• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

jfranta

Members
  • Content count

    125
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jfranta

  • Rank
    Anarchist
  1. bend radius with larger diameter dyneema

    The right answer, is, it depends, pin size, smoothness, splice type etc, overdesign for loading and inspect it often. We do not recommend a luggage tag for any standing rigging on a cruising boat. It needs to be inspected often and that is not appropriate for a cruising boat as it is not the current paradigm. The nice thing about dyneema is that it gets fuzzy with damage, from UV, chafe, or abuse. Look at it often, always. John Franta, Colligo Marine
  2. bend radius with larger diameter dyneema

    Update from Colligo Marine: To date, we have rigged over 750 boats in the last 10 years using our recommended practices, Brummel Splice, using a 72 x diameter bury, hardware that has a 5/1 diameter ratio, heat stretched SK75, etc. A very fast boat, (ALS) with our rigging (turnbuckle tensioners) just got second place in the Pac cup to Hawaii, 10 days of hard downwind work, with no creep or stretch issues, demonstrating that we know how to use Dyneema for standing rigging with more success than anyone else in the world. I commend people like Evans and Allen for doing their part in helping to understand this new and exciting product that offers some really cool advantages over steel or even the other composite products. At Colligo, we take a much more conservative approach to our design specs as we make recommendations for 5-8 years of usage and any implication that what we do is "a myth" or "wrong" is just an opinion. Dyneema is a relatively new technology and there is still alot of unknowns about it, acknowledged even from DSM. We choose to remain on the conservative side of things as we have our customers best interests in mind. After producing rigs for so many boats, we have learned that there are really not many limitations incurred in using a 5/1 bending ratio and, in recommending this, at the very least, covers us for any long term unforeseen variables that might come up in long term usage. As always, time will tell, but with any new technology it is always better to be conservative in its implementation than not, as early failures certainly can have a magnified impact on technology rollout. We have had the US Coast Guard now inspect 2 charter vessels, and one of the inspectors has stated that this is the safest standing rigging you can buy. We do not need to see a rig failure with a smaller bending ratio/bad splice/etc. that kills someone to set this technology back, maybe decades. To some extent, this has already happened with lifelines with poor implementation by ISAF (no guidelines on usage just saying you can use them), which has resulted in pulling back their recommendation. John Franta, Colligo Marine
  3. Pacific Cup 2016

    Keep an eye on Sailing for ALS. Charley and Freddy are well prepared and great sailors! HIghly modded bene first 30, interior gutted, reverse bow, carbon mast, Colligo Dux Rigging and Furlers, currently first in their class, DH2!
  4. Mouse Trap dropped another one

    Several mast makers are now using sacrificial Dyneema systems for connecting standing rigging to the mast, using covered loupes (Yes, they protect for chafe but can't be inspected!) or just naked Dyneema wrapped onto itself many times on small diameter pins, etc. The danger for this is that it has been well proven on race boats that get inspected regularly and the rigging changed often. But for cruising boats where the historical paradigm is that rigging lasts for 8 years or more, it is really not sound engineering practice (IMO). Dyneema is unigue in that its compressive strength is just 1% of its Tensile breaking strength, If you understand materials science, that is a very scary thing. Lashings or loupes are typically made to be sacrificial, and should be put where they can easily be inspected (at Deck level) and very often (like before every sail). There are better ways to connect Dyneema to the mast that have adequate bending radii, are easy to inspect, and/or do not require short term inspections like lashings or loupes. Dyneema is still a very new material and when used in a structural fashion it should be carefully applied. Still alot to learn but people should take heed to that 1% number! John Franta, Colligo Marine
  5. dyneema rigging terminals

    Your memory is faulty. Just to remind you . . . . . You originally claimed that life line size dyneema (eg 4-6mm) needed a 5:1 bend radius (you were disputing a statement made in the USSailing life line best practice document), based on the hampidjan bend radius chart. It was pointed out to you that that you were not taking into account the 2x loop strength. You then claimed you did not see how a loop was 2x strength. In the end, to close the discussion Evans bought four of your life line terminators with his own money and broke samples using them and also using 1:1 bends. The results exactly supported his understanding and refuted yours. This is all documented in the prior thread - just for example see post 1206 where he tested using your terminators. You then gave up arguing about 'life line' sized lines and switched to this 'scale effect' argument. But it appears that no rope manufacturer in the world agrees with you, including those who make industrial ropes a half meter in diameter. None of them suggest there is this sort of scale effect. Post #1227 for example discussed this. To finally put this to bed, Brion Toss was going to break some larger samples of heatset dyneema at NER . . . but something went wrong (he never explained what - I heard rumor that all the samples broke well below expected strength and NER did not want to make that public but I was never able to confirm that) and the first results were useless and then NER was acquired by TEUFELBERGER and that seemed to derail the whole thing. So, that is the accurate short history of this topic. I honestly really don't care much about all this . . . . But if you want to be taken seriously when disputing the industry wide accepted engineering understanding, you really should provide more evidence than some arm waving about scale and compression - which the industry already certainly knows all about. Your memory is faulty. Just to remind you . . . . . You originally claimed that life line size dyneema (eg 4-6mm) needed a 5:1 bend radius (you were disputing a statement made in the USSailing life line best practice document), based on the hampidjan bend radius chart. It was pointed out to you that that you were not taking into account the 2x loop strength. You then claimed you did not see how a loop was 2x strength. In the end, to close the discussion Evans bought four of your life line terminators with his own money and broke samples using them and also using 1:1 bends. The results exactly supported his understanding and refuted yours. This is all documented in the prior thread - just for example see post 1206 where he tested using your terminators. You then gave up arguing about 'life line' sized lines and switched to this 'scale effect' argument. But it appears that no rope manufacturer in the world agrees with you, including those who make industrial ropes a half meter in diameter. None of them suggest there is this sort of scale effect. Post #1227 for example discussed this. To finally put this to bed, Brion Toss was going to break some larger samples of heatset dyneema at NER . . . but something went wrong (he never explained what - I heard rumor that all the samples broke well below expected strength and NER did not want to make that public but I was never able to confirm that) and the first results were useless and then NER was acquired by TEUFELBERGER and that seemed to derail the whole thing. So, that is the accurate short history of this topic. I honestly really don't care much about all this . . . . But if you want to be taken seriously when disputing the industry wide accepted engineering understanding, you really should provide more evidence than some arm waving about scale and compression - which the industry already certainly knows all about. Look, all of them spec a ratio, that is a scale effect, you can google ratios if you need to. To begin, all of my data is on heat stretched SK75. Your data, I believe is all non heat stretched materials. We have done alot of pull testing on dux (Heat Stretched Dyneema SK75) with our line terminators, It often breaks at the bend, Even with our large diameter line terminators. I think I even sent Evans pics of this. FYI: we have pulled several samples of HTS from NER also. Dyneema is very unique in that in has a compressive strength that is 1% of its tensile break strength. Carbon fiber even has a 10% compressive strength! That is why you will not see Dyneema used in structural applications like carbon, kevlar, fiberglass. I sent you a report on this and, if I recall correctly, your response was " We are getting our own data". Just take a piece of dux and bend it, watch it kink on the interior radius, then put it on a small diameter bend and compress that kink, what do you think happens! If you want to keep telling people they can do this please just qualify it with a listing of the material types and sizes that you used. It is the proper engineering method of reporting your results. You have very dangerously extrapolated your results to other materials (Dux is work hardened, and like steel when it gets work hardened has very different properties than in its annealed form) and, larger diameters. As I said before your data does not correlate to ours. But your data is mostly on non heat stretched stuff and with small diameters. We have rigged over 750 boats (standing rigging) over 10 years now successfully. Do you have any historical correlation? I have lots of data and historical proof to say what we do works. Beyond you trying to make claims that what Colligo recommends is a "misconception", I really don't care what you do or say. The proof is in the pudding. In my opinion, you really have no cred here as you do not use your real name. I can imagine some guy telling his mates his mast fell down because he got his rig specs from a guy called ice9a on Internet! John Franta, Colligo Marine.
  6. dyneema rigging terminals

    I would like to see what he has to say. But I can tell you my experience with the people at DSM, namely Daniela Ribezzo, who has, since we worked with her, changed jobs. They totally understand their product, Dyneema fiber. But, they have no control over their product once it is braided and post treated in various ways, by other companies. Things like braid angles, strand size, processing loads, processing temperatures, all the variables associated with heat stretching, etc. You cannot pull test a piece of Dyneema, amsteel, etc. and say it applies to all forms, types, brands of Dyneema, especially. The other issue is that, in using Dyneema for standing rigging we are looking at properties that are in the 10% efficiency range, that is, we use the product down in the 10% of breaking strength range. They don't have much info in that low efficiency range of use. Lots of stuff at the high end of loads. When we started doing standing rigging about 10 years ago now, we had to do our own creep testing, I found some info from the logging industry on it and verified it with our own testing. Material stretch characteristics come from DSM. Constructional Stretch characteristics depend on manufacturing processes, so that you need to get from Braiders as it is dependent on their processes. They too have had limited info in that usage range, so then again, we have had to obtain our own stretch information because of the usage efficiency range. Dyneema for standing rigging is a new technology and we need to step slowly into it. Bending radii are very critical for long term use of heat stretched Dyneema, we know this, we have learned this from experience. We have pulled tested alot of Dux, and it often breaks at the bend around our line terminators. Makes sense as Dyneema hates compression. If you are going to change out the line often, you can tie/splice it to anything you want, racers do this all the time. But, based on the method you used to connect it to your mast, how often should you change it out? What about splice geometry, a whole number of variables there, we are trying to control that too! At Colligo, we are striving to understand how to get the most value out of this expensive line and we give replacement intervals based on our internal knowledge base, and history of using the product for standing rigging. These usage recommendations are conservative and have our name on them. Honestly ,its a scary thing to implement new technology, but my bigger fear is people mistreating the line and having failures. That is what really sets back the implementation of new technology. As Evans (Ice9A) says above, these "are all common misconceptions, shared by John Franta" John Franta, Colligo Marine
  7. dyneema rigging terminals

    Important note here: all of the new chemistries of Dyneema beyond SK75, in their heat stretched form, will have more constructional stretch than heat stretched SK75. We have tested them all. Some are even heat stretched at the fiber level so it stands to reason they will not heat stretch as a braided product as well. Don't believe me, then just cut a piece of line, heat stretched dux is like a single line with 12 cells in it, the others tend to fall into 12 strands when you cut them. Loose braids mean constructional stretch, which is the biggest component of stretch in a braided line. This is precisely why Hampidjan is still using SK75 and NER is using SK75. On DM 20, we tested it 5 years ago now. 0 creep but much more stretchy than heat stretched SK75. Creep is not hard to design around. John Franta, Colligo Marine.
  8. dyneema rigging terminals

    Any comments on posts #39 and #40? Why there is no strecth data anymore on your site? There used to be and I think it was lower than Hampidjan curve shows. There are stretch comps on our site to 1x19 stainless steel. http://www.colligomarine.com/shop-all/colligo-dux-5mm All of our data is from in house stretch testing. We have seen some variation in heat stretching that leads to more constructional stretch so we do our own in house testing. We are working with Hampidjan quite closely on this. John Franta, Colligo Marine Thanks. What about your Dynex DUX FAQ that claims 9 mm Dynex DUX stretches less than 8 mm 1x19 while the chart shows 11 mm DUX is identical to 8 mm 1x19? Back in 2008 you even claimed that DUX strecthes less than 1x19 at the same size. So were you too optimistic back then or has the product become more stretchy? We think it is due to the inconsistency in the heat stretching. This is why we use our own stretch numbers now. John Franta, Colligo Marine
  9. dyneema rigging terminals

    We have not changed our story on anything Iceman. We have successfully rigged over 750 boats now. We don't speculate and we put our name on things for credibility. We also don't use other's data without giving them credit as you have with creep data. John Franta, Colligo Marine
  10. dyneema rigging terminals

    Any comments on posts #39 and #40? Why there is no strecth data anymore on your site? There used to be and I think it was lower than Hampidjan curve shows. Important note here: all of the new chemistries of Dyneema beyond SK75, in their heat stretched form, will have more constructional stretch than heat stretched SK75. We have tested them all. some are even heat stretched at the fiber level so it stands to reason they will not heat stretch as a braided product as well. Don't believe me, then just cut a piece of line, heat stretched dux is like a single line with 12 cells in it, the others tend to fall into 12 strands when you cut them. This is precisely why Hampidjan is still using SK75 and NER is using SK75. John Franta, Colligo Marine.
  11. dyneema rigging terminals

    Any comments on posts #39 and #40? Why there is no strecth data anymore on your site? There used to be and I think it was lower than Hampidjan curve shows. There are stretch comps on our site to 1x19 stainless steel. http://www.colligomarine.com/shop-all/colligo-dux-5mm All of our data is from in house stretch testing. We have seen some variation in heat stretching that leads to more constructional stretch so we do our own in house testing. We are working with Hampidjan quite closely on this. John Franta, Colligo Marine
  12. Free Colligo Snatch Block offer! Lifeline Questionnaire Colligo Marine would like your help in conducting a survey on the usage of synthetic lifelines. If you have experience with synthetic lifelines could you please take a few moments and answer the following questions in an email. 1. Have you experienced any lifeline failures using synthetic lifelines? 2. Is so, what was the brand, type, and diameter of line used? 3. Where was the failure on the line, stanchions, splices etc.? 4. What were the conditions that caused the failure, hiking out, etc.? 5. What would you attribute the failure to? Pics would be very helpful if you have any also. Please click here to send an email info@colligomarine.com and include your name and we will include you in a drawing for a Colligo Soft Snatch Block!!! In our efforts to continue to be an innovation leader we would like to understand how this new technology is fairing out in the real world. John Franta, Colligo Marine.
  13. dyneema rigging terminals

