Ernie
A few years ago I noted a couple of sheaves on Single Malt deteriorating so I stripped all blocks - sent them off to Garhauer a short time later I received all back - re-sheaved being charged only for postage
Check the name on your blocks Ernie!!!
Safe Sailing
Cedric — Single Malt
26C #207
Chester Nova Scotia
Another option that is an upgrade would be to install a stainless plate on the existing holes and mount two cheek blocks on the plate.
This isn’t my boat. It’s a picture from a friends boat that I plan to copy one day.
PaulM
NS30U #211, Sandpiper
Cowichan Bay, B.C.
For the sake of learning, not argument, what does this arrangement buy you?
Brian Godfrey
Just remember when replacing stainless screws into aluminium - to dip screw in regular silicone – that prevents more than sufficient barrier between stainless and aluminium to prevent corrosion occurring and next time you can screw them out easily
Safe Sailing
Cedric Single Malt 26C #207
Chester Nova Scotia
I replaced the one on my 22 shortly after I got her, Garhaur for Garhaur. I got the new one from their website. The old one was locked up, and with the dark colored sheave I did not see it, nor did the surveyor.
The devil is in the details.
Anyway, yeah, the screws are a bitch to get out, I think that I had to drill and tap one, but the big pain for me was that the bearings are not retained by anything, same with the new one. Be careful handling these, unless you want to see little dark bearings bouncing off of your deck and into the drink.
Good Luck,
Dave King
N22 Suey. Alameda
Cedric -
I wasn’t the one who was asking for the info - that was Ginger. True, I haven’t checked the name on my main halyard cheek block but I’m pretty certain that it is NOT a Garhauer. It’s original to the boat (and, fortunately, works fine).
Otherwise, I have heard, many times that Garhauer does “custom” holes to match existing mounts. Truth is, Garhauer will help you in every way possible, with excellent products at very reasonable prices. Regarding the double-block assembly, I get the feeling (just a feeling - not based on science that I have NO expertise with) that a line running through 2 blocks at 45 degree angles runs “easier” (maybe less friction ???) than the same line running through one 90 degree turning block. Or … I am wrong !!
Ginger - What about the thought of sending the whole darn block to Garhauer ? They could, possibly, install a new sheave or supply a whole new block with the exact hole placement that you require. I don’t think that it would cost much. And, it may replace an old salt-water block that owes you nothing after umpteen years of use. In the meantime, with a short length of Dyneema, tie a floating block (to temporarily replace the cheek block) to an empty shackle hole (or to a shackle) that sits in the casting on the mast that holds all the other blocks. I have always felt that the single cheek block adds a bit of extra friction to the halyard and have, in fact, tied a floating block with Dyneema to the existing cheek block. It worked beautifully as the block “found” the perfect location. I blew off the idea as the block would just clunk on the deck when the sail was done and there was no tension on the line. It’s th same “floating block” philosophy that I use with the choker cheek block (to avoid the line rubbing on the mast) and the topping lift cheek block on the boom (to keep the topping lift from rubbing needlessly on the boom).
The team of “floating blocks and Dyneema” is great.
Ernie A. in Toronto
HI Everyone:
I really appreciate your input, and especially suggesting that Garhaeur could make a custom block with the same holes.
We just got the block off yesterday. I sent photos to Garhauer and Mike Quill, and am awaiting their response, which I will share with you.
In the meantime, I have attached a block to one of the holes on the casting so I can still raise the sail.
I appreciate the suggestion about silicon in the screw holes in the casting to prevent corrosion and to make removing them easier. We had to use a blowtorch on all of the screws to get the thing off. Quite a job, but considering the block has been on the casting for almost 40 years, we were lucky we didn’t have to drill it out.
I’ll keep you posted. Thanks for your help.
Ginger Rubsam
Brian, it eases the angle that the line has to bend around by making it in two separate steps. There are lots of these around.
HI again Everyone:
I heard back from Garhauer.
They have a sheave that will work with my cheek block, and spacers to use in place of the rubber profiles.
So all I have to do is put it back together with their new parts and I’ll hopefully be set for the next 39 years!
Mike Quill also told me about a Garhauer ball bearing block that will work. I’ll look at that before I order the new sheave and spacers.
I’m the only Nonsuch in Santa Barbara. Love being able to sail year-round!
Best, Ginger Rubsam
NS 26 - 130 - Ginger Snap
Thank you so much for your help, suggestions, and encouragement.
Also, it looks like they have a block that has the same hole pattern as the original. It is called Garhauer Foot Block FB-01 SB.
It comes in a double also. Very cool!
Ginger
Ginger,
Very interesting! My previous 1984 Nonsuch 26C #143 did not have a Garhauer cheekblock; I’m pretty sure it was Schaefer.
I was out sailing on my current 1987 Nonsuch 26U #233 this afternoon, and – lo and behold – that one does have the same Garhauer Foot Block FB-01 SB you identified.
Oddly enough, though, our original factory manuals specify that the block used for this purpose should have a Safe Working Load of at least 2000 lbs.
Garhauer’s web site describes the block that we both have as only having a Safe Working Load of 1200 lbs.
Go figure.
Speaking for myself, when the time comes I have to do something, I’ll probably adopt the two-block with a plate solution that Paul Miller from Sandpiper showed. I like the friction reduction that would provide.
Gotta agree that year-round sailing in Southern California is a great thing. Mine is one of three in Marina del Rey.
– Bob
Me Gusta
Nonsuch 26U #233
Marina del Rey, California
Hey Ginger -
Santa Barbara is stunning. You lucky girl. I’m in Toronto where we just had an unseasonable week of solid sun and temps into the early 90s. Pure heaven. Now (natch … ), it’s windy, grey and 38 degrees. We launch (to start our 6-month season) in a little over a week. Sometimes, it snows …
Enjoy your lovely boat. Glad we could all help.
Ernie A. in Toronto
Here is a link to an article from Harken about reducing friction.
https://www.harken.com/en/support/tech-articles/block-loading-vs-angle-of-deflection/
A 45 degree turn adds 76% load and a 90 degree turn adds 141% load. The plate with two blocks effectively has two 45 degree turns so would theoretically add 152% to the load meaning a single block should be better however it is slightly more complicated than that. A smaller radius turn increases load on the line. The two block system effectively gives a larger radius so should reduce load. I don’t know if the larger radius of the two block system reduces the load enough to offset the increase introduce by having two 45 degree turns.
Here is a link to a YouTube article on basic rigging for arborists. It is only 4.5 minutes long and is nice explanation of loads on with various line angles and multi tackle systems. It recommends that the turning block sheave be 4 times the dia of the line.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwbPUZJoGz8
Finally here is a link to an article from Sailing magazine regarding reducing friction.
https://www.sailmagazine.com/diy/cutting-the-friction-in-sailhandling-systems
According to the article a bigger block reduces friction or load. Going down a line size will also reduce friction. You just have to make sure the line will handle the load without too much stretch.
I find this stuff interesting but at the end of the day a new block that fits the existing bolt pattern is you best bet and As noted by others Garhauer is likely the best source. Give them the exact bolt spacing and line size.
Mark Powers
Hmmm. This is interesting. And complicated.
I’d have to do a bunch of math that hurts my head to understand the full friction implications.
However, a major point I get out of the pointers you’ve provided, Mark, is to pay attention to the forces on the lines and blocks for two reasons:
- Reducing friction, yes
- But also not overloading the blocks and lines
What I found most interesting about the links you provided was the information about how much the degree of turn and the number of parts in the system increases the load on individual blocks and decreases the effective strength of the line.
I’m now trying to figure out what to make of the idea that the turning block installed on both Ginger’s and my boat is half the safe working load recommended by the factory. I’m not too worried about the loading implication for the lines, because my halyard is a high-tech one that could probably lift the weight of the boat. And my guess is that there’s plenty of margin for error in what’s needed for raising the sail.
But I probably want to think twice about using my system as is for going up the mast until I understand this better. (Which I wasn’t going to do anyway, especially now that another discussion thread has provided such good advice about using ladders.)
– Bob
Me Gusta
Nonsuch 26U #233
Perhaps an alternative would be to make a stainless adapter plate so you could mount a single, larger diameter block.
Brian Godfrey -
You took the words right out of my mouth. The bigger the SINGLE sheave (giving you a 90-degree turn), the bigger the reduction in friction. The question is: how big is “too big” for this idea to be practical. Two 45-sheaves might not be as good as one bigger 90-degree sheave.
As Bob says, very interesting.
Ernie A. in Toronto