chain plates.) >> Do any of you have any thoughts regarding moving to external chain plates that you are willing to share with me? >> Has anyone had any negative experience with external chain plates? >> Thank you for your answers. >> >> BTW -- I am building a web site that documents my refurbishing project. I hope to have it ready by the end of next week. I will post a note to the group when it is ready for viewing. >> >> Bradley A. Bates >> >> Play Mate >> >> Coffee Springs, AL >> >> Br… [at] gmail.com > > >

I have to agree with Allen, plus, the boat is engineered for everything to go just where they are. Are you cognizant of the fact that the bulkheads, chain plates, and mast are tied together with a galvanized steel beam that ties all the loads together, and may be prone to rust failure? On my Cal 24, if I use a #3, I have to move the sheets around and thru the shrouds when going from up wind to down wind, because I have bulkhead mounted shrouds. It's a pain in the neck. Jerry On Saturday, September 28, 2013 8:50 PM, Fin Beven <fi… [at] msn.com> wrote: >With our Cal-40, the "blade" is like a magic sail in anything over 14 kts True Wind Speed (tws) upwind. But, to make this magic happen you must be able to sheet the sail inboard such that the sheeting angle would be approximately the same as the sheeting angle would be for the 155 (which we also sheet inboard). > > >With the Cal-40, all we had to do to sheet the "blade" inboard was to eliminate the forward lowers. > > >This was easy for us, as the original Lapworth drawings for the Cal-40 did not include forward lowers. Somewhere in the production run new boats were launched with forward lowers, but this was well before the time that anyone had considered the benefits of the "blade". > > >To repeat, the only way to make reduced-sized headsails work is to sheet them inboard. otherwise, the sheeting angle from the head stay to the area on the rail near the shrouds starts to look like 30 degrees .... Which will never get you up-wind. > >Fin Beven >Cal-40 # 24 >Radiant >San Pedro, ca > >On Sep 28, 2013, at 7:36 PM, "Randy" <sa… [at] yahoo.com> wrote: > > >Moving shrouds inboard, would require shortening the spreaders and adding inboard tracks inside the lifelines. On a reach you would have your sails fighting the life lines. >> >> >>These boats were designed to bear off in heavy weather. They do not point good in 6 ft plus seas. They like to ride over the crests at an angle. I think that is why they came with a short hoist mule vice the blade. >> >> >>In flat water light chop a blade is killer. But add swell and they need power of sail area. >> >> >>Randy >>Cal 2-29 >>Out Patient >>Channel Islands Ca >> >> >>Sent from my Samsung Epic™ 4G >> >> >>Jim Englert <sa… [at] gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>If you are referring to attaching the chain plates to the hull skin, the biggest drawback I can think of would be you couldn't trim the jib in as tight going up wind because the shrouds would be further outboard. >> >> >>If I had a clean slate, I would move shrouds inboard a bit , not out. >> >>Jim Englert >> >> >> >>On Sep 28, 2013, at 7:11 PM, Brad Bates <br… [at] gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>Good Evening All, >>> >>> >>>A few question for the group: >>> 1. Has anyone changed to external chain plates on their Cal? (I am especially interested in Cal 29 owners who have external chain plates.) >>> >>> 2. Do any of you have any thoughts regarding moving to external chain plates that you are willing to share with me? >>> 3. Has anyone had any negative experience with external chain plates? >>>Thank you for your answers. >>> >>> >>>BTW -- I am building a web site that documents my refurbishing project. I hope to have it ready by the end of next week. I will post a note to the group when it is ready for viewing. >>> >>> >>>Bradley A. Bates >>> >>> >>>Play Mate >>> >>>Coffee Springs, AL >>>Br… [at] gmail.com >>> > > >

Let me add that I installed a track against my cabin for my #3. The #1 and #2 sheet against the lifeline. The net is that I can point well with the #1 and #3 and the #2 is useless unless there is fairly strong winds, no spinnaker, and a lot of downwind. It doesn't point with the #2. What I am saying is that the boat gets a better VMG to Wind with the #1 then with the #2 regardless of how much wind there is. This is because, as has been said, the sheeting angle with the #2 is poor. Allen On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Gerald Sobel <so… [at] yahoo.com>wrote: > ** > > > I have to agree with Allen, plus, the boat is engineered for everything to > go just where they are. Are you cognizant of the fact that the bulkheads, > chain plates, and mast are tied together with a galvanized steel beam that > ties all the loads together, and may be prone to rust failure? > On my Cal 24, if I use a #3, I have to move the sheets around and thru the > shrouds when going from up wind to down wind, because I have bulkhead > mounted shrouds. It's a pain in the neck. > > Jerry > > > On Saturday, September 28, 2013 8:50 PM, Fin Beven <fi… [at] msn.com> > wrote: > > > With our Cal-40, the "blade" is like a magic sail in anything over 14 > kts True Wind Speed (tws) upwind. But, to make this magic happen you must > be able to sheet the sail inboard such that the sheeting angle would be > approximately the same as the sheeting angle would be for the 155 (which we > also sheet inboard). > > With the Cal-40, all we had to do to sheet the "blade" inboard was to > eliminate the forward lowers. > > This was easy for us, as the original Lapworth drawings for the Cal-40 did > not include forward lowers. Somewhere in the production run new boats > were launched with forward lowers, but this was well before the time that > anyone had considered the benefits of the "blade". > > To repeat, the only way to make reduced-sized headsails work is to sheet > them inboard. otherwise, the sheeting angle from the head stay to the area > on the rail near the shrouds starts to look like 30 degrees .... Which will > never get you up-wind. > > Fin Beven > Cal-40 # 24 > Radiant > San Pedro, ca > > On Sep 28, 2013, at 7:36 PM, "Randy" <sa… [at] yahoo.com> wrote: > > Moving shrouds inboard, would require shortening the spreaders and adding > inboard tracks inside the lifelines. On a reach you would have your sails > fighting the life lines. > > These boats were designed to bear off in heavy weather. They do not point > good in 6 ft plus seas. They like to ride over the crests at an angle. I > think that is why they came with a short hoist mule vice the blade. > > In flat water light chop a blade is killer. But add swell and they need > power of sail area. > > Randy > Cal 2-29 > Out Patient > Channel Islands Ca > > > Sent from my Samsung Epic™ 4G > > > > Jim Englert <sa… [at] gmail.com> wrote: > > > > If you are referring to attaching the chain plates to the hull skin, the > biggest drawback I can think of would be you couldn't trim the jib in as > tight going up wind because the shrouds would be further outboard. > > If I had a clean slate, I would move shrouds inboard a bit , not out. > > Jim Englert > > > On Sep 28, 2013, at 7:11 PM, Brad Bates <br… [at] gmail.com> wrote: > > > Good Evening All, > > A few question for the group: > > 1. Has anyone changed to external chain plates on their Cal? (I am > especially interested in Cal 29 owners who have external chain plates.) > 2. Do any of you have any thoughts regarding moving to external chain > plates that you are willing to share with me? > 3. Has anyone had any negative experience with external chain plates? > > Thank you for your answers. > > BTW -- I am building a web site that documents my refurbishing project. I > hope to have it ready by the end of next week. I will post a note to the > group when it is ready for viewing. > > Bradley A. Bates > > Play Mate > > Coffee Springs, AL > Br… [at] gmail.com > > > > >