    Yea, it is a common misconception, which was shared by john franta. Fact - 50% strength loss in a 1:1 bend. Actually to be perfectly precise it needs to be just very slightly larger than 1:1 for exactly 50%. Fact - loop strength is twice line strength. Resulting fact - a loop around a pin just slightly larger than 1:1 will be 100% of line strength (a 1:1 pin will result in like 95%) Fact - this was all tested and demonstrated in the prior dyneema testing thread. You can take two loops pulling against each other (raw line against line with no thimbles) and it will break at about 95% of line strength. It will sometimes break at the splice taper termination and sometimes break at the loop 1:1 (it depends on how good the taper is). If you bulk up the loop join point even a little, like with double covers over the line, then it will break at the splice taper termination. The terminal the OP linked to obviously uses all this to effect - to achieve 100% of line strength with a 1.5:1 bend inside the barrel. And just to clear up another common misperception . . . while it does help to increase the bend radius beyond 2:1 when you don't have a loop (like at a deflector). It DOES NOT help at all to go from 2:1 to 5:1 bend radius inside as loop . . . because the weak point is not in the loop. The loop and the bend is stronger than the line strength and so it is going to break at the taper end (or else where in the line) and not at the loop. Sorry, Iceman, but we have lots of data on large diameter Dyneema that supports what we have said on the bending radius. In our pull testing on heat stretched SK75 it often breaks at the bend if you have a proper splice, even in our large line terminators. All of the data I have seen that you reference is on small diameter Dyneema the cannot be transferred to the larger stuff. You can say it works on the diameters, and Materials, Brand, and manufacturing process that were in the study but you cannot, safely, say that that information translates to the larger diameters, other materials, brands, etc, etc. Look up the formula Sigma (stress)=MY/I to help you understand this. In addition I would never use a terminal like the one that started this thread, for one the line is not inspectable, but the bending radius is not acceptable for standing rigging. We have rigged over 750 boats (Standing Rigging) with Dyneema so we probably have more experience than most on this subject. Please be careful what you say about reccommendations as some people might actually do what you say, it will work in the short term, but for how long? But, of course you are not using your real name so what liability do you have anyway, right? John Franta, Colligo Marine. Please notice I am using my real name here, nothing to hide.
  14. Dyneema Max Technology

    We have tested heat stretched DM20 along with heat stretched versions of SK75, SK78, and SK90. The DM20 has a lower modulus (more material stretch) than SK75, but more importantly has more constructional stretch than heat stretched SK75 (Dynex Dux or otherwise). The same is true for SK78 and SK90, in a braided form they both have more constructional stretch than heat stretched SK75. All you have to do is cut the line line and you can see this. Heat Stretched SK75 looks like a single line with 12 cells in it, not much room for compression of the strands when loads is applied. In fact when we splice dux we push the bury portion thru, it is so stiff. It is much more difficult to do that with the other chemistries of Dyneema. The creep on DM20 is almost nonexistent, almost flatlined, but the stretch makes it difficult to use. While SK75 has some creep, it has been easy for us to design around. We have rigged over 400 boats now worldwide with Colligo Dux rigging with no creep issues. Our creep target is 0.1" per year, 1 inch in 10 years. This target is not hard to reach, for example, a 50 foot shroud in 9 mm dux has a limit of 1200 lbs constant tension (pretension) to get to our creep limit. You can basically ignore dynamic loads for most boats as they are applied for such a relatively short duration of time. 9 mm dux is equivalent stretch to 5/16 wire, so 8 mm steel to 9 mm dux. We have successfully rigged diamond stays with SK75 that generally have a good amount of pretension. The Creep in SK75 is not hard to design around and in its heat stretched braided version it presents the lowest stretch option for a braided line. By the way, we have never had a customer complain about windage... John Franta, Colligo Marine
  15. Thanks for clarifying that Allen. I also appreciate the offer for the article. I will contact you later about it. Best Regards